publications.parliament.uk · SR . Author . 00 : BIS . 16 . Royal Astronomical Society : 01 . Dr...

Science & Technology Committee: Written evidence

Spending Review 2010

This volume contains the written evidence accepted by the Science & Technology Committee for the Spending Review 2010 inquiry.

SR Author SR Author

00 BIS 16 Royal Astronomical Society 01 Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society 17 Council for the Mathematical Sciences 02

02a RCUK Supplementary

18 GuildHE

03 Helen Smith 19 Higher Education Funding Council for England 04 Professor Neil Spooner 20 The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain

(PESGB), The British Geophysical Association (BGA), and The Geological Society of London (GSL), working through its Petroleum Group

05 De Montfort University 21 The UKRC 06 Prospect 22 The Academy of Medical Sciences 07 University and College Union (UCU) 23 Royal Statistical Society 08 UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience 24 Society of Biology 09 Research Councils UK 25 Cancer Research UK 10 Office of the Vice-Provost (Research),

University College London 26 Institute of Physics

11 Rolls-Royce plc 27 Science is Vital Campaign 12 Professor George Lees 28 Campaign for Science & Engineering 13 The Royal Society 29 University Alliance 14 Royal Society of Chemistry 30 ADS 15 Royal Geographical Society

As at 12 May 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (SR 00)

Letter to the Chair of the Committee from the Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, 10 December 2010

HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE CSR EVIDENCE SESSION ON 24 NOVEMBER I was grateful for the opportunity to give evidence to your Committee on 24 November. I agreed to undertake several follow up actions from the session. Further to the discussion under question 9, the Committee Clerk wrote to the Department for additional information on the Science Budgets for 2010/11 and 2011/2012. I have attached a note as an annex to this letter providing this information. As part of the discussion under question 12, I agreed to provide you with copies of the recent correspondence between Professor Adrian Smith and the National Academies and other bodies. I have enclosed an example of the letter sent to these bodies and the responses which have been received from them.1 At the evidence session, as part of the discussion under Question 28, I undertook to look at the transcripts of discussions with the predecessors to your committee while I work on the statement on the Haldane Principle. I shall do so, alongside taking account of the points you made in your helpful letter of 29 November 2010. I am aware that the predecessor Committee raised questions on whether the Haldane Principle would allow Ministers to direct Research Councils to use their resources to specific locations. I shall consider these issues in updating the statement on Haldane. Further to the discussion under question 34, I can confirm the SR10 allocation to STFC will distinguish between international subscriptions, provision of domestic large facilities, and grant-giving. Budgetary pressures during the spending period due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations for international subscriptions have been addressed in conjunction with the Bank of England. A new mechanism for providing access to large UK facilities has been agreed across the Research Councils, and a separate financial provision will be made to STFC to cover this. In this way the grant-giving function will not be subject to unplanned pressures arising from international subscriptions or facilities over the period of the SR10 settlement. You and your Committee will be interested to know that I intend to visit the Daresbury campus during the New Year, with provisional dates of January or February 2011. Following on from the discussion under question 36 on the immigration cap, the Exceptional Talent route developed by the Home Secretary is aimed primarily at

1 Not printed.

people in the arts and sciences who are already well established at the top of their fields or with the potential to get there in the future. The UK Border Agency, with support from BIS, is now finalising the details of how this route will be operated, which is likely to involve a way in which those with exceptional promise could be endorsed by a competent body in the relevant field. Setting stiff criteria to objectively define this group would be inflexible, and potentially ineffective, particularly when judging promise. The route is new and the UK will need to operate the system in the real world before we can fully assess its effectiveness. The Government is committed to controlling migration by ensuring that the system is used correctly. A limit of 1,000 places will help us ensure that we have the controls we need when we implement this entirely new route. I am grateful for the clarification which the Committee Clerk provided on 24 November in relation to the reference made by Committee under question 41 to Haskel and Wallis’ report, Public support for innovation, intangible investments and productivity growth in the UK market sector. As the Committee noted at the evidence session, the Haskel and Wallis report did not find any evidence of spillover effects from intangible investments by business, including R&D, but did find spillover benefits from research council spending. Haskel and Wallis do acknowledge that their findings are incomplete and that measuring the impact of R&D on growth remains a matter of continuing research. Other studies have identified substantial evidence of spillovers from public and private spend on R&D. As an example, I attach a copy of a paper by Dominique Guellec and Bruno Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie published in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, where they find larger spillover effects for public than for private investments in R&D.2 I would also mention that the Haskel and Wallis paper considers market-sector productivity only. The paper does not cover the role of public sector innovation on productivity growth. It is therefore possible that the spending that appears to have no spillovers is having significant impacts on public sector productivity, for example in health and education. I hope the Committee finds this information useful and I look forward to continuing discussion of these issues. Rt Hon David Willetts MP Minister for Universities and Science 10 December 2010

2 Not printed.

Annex

Comparison of 2010/11 and 2011/12 budgets

Following the discussion at the Select Committee Evidence Session on 24 November, the Committee Clerk wrote to the Department noting that the former Department for Innovation, Universities, and Skills’ December 2007 publication The Allocation of the Science Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11 provides a detailed table of the science budget allocation for each year of the last spending review period (table 2.1, p29). This indicates that the total science budget, including capital expenditure, was £3.97 billion in 2010–11. The 2010 Spending Review announced that the resource science budget for 2011–12 would be £4.6 billion. The Committee Clerk asked for a detailed breakdown of what is included in the £4.6 billion figure, and a like‐for‐like comparison and reconciliation with the £3.97 billion science budget figure (and it’s components) for 2010–11. Table 2.1 of The Allocation of the Science Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11 shows the net economic value of planned spend for 2010–11. This includes a technical adjustment which deducts depreciation and impairments, because otherwise in economic terms this would be a double‐count of capital spend. However in budgetary terms this equates to: Table 2.1 p29 figure £3,970.4m Add back Depreciation £153.7m _________ Total £4,124.1m This is represented by: Near Cash Budget £3,068.5m (see table A1) Non Cash Budget £229.1m (see table A2) Capital Budget £826.6m (see table A3) _________ Total £4,124.2m The Resource Budget given for the next Spending Review (SR10) covers only the Near Cash Budget spending activities. Capital and Non Cash budgets for SR10 are being dealt with separately. For SR10, Science & Research spend will now include HEFCE QR grants (£1,618.3m in 2010/11) and Space activities previously funded through BIS and the Technology Strategy Board (£36.4m in 2010/11). Also for SR10 the Research Councils will have a separate Administrative Costs Budget, whereas previously this spend has been part of the Resource Budget. So this element transfers out. Therefore the reconciliation is a follows: Near Cash Budget 2010–11 £3,068.5m plus HEFCE QR funding 2010–11 £1,618.3m

BIS/TSB Space activities 2010–11 £36.4m Less Admin Budget transferred out £147.2m _________ Resource Budget SR10 £4,576.0m

Correspondence to Graham Stringer MP from Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society (SR 01)

Dear Mr Stringer I’m writing to you on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society to express our thanks for raising astronomy at the inquiry session yesterday morning. We’ve already been in touch with Andrew Miller (and more recently Gareth Thomas and Chi Onwurah) on several occasions about the different issues for our science and it’s been helpful that the Committee has considered them. Watching the session, I had some concerns over Keith Mason’s replies in particular (although of course we’ll want to see the transcript too to check them against my notes). For example, in response to the question about pulling out of northern hemisphere observatories, it is hard to agree with the assertion that the decision to shut down UK optical astronomy in Hawaii and La Palma was made on scientific grounds. What can be said is that astronomers took part in a prioritisation exercise to decide how to use reducing available funds – but it isn’t the case that this was based on a decade-long strategy. On the contrary a well planned transformation of the facilities available to UK astronomers was envisaged as a result of joining the European Southern Observatory in 2002, but the current intention to withdraw from all northern hemisphere optical telescopes goes well beyond that plan. I was also surprised to hear, in response to your question, the suggestion that there was a deliberate ‘over investment’ in astronomy in recent times with an anticipated decline to a normal level thereafter. This is certainly something I’ve never seen in a printed strategy document and it would be interesting to see if an official record exists of this decision. Once again, many thanks for your help with all of this. Do let us know if you need anything else or if it would be useful for us to meet you to brief you further at some point. Best wishes Robert Dr Robert Massey Deputy Executive Secretary (Media, Public Affairs, Policy, Education and Outreach) Royal Astronomical Society 20 January 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (SR 02)

Following the evidence session on 19 January 2011 the Committee wrote to Research Councils UK requesting:

1) A table providing details of international subscriptions (combined capital and resource elements) by facility/institution for each of the next four years and a comparison with 2010-11 (Q123);

2) Details and accompanying explanation of spending on astronomy for each of the next four years including a breakdown by capital and resource and a comparison with 2010-11. It would also be useful to have comparison with other STFC “themes” as laid out in Appendix D of its delivery plan (“Resource budgets by theme”) (Qq129-130).

3) The joint priority list of capital projects submitted by the Research Councils to the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills (Qq97-100);

4) A note on the discussions STFC and/or RCUK have had with the Department for Education on the National Schools’ Observatory (Q135).

5) Clarification of Professor Mason’s remarks that existing scientific facilities will run at full capacity, given STFC’s delivery plan states operations at the ISIS pulsed neutron and muon source and the Central Laser Facility will be reduced (Q82, Q88).

6) Will any potential redundancy costs be taken out of capital budgets? If so, are Research Councils incorporating a contingency for this within their plans for the allocation of their capital budgets?

MEMORANDUM FROM RCUK IN RESPONSE TO POST ORAL EVIDENCE SESSION QUESTIONS FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership set up to champion research

supported by the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the Government’s objectives for science and innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk

2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not include, or necessarily reflect the views of the Knowledge and Innovation Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

3. This evidence is submitted in response to questions received from the House of

Commons Science and Technology Committee following an oral evidence session on the Spending Review 2010, held on 19 January 2011, with Professor Alan Thorpe, Professor Dave Delpy, Professor Keith Mason and Professor Rick Rylance.

4. The table below provides details of the Science and Technology Facilities Council

(STFC) international subscriptions (combined capital and resource elements) by facility/institution for each of the next four years and a comparison with 2010-11.

Total Resource and Capital

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/

CERN - CHF (M) 163 165 162 162 162 162

ESO - € (M) 21.042 21.387 21.387 21.387 21.387 21.387

ESRF - € (M) 12.16 8.68 8.77 8.86 8.95 9.04

ILL – € (M) 15.93 15.93 21.01 20.79 18.19 18.05

Notes:

Exact CERN contribution only known for 2011 - CERN percentage share calculated annually on basis of exchange rate and NNI

CERN figures for 2012 onwards do not include indexation

CERN figures based on Medium Term Plan presented in June and September

UK component calculated on known forward buy costs and today's RBS rate

ESRF / ILL figures approved for 2011; planning assumptions only for 2012 onwards

ESRF figures include a 1% pa planning assumption on indexation from 2012 onwards

ILL figures include 0% inflation indexation for 2011-2015

ILL figures based on Associates grants only (UK, France, Germany) as all other income dependent on short-term Members contracts

ILL figures 2010 to 2012 affected by negotiated deferral of payment of 2.5M€ of UK subscription payment from 2010 to 2012 and 2011 to 2013 respectively.

5. The table below gives details and accompanying explanations of spending on

astronomy for each of the next four years including a breakdown by capital and resource and a comparison with 2010-11.

STFC Delivery Plan (£M) – Resource and Capital

10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15

Res Cap Res Cap Res Cap Res Cap Res Cap

Astronomy

Subscriptions (ESO) 10.9 18.3 11.57 17.78 11.69 7.17 11.56 7.37 11.50 7.57

Development 3.21 0.57 5.04 7.35 8.84 9.76

Operations and exploitation

46.2 4.4 45.44 3.00* 37.88 3.00* 33.15 3.00* 32.45 3.00*

Studentships/Fellowships 14.15 15.25 15.09 14.91 15.22

Notes:

10/11 and 11/12 Capital for ESO include the final capital special payments relating to accession to ESO

Only capital within the Subscriptions (ESO) 10/11 is confirmed at this time – all other capital allocations are subject to confirmation. * The figures for 11/12 onward are indicative only.

Comparison of investment in STFC themes will be made in submissions to the Committee’s new inquiry into astronomy and particle physics.

2

3

6. STFC has made a statement with regard to the National Schools Observatory in their submission to the Committee’s inquiry into astronomy and particle physics.

7. Clarification of Professor Mason’s remarks made in response to Q82 and Q88 has been provided separately in a letter to the Committee Chair. [See below].

8. Any potential redundancy costs would not be taken out of capital budgets. 9. When RCUK gave evidence to the Committee on 19 January 2011 Professor Thorpe

stated that it would be an option for Research Councils to use part of their resource budget allocation to cover the cost of new capital projects. We would like to provide a clarification in this area. The resource budget is within the Science and Research funding ringfence whereas the capital budget allocated to Research Councils is not. This is a new arrangement for the spending review period from 2011-12. A virement from resource to capital would run counter to that ringfencing and would require approval which cannot be assumed. In addition, Research Councils only know their capital allocations definitely for the year 2011/2, with the following three years being indicative figures subject to change. This will require Research Councils to manage their reduced capital allocations with considerable care over the next four years of the spending review period. We understand that the capital allocations made by BIS so far do not include potential additional capital that may become available to BIS from asset sales. Research Councils believe they have a strong case for a significant share in any additional capital that BIS is able to allocate.

Research Councils UK February 2011 Letter to the Chair of the Committee from Professor Keith Mason, Chief Executive, Science and Technology Facilities Council, 21 February 2011 HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE CSR EVIDENCE SESSION ON 19 JANUARY I was grateful to give evidence on to your Committee on 19 January with my colleagues Professor David Delpy, Professor Rick Rylance and Professor Alan Thorpe. Further to discussion under questions Q82 and Q88, the Committee Clerk wrote for clarification with regard to the capacity at which the ISIS pulsed muon and neutron source and the Central Laser Facility would operate. I am aware the Committee may have gained the impression during questioning that these facilities would run at full capacity. To clarify, my comments were intended to establish that, while the reduction in capital allocations received by all the Research Councils was going to be difficult to manage, the capital allocation for large UK facilities was sufficient to allow those facilities to run at the capacity that the Councils had jointly agreed was required and to be sustainable at that level. Yours sincerely Professor Keith Mason Chief Executive Science and Technology Facilities Council

Further supplementary written evidence submitted by

Research Councils UK (SR 02a) Q1: The Committee would like to know in detail what steps RCUK is taking to ensure that the SSC ceases to report losses in its accounts? Can RCUK provide an assurance that a break even position will be reached in 2010-11? The RCUK SSC Ltd follows Treasury Fees and Charges Guidance in dealing with its public sector customers. As such it does not look to make a profit or loss from trading merely to recover costs. In the first two years of operations small losses accumulated, exacerbated by audit adjustments in 2009/10. In 2010/11 charges are being adjusted to bring the cumulative position back into balance Q2: Can RCUK confirm that the control and assurance issues relating to the SSC reported in the 2009-10 accounts, specifically those in the Accounting Officer’s Statement of Internal Control, have now been resolved, and will not delay the 2010-11 annual accounts? The SSC is still undergoing its roll-out phase, with major functionality releases and Research Councils taking up service in December 2010, January 2011 and even March 2011. This would put great stress on any organisation’s internal controls and capabilities. As joint funders and owners of RCUK SSC Ltd the final accounts of all the Research Councils are interdependent with each other and those of RCUK SSC Ltd. In the face of the challenges from last year and the continued roll-out, the Research Councils have been working together alongside Internal Audit, NAO and the SSC to rectify the control issues and to coordinate the final account timetables of the SSC and all individual Research Councils. As part of this coordinated plan, RCUK SSC Ltd plans to deliver draft accounts to NAO on the 16th May, so that any information relating to its performance will be available in time to ensure that all Research Councils submit their 2010/11 accounts in line with the statutory timetables. Q3: Can each Research Council confirm that it is now receiving appropriate financial and other management information from the SSC that fully meets its management and reporting needs, and that the arrangements put in place in 2009-10 for bespoke financial reporting and additional checks, have been discontinued? The establishment of the SSC has been complex and demanding and there are some issues still being worked on. The Research Councils now receive information through automated processes that is adequate for the majority of purposes for most Councils. It is currently supplemented where necessary by bespoke financial reporting; this will be phased out as further reporting systems within the SSC are developed. For example, the reporting facilities currently available do not achieve all the level of detailed functionality that was required in the specification. Management information (MI) on finance and procurement activities and key performance indicators (KPIs) are directly available from the SSC, and progress is being made in extending the coverage of such routine MI on throughput and service delivery. The

1

current range of KPIs being offered is not adequate but is also subject to further planned review and development with the SSC. The delivery of accurate and timely MI remains of critical importance and it is central to a successful year-end close of individual Research Councils and RCUK SSC Ltd. Q4: Can each Research Council confirm that principal investigators for individual research council funded projects now have access to sufficient financial information from the SSC in order to carry out effectively their responsibilities? The transition of processes to RCUK SSC Ltd does not impact directly on the ability of most Principal Investigators (PIs) to undertake Research Council funded research. Management Information (MI) available to PIs on grant-funded research projects is virtually unaffected by RCUK SSC Ltd changes, as they use the Research Councils Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) or the Electronic Application and Assessment (EAA – the MRC equivalent) systems. However, for staff employed directly by Research Councils (in their Institutes/Units) who do not yet have access to full reporting functionality, local arrangements have been in place to provide some confidence in financial forecasts, but this is neither satisfactory nor sustainable. MI for grant and project financial reporting forms a significant component of the portfolio and the production of usable MI for this key function is still awaited in some areas. Q5: Can each Research Council provide a figure for the additional expenditure each incurred in 2009-10, because of the need to compensate for the problems with the SSC’s assurance, control and information systems? AHRC: Additional costs to the AHRC are estimated to have been £5k in additional external audit costs and 2.2 FTE in HR at a cost of £12k. BBSRC: While BBSRC has committed resource where appropriate for working with the SSC, this is difficult to quantify overall. EPSRC: Additional agency staff costs of c£12k were incurred in 2009/10 putting additional controls in place. In addition extra direct costs charged to that financial year relating to additional external spend amounted to £40k on additional external audit costs incurred by the NAO and their sub contractor KPMG. ESRC: Additional direct staff costs incurred within ESRC during 2009/10 on these areas amounted to roughly £26k – primarily due to extra reporting, analysis and control activities. This figure is made up of:

(i) £5.6k for Finance staff (0.45 FTE for 5 months post migration period in 09/10 after November 2009), and

(ii) £20k in HR (0.8 FTE for 12 months period post migration in Feb 2009). In addition extra direct costs charged to that financial year relating to additional external spend amounted to £20k on additional external audit costs incurred by the NAO and their sub contractor KPMG. MRC: MRC was not part of the SSC in 2009/10. NERC: NERC has not recorded any additional expenditure attributable to problems with SSC assurance, control and information systems. The costs are less tangible in that respect and include additional time worked (either as flexi or without recompense) or a reduction in support for more value-adding business development.

2

3

However, NERC is considering an option to conduct Oracle and MI training independently of the SSC to address the shortfall in its professional user groups. STFC: Only HR and payroll services were provided to STFC by the SSC in 2009/10 and the cost of validating these services is minimal. Q6: Has the late payments of invoices by the STFC to scientific institutions and facilities resulted in any additional financial costs being incurred? STFC is not aware that any financial costs have been incurred, except the reimbursement of a few non-employees for bank charges. Q7: The Committee notes that the STFC’s 2009-10 accounts received a qualified opinion from the auditor, because of issues relating to the valuation of the investment in the Institut Laue-Langevin. Could STFC provide an assurance that the valuation issues will be resolved before the 2010-11 accounts are produced, and that there will be no delay in presenting those accounts? A qualified opinion was received from the auditors due to two factors:

(i) Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) accounts were qualified as the fixed asset value included was not supported by a robust inventory; and

(ii) ILL accounts were prepared in accordance with French accounting principles which provide a different accounting framework from International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

ILL started to address the fixed asset recording issue in 2009 and work was expected to be completed by the end of December 2010. It is anticipated that the qualification on the ILL accounts will be lifted for the consolidation into the 2010-11 STFC accounts but we cannot give an assurance on this until the ILL external audit is completed in summer 2011. ILL has stated that it will not be converting to IFRS until 2011 so this element of the STFC qualification will remain in 2010-11 (and possibly beyond). Research Councils UK March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Helen Smith (SR 03)

Who am I? Helen Smith My project I work for the Association for Science

Education. I am the administrator on a project funded by the Department for Education which aims to improve the quality of Practical Work in Science teaching by training teachers through a cascade model. Funding for the project comes to an end this month

My involvement and what I have seen As the administrator on the project, one of the jobs I am responsible for is collating all the feedback from teachers attending the training. Overwhelmingly the feedback is very positive. Teachers, and in particular trainee teachers, have found that the approach to teaching practicals featured in this programme is inspiring. We aim to reach 2000 teachers at the end of the project. The programme is scheduled to come to an end this month, however, as the academic year does not mirror the DfE’s financial year there is a mismatch between the funding period and time left to complete the project

Effect of the cuts on the project Senior management are aiming to secure additional funding to enable us to complete the project, however, the cuts may affect the decision on this. Also there appears to me to be a lot of merit in continuing the programme to reach more science teachers, but without funding, this will not happen, and seems a waste of a great initiative.

Helen Smith March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Professor Neil Spooner (SR 04)

I am head of the experimental particle physics and particle astrophysics group at the University of Sheffield, about 45 scientists. There have unfortunately developed many problems with UK science. These stem from a combination of reduced funding, an anti "big society" top-down over management, and detrimental changes to the operational structures introduced by the previous government.

Rather than cover the many issues involved I want to highlight two points that I think illustrate a particular harm that is being done and that will impact on the UK's wealth generating capacity in the future. These are personal comments, but I believe widely held, obviously biased to my particular experience in University experimental physics.

(1) experimental physics is a hard, technology-creating and mathematics-based endeavour that underpins big areas of science and engineering. It plays a vital role to improving the knowledge base of the UK, needed if we are to compete with the vast investments being made elsewhere in hard science, particularly in Asia. A key result of the exceptional cuts made to University-based research grants over the last several years, is that we are no longer able to offer the depth and breadth of practical, experimental and technological training to undergraduate students through their 3rd and 4th year research project work that was possible even 3 years ago. There is simply no longer the number of post-doctoral or PhD students funded on research around to provide the essential day-to-day expertise necessary, nor the levels of stat-of the-art equipment. So whilst the research capacity itself is clearly reduced by lower funding, it is in fact the knock-on effect in our capacity to provide world-class training in high technology to bright young people that worries me more. Without growing these high-end skills we will see the UK's knowledge-base decline rapidly relative to others. Connected with this is an over-zealous trend to concentrate research, particular R&D, in national laboratories or gateway centres. This is also pulling research resources away from University departments where such work can often be done more economically but more importantly where it can simultaneously be used to train youngsters at the cutting edge.

(2) partly linked to this is the, frankly absurd, structure of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), constructed from the old PPARC and CCLRC with an in-built conflict of interest such that the body has the remit both to distribute science funding to Universities but also to itself. There are countless examples now where funding better spent in Universities, again with their added training capabilities and expertise, finds its way instead to STFC outfits without proper transparency of peer review. One can argue that Universities should have the first call on research funds because, as historically evidenced, they provide the most dynamic and economic environment, but again it is arguably more important not to forget the positive impact on training that research funding to Universities brings. For the sake of transparency for the tax payer and value for money, the dual role of STFC acting as both an awarder of tax funds for research and a receiver in competition with University departments must be ended.

Professor Neil Spooner

21 March 2011

Written evidence submitted by De Montfort University (SR 05)

1. As a higher education institution, De Montfort University is justifiably proud of its achievements. In the RAE 2008, more than 50% of our research was rated as 'internationally excellent' or 'world‐leading' and we view research as central to our mission. Research underpins all our teaching and enables engagement with business, public and the third sectors. As a consequence of effective business engagement, more than 170 of DMU’s taught courses are accredited by professional bodies and within six months of completing their course, 98% of our postgraduate students are in full‐time employment working for companies as diverse as KPMG, Rolls‐Royce, The Daily Telegraph, Nike, Habitat and the NHS.

2. Whilst most of our research is internationally excellent or world leading, De Montfort University is research rich rather than research intensive. However, the importance of research to the character and quality of the academy is explicitly acknowledged throughout the institution, and DMU is research ambitious ‐ constantly seeking new and better ways to enable research and improve quality. This is delivered both through the recruitment of world leading researchers to add to our knowledge base and culture, and through co‐ordinated central processes to facilitate research – most recently manifested by the creation (at the end of 2009) of a central research development office which included amongst its ranks experienced academic researchers to advise and mentor our scholars. We therefore feel we are well placed to reflect on some of the specific issues raised by the science and research budget allocation, and welcome this opportunity to comment on these areas in the following paragraphs. 3. The flat settlement to the science and research budget represents a real terms cut, and will have far reaching consequences for the HEI sector as a whole. We believe that there will still be opportunities for our researchers to excel in the current funding landscape and in these terms we believe that the science and research budget allocation has achieved its aim of maintaining the relative protection of science and research. The reiteration of the Haldane principle and the dual support system alleviated many of the concerns around the sector about seismic shocks to the funding landscape, and the continuation of HEIF funding was welcomed by many institutions. However, three re‐calculations of the QR formula within a 12 month period, changed parameters for the allocation of HEIF funds and the abolition of small grants under the expectation that HEIs will fund small projects from their QR allocation have major financial implications for HEIs, and the speed with which these changes have been introduced have given HEIs little scope to adopt new practices. 4. The abolition of small grants with immediate effect will have a major impact on the research undertaken at DMU, and the effects will not necessarily be felt evenly across the institution. Within DMU the majority of our QR allocation is devolved to the faculties in proportion to their RAE scores and faculties have control over how most of this income is spent to support the research environment. Much of this spend is already committed for this academic year. If we look at DMU’s external research income by faculty over the 2009/10 academic year and define a small grant as £7500 (the upper cut‐off for the British Academy Small Grants scheme), then across the academy the number of small grant awarded as a total of all awards in each faculty was as follows:

• 36% to Art and Design

• 48% to Business and Law

• 47.5% to Health and Life Science

• 55% to Humanities

• 23% to Technology

• 18% to specialist research institutes (the Institute for Energy and Sustainable Development and the Institute of Creative Technologies).

Whilst we understand that small grants are expensive to administer and place large burdens on the peer review system, the speed of these changes makes it difficult for us as an institution to respond in a pro‐active and timely manner. We have already launched internal project seed‐corn funding and research sabbatical schemes partially to address these changes, but a move to a more formal internal small grants provision will take time for us to implement and we are anticipating a substantial funding gap in the short term, which we have to hope will not impact too dramatically on our research capability. We find this particularly disappointing given the large concentration of internationally excellent and world leading researchers* housed in our Humanities faculty, for whom small grants have been the predominant source of funding. (* For example, in RAE 2008, 40% of our English Language and Literature submission was rated as world leading, giving DMU’s English department the same ranking as that of Cambridge University). 5. The likely withdrawal of QR funding from internationally recognised research (2*) is a concern. Whilst this will affect DMU less than many other institutions, we believe that some level of funding should be maintained in an increasingly difficult funding landscape. The removal of QR support for internationally recognised (2*) research raises concerns about the sustainability of UK research quality in the longer term. Even world leading researchers have a mix of outputs and many internationally recognised (2*) outputs are strong academically. Many aspects of improvements in science and research are incremental rather than revolutionary and the significance of a piece of research may not be fully apparent in the RAE/REF timeframe. This is the natural pattern of how research evolves and provides the bedrock upon which world leading research is built. The imposed divide seems very artificial and counterintuitive. Successive RAEs have also demonstrated the widely diffused nature of research excellence in the UK university system. This means that the apparent moves to greater concentration of funding on a very limited number of institutions is likely to be counter‐productive, and to destroy many of the nuclei of research quality and innovation within the system. The need to maintain the principle of research excellence being funded wherever it is found is fundamental to the future integrity of the research base. The withdrawal of QR funding from internationally recognised (2*) departments would have a disproportionate impact upon these small pockets of excellence. In some subjects there is a physical infrastructure argument for concentration of funding; however, we believe that the recommendation in the Wakeham review that institutes share facilities is a more appropriate response solution to this problem, and we look forward to receiving further information about how this will work in practice. 6. The increasing moves towards fewer, larger grants also leaves us with fears for the next national cohort of researchers, and the UK’s future as a world leader in research. Again, the logic in terms of administrative and peer review burdens seems obvious. However, very few researchers will be trusted to manage a large grant if they have no track record of independent project management. Historically, early career researchers tended to gain these skills through a mix of collaborative projects and independent small grants. Whilst the institutional provision of small grants will go some way to restore this balance, it may be at the expense of creativity as HEIs are most likely to fund those projects that fit best with their current research strategies, at the expense

of the risky and radical research ideas that tend, in the long term, to be the basis of true innovation and economic impact. The funding landscape post the science and research budget allocation seems to make the already difficult life of an early career researcher even more challenging. The increased number of early career fellowships will offset this for only a very small number of early career researchers. 7. We are also concerned by the removal of PhD studentships from research council grant applications. PhD studentships have a different project structure and scale of ambition, and often provide the perfect opportunity to extend a project into a new and interesting area, or to build the solid foundations for future, more risky research. RCUK funded projects, which have gone through rigorous peer review, offer some the best research projects for state of the art PhD training and consortium projects (which account for a very large proportion of our project PhDs) afford training environments that are top class and often unique, especially for cross‐disciplinary research. The forced dissociation of PhD studentships from other projects may be counter productive. This disconnection may also have a negative impact on completion rates ‐ historically we have seen much better completion rates from grant holding students than from self‐funded students. In light of the moves by several research councils towards the Doctoral Training Centre format, the opportunity for the smaller research centres to be awarded research council studentships becomes even more limited. Consequently those centres of excellence which were recognised in RAE2008 will become less able to pass on their research qualities to the next generation of researchers. 8. Knowledge transfer partnerships (KTPs) are a fundamental part of DMU’s research strategy, being an essential component of our belief in both research informed teaching and user informed research. In 2009/10 DMU was running 18 KTPs. Whilst we understand that the major structural changes experienced by the TSB will take time to resolve, and the need to present a full and complete strategic plan only once it has been agreed, the delays in processing submitted KTP applications and uncertainty over the precise nature of the programme going forward have been disquieting for some of our commercial partners, and may have had a negative impact on our abilities to engage with these businesses in future. Greater clarity about the future of KTPs would have been helpful, and a commitment to maintain similar levels of investment greatly appreciated. 9. The adoption of the conclusions of the Wakeham review (that individual HEIs should reduce their overheads by a set efficiency savings rather than reducing the overall intervention rate of the individual research councils) is a fair way to help ensure the financial sustainability of HEIs. The implementation plan recently released by RCUK seems to have considered the significant issues facing HEIs and to be striving to be as fair as possible to the research community. However, once again the speed of implementation is breathtaking – the level of cuts was announced on 31/3/11 and will be implemented on 1/7/11. Whilst we put in place plans for various scenarios following the announcement of the adoption of the Wakeham review recommendations in the comprehensive spending review, the reality (in the face of all the other cuts to the sector) may be more complex than we anticipated. 10. When the Wakeham efficiency savings are combined with the mandatory quality assurance processes and demand management strategies that the research councils plan to impose, the costs of preparing submissions for funding applications will increase significantly for HEIs. This will necessitate a reduction in the number of applications individual HEIs can support but

will drive up the quality of those applications submitted. Whilst the driving force behind the imposition of demand management and mandatory quality assurance is to reduce the number of applications, a consequence of improving quality at the point of submission will be that a greater proportion of high quality applications will not receive funding. This in itself becomes an issue if the funding bodies decide to blanket ban the re‐submission of all unsuccessful proposals. 11. In conclusion, the science and research budget allocations (and the subsequent re‐organisation of funding strategies by the various funding agencies) represent both a challenge and an opportunity to the knowledge base. When the science and research budget allocation was announced the HEI sector rapidly acknowledged that, in the current period of financial austerity, a flat settlement was generous and reflected the important role that HEIs play in creating new knowledge, maintaining the UK’s international standing and reputation, and creating wealth. However, given the need to invest in innovation to drive economic growth there is a strong argument to be made that this budget should be one of the first to be re‐assessed once the national and international economic climate changes. Declaration of Interests: De Montfort University is a research institution based in the East Midlands and was placed 63rd (upper‐middle table) in the 2008 RAE exercise. As such the science and research budget allocation will have a substantial impact on our ability to create and transfer knowledge. De Montfort University 18 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Prospect (SR 06) Introduction 1. Prospect is a trade union representing 121,000 scientific, technical, managerial and specialist staff in the Civil Service and related bodies and major companies. Our members are professionals, managers and specialists across a diverse range of areas, including agriculture, defence, energy, environment, heritage, justice and transport. Around 50,000 of our members work in SET roles. Overview 2. The Government’s decision in October 2010 to freeze the Science Budget was a better outcome than experienced in many parts of the public sector and was well received, as shown by the oral evidence to the Committee from the Heads of Research Councils. However, as discussed below, no such safeguards were provided for R&D spending undertaken directly by government departments, and the Science and Research Budget funding allocations and the HEFCE grant letter published in December 2010 give significant cause for concern. 3. Prospect's assessment focuses mainly on the practical implications of the Government's decisions – recognising that there is some good news but also some genuine and significant concerns. 2010 Spending Review 4. Whilst Prospect accepts that priorities can and do change, we object to the fact that the Spending Review included major decisions affecting the future of public sector science without central knowledge or understanding by Government of the range and value of work undertaken by its own scientists. The reality is that Government could not function effectively without this experience and expertise, but much of this essential work is low profile and – except in times of crisis – largely hidden from public view. 5. The Forensic Science Service is a key casualty of funding cuts. Prospect has submitted written and oral evidence to the Committee's separate inquiry into the winding down of the Forensic Science Service, so we will not elaborate here. However, we do wish to briefly highlight the implications of the Spending Review for two other areas of research – in forestry and defence – as well as the impact of the so-called Quango cull on scientific advice. Forest Research 6. Forest Research faces a budget cut of 25% in nominal terms over the Spending Review period, with income due to fall in cash terms from £10,128,000 in 2010/11 to £7,776,000 by 2015/16. In real terms, of course, the cuts will be even more severe. At an inflation rate of 3.5%, the real terms budget in 2015/16 would be reduced to £6,507,000 and at the current rate of inflation the value in 2015/16 would be just £6,000,0000. 7. The expectation is that, as a consequence, staff numbers will fall by at least 25% and that whole programmes of research will end, resulting in a concentration on fewer research needs. The budget for research into climate, environmental change

and plant health will actually increase by 10%, but there will be a 50% cut in an already small budget for library services and a 60% reduction in research into sustainable management and benefits to society. 8. Forest Research currently generates around 30% of its income externally but, with fewer staff and their continuing need to maintain core research, it is expected that the capacity to undertake externally funded research will fall at least in proportion to the budget reduction. 9. This position is complicated by the parallel, but separate, reviews of Forestry Research, being undertaken in-house by Defra, and the wider review of the Forestry Commission in England and GB-wide functions, for which the Government has established a review panel (without employee input). It is completely unclear how these two review processes are expected to interact with each other. Further, the Spending Review cuts to Forestry Commission England are continuing in advance of reporting or recommendations by either review. 10. We have very real concerns that, in practice, staff cuts will be in excess of 25% and that, without bold and determined action, the future of Forest Research as an independent research institute will be jeopardised. Defence 11. The defence sector provides a good example of how cuts in public expenditure impact more widely on corporate scientific and engineering capability. It also adds another dimension to concerns about regional SET capability. The Ministry of Defence is working to reduce numbers of civilian staff by 25,000, but a large number of job losses have also been announced by industry anticipating the outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). 12. For example, cuts in MOD's research budget impact directly on jobs at companies such as QinetiQ. The SDSR the decision to scrap the Defence Technology Review (DTR) led to a further 50 redundancies and the loss of the Nimrod programme has reduced the number of radar research scientists from 60 down to a dozen. We anticipate more to follow. By the nature of the work it is difficult to quantify the loss of capability as a result of these job losses in research and development, but there can be little doubt that scientific expertise has been lost which cannot be easily replaced or regenerated at a future date. BAE announced job losses at Military Air Solutions both before and after the SDSR as part of a restructuring exercise to align with MOD contracts and on 12 April announced a further 230 job losses across UK sites in its Global Combat Systems business. 13. There will be further erosion in the MOD’s skills base especially in engineering skills. Another period of uncertainty surrounding the future of Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) means that attempts to map out an engineering strategy are being hampered. The demand for nuclear skills has been rising for a number of years and, with the prospect of competition from the civil nuclear sector if the planned new build goes ahead, there will be a shortfall of 8,000 nuclear specialists

across all skilled roles by 20251 Quangos and scientific advice 14. Science advisory committees account for nearly half of all arms length bodies, but most do not have their own budgets: they simply offer a way of bringing expert advice to policy makers at a lower cost than through consultancy contracts. For example, two key pesticide advisory bodies (the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Pesticides Residues Committee) received just £66,000 of government funding in 2008-9. The value of their independent work is recognised by industry representatives2 who acknowledge that '… Ministers face tough spending decisions, but it would be a false economy to do away with the bodies that have helped make such significant progress in improving the level of public confidence in pesticide controls'. Similarly, pollution experts on the Air Quality Expert Group (ACEG) are paid a nominal fee, far below usual consultancy rates, to attend meetings and carry out a considerable amount of work between meetings at no cost to government. Without this support the cost of obtaining expert scientific advice on air quality will rise significantly. It is also likely that the nature of the advice will change as government departments under severe financial pressure will pay for specific pieces of advice, rather than being able to call on it on a continuing basis. Undoubtedly this will reduce flexibility and agility of response, as contractual arrangements will need to be put in place and advisers will not be obliged to respond beyond the terms of their contract. Prospect therefore does not share the confidence expressed by the Minister and Director General of Science and Research in their evidence to the Select Committee that independent scientific advice will continue to be available at short notice. Science and Research Budget Allocations 2011/12 to 2014/15 Resource budgets 15. The resource budgets for research councils have held up relatively well overall, though the Medical Research Council has fared better than others and cash cuts in core programmes are front-loaded for BBSRC and STFC. Nonetheless, there will be a real adverse impact. Inflation is persisting at a higher level than expected at the time of the Spending Review, with the effect that real terms cuts estimated then at around 9% over the Spending Review period are likely in practice to be closer to 14-15%. 16. In stark contrast to the Business Secretary’s recognition as recently as September 2010 that ‘some of the UK’s greatest scientific advances stem from research with no obvious commercial application’, the Government’s current approach is to focus only on internationally excellent research and protecting funding leveraged from external sources. In doing so, it is out of step with the approach taken in comparable EU countries. Professor Mason's oral evidence recognised the danger here, stating that 'Other countries, rightly, see investment in research as their advantage as well. We have to make sure that we keep up'. 1 'Nuclear Skills: a review' June 2009 2 Dominic Dyer, Chief Executive Crop Protection Association

17. There is a 15.8% cut in the Science and Society programme with effect from the start of the 2011/12 financial year. Part of this saving arises from a retrograde decision to cease funding for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET. As a union we are acutely aware of the under-representation of women in SET functions and industries, and of the valuable role played by UKRC in encouraging young women to take up SET careers as well as in supporting women returners. The Government's own analysis shows that these skills are key to delivering high-quality growth and to stimulate and sustain the green economy. Yet, despite the demand for such skills, there is no evidence to show that the SET labour market is yet able to address the challenges of women's under-representation without support from expert practitioner bodies, such as UKRC. The Government has subsequently offered the UKRC £500,000 of transition funding for one year. However, this still represents an 80% cut in the organisation and does not resolve issues of long-term sustainability. It is not a substitute for the core funding that is required to maintain capability and key over-arching functions, including provision of labour market intelligence and raising awareness. Departmental budgets 18. It is also important to consider the Science and Research Budget allocations in the context of broader spending by government departments. The 2009 Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics show that whilst Science Budget expenditure has grown significantly over the last 10 years, SET expenditure by civil departments has fared much worse. For example, Defra's expenditure fell by 17.5% over the 10 years 1997-8 to 2007-8 and very sharply – by 51.2% - between 2006-07 and 2007-08. A 28% overall cut in MOD SET expenditure over the same 10-year period includes a cut of 12.4% in research expenditure and a cut of 33.1% in development activities. The Department for Transport suffered a 53.6% cut in SET expenditure between 1997-98 and 2001-02, which has not been restored. 19. Prospect is very concerned that, in the context of the very severe cuts that are taking place, departmental SET expenditure will not be prioritised and, unlike the Science and Research Budget, departmental allocations are not ring-fenced. Sustained pressure in this area could have a significant impact both on departments' own research and on co-funded and commissioned programmes, which will also affect research council institutes and the wider science base. 20. For example, the Government has indicated that it gives priority to ‘maintaining national capability to support other government departments that deal with crises such as foot and mouth disease and extreme weather events’. However, whilst this aim is to be welcomed, it is not clear how it will be realised through the Science and Research Budget allocations since the two examples given are responsibility of departments whose SET expenditure is not covered by this funding stream. Unfortunately, early indications based on Defra's spending allocations to its arms length bodies provide no reassurance at all. By the end of the Spending Review period in 2014-15, Defra parented bodies with a strong science component to their work face cuts in the order of 20-30% compared with their current funding level - including the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Management Organisation, Natural England and the Royal Botanic Gardens.

21. So, whilst it is all very well for the Minister to agree that 'this is an understandable concern', what is actually needed is action at the highest level to ensure that this concern does not become a reality. We are aware that the Select Committee has already raised this matter with the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and hope that it will be rigorously pursued. Efficiency savings 22. The Government has made clear that it intends to apply the approach recommended in the Wakeham Review3 ‘across the spectrum of research funding, as the core driver for efficiency savings in SR10’. It is expected that, together with pay restraint, this will deliver £324m of efficiency savings in 2014-15. According to the Government ‘Research councils will bear down on the indirect and estate costs of their institutes and achieve savings from the public sector pay restraint that will apply to researchers working in their institutes’. In reality, the evidence to the Select Committee from the Heads of Research Councils shows that they have found it difficult to deliver savings in the anticipated timescales from initiatives such as the Shared Services Centre. It is both unfair and counter-productive to assume that investment in science should be at a cost to the pay and pensions of the specialist staff that are critical to delivering the scientific mission. Prospect has produced evidence elsewhere to show that neither pay nor pensions are excessive4. We also know from previous experience that faced with a combination of squeezed living standards and lack of career progression opportunities, scientists will choose to take their talents elsewhere and that, once lost, this expertise is not easy to recover. Capital expenditure 23. Cuts in capital budgets are a major cause for concern. Research council budgets will fall to 46% of the 2010-11 baseline by 20154-15, and there are cuts of a similar order to the capital budgets for HEI research. There will be immediate reductions for BBSRC (42.83%) and EPSRC (37.06%), a cut in NERC’s capital budget of 44.72% in the next financial year, and a cut of 35.23% in STFC’s core programme in 2013. The exception to this picture is MRC which, although facing an exceptionally severe cut in capital spending funded by BIS, will receive £220m from the Department of Health for the new UK Centre for Medical Research Innovation (UKCMRI). 24. As commentators have pointed out, some of this capital spending is actually required for maintenance and other long-term commitments, which can’t simply be stopped – so the money will have to come from other sources instead. This appears to be confirmed by the evidence from the Heads of Research Councils, which does not rule out using resource budgets to meet gaps. Professor Thorpe noted that 'Our biggest challenge over the next four years will be to minimise the detrimental effects of that reduction' (in capital). As Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal 3 'The Wakeham Review of Financial Sustainability and Efficiency in Full Economic Costing of Research in UK Higher Education Institutions’ 4 For example, 'What do people really think about public sector pensions?' April

2011

Society, has pointed out this is a sticking plaster approach, not a sustainable way forward: ' … the axe has fallen in the 'capital' side of the budget. Allowing some of our labs and other facilities to go without further investment is only a short-term solution and cannot be considered as a sensible long term strategy’.

25. To be fair, the Science and Research Budget allocations did confirm the good news that key investment projects, including at the Institute for Animal Health, will go ahead. Prospect also welcomes the additional £100m for capital spending and science and engineering facilities announced in the March 2011 Budget. For example, the £44m investment in the Babraham Research Campus will fund further developments including incubator buildings and support for start-up companies and the translation agenda, rather than directly boosting the Institute’s own budget. Nonetheless, there is optimism that these developments will support interactions between the academic and commercial scientists on site. The investment in campus facilities is also expected to strengthen funding submissions.

26. Similarly the £10m for the Daresbury Laboratory is a crucial investment at a very difficult time. However there is real concern that it will not be sufficient given the number of programme proposals under review within the Accelerator Science and Technology Centre (ASTeC). The R&D phase for the New Light Source (NLS) alone was supposed to carry £25m of capital over 5 years. It also needs to be viewed against the background of a 50% cut in ASTeC's capital allocation in 2010/11 and an expectation of similar cuts for the remainder of the Spending Review period.

27. Prospect members are also seriously concerned that actually spending £10m in the 2011/12 will lead to real difficulties given the requirement for adequate design of components and systems, followed by lead time in manufacture. It is understood that the requirements are to:

• Create a business case to draw down the £10m allocated from BIS.

• Work on designs for the equipment to be purchased with that money, proving their efficacy through theoretical models.

• Place orders in line with the EU competitive tendering process, which itself takes 3 months to complete.

• Have the equipment manufactured, tested and delivered.

This is a serious challenge to get right, with significant risks if design and procurement are rushed. Arguably it would have been more sensible to stage the £10m allocation over several years, focusing in the first year on design.

28. In summary, the funding provided in the March Budget announcements is small - but welcome – compensation for the substantial cuts that were previously announced. It replenishes one third of the cut from research councils’ capital budgets in 2011-12 (though with the benefit from this restricted to the four research centres selected in the South East) and it is just a fraction of the £1.4bn cut planned by 2014-15. Research Councils UK has admitted5 that cuts to capital 5 ‘Efficiency 2011-15’ – March 2011

budgets will ‘present significant challenges’.

29.It would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of the allocation criteria. If the investment areas have been selected on the basis of a judgement that they are most likely to develop commercial benefits, there should be a transparent assessment process and also a clear understanding of what commercial benefits are expected. Similarly, commitments made by anchor tenants should be transparent and open to scrutiny. This would be consistent with Prospect's wider support for all decisions to cut or reprioritise expenditure to be subject to an open and evidence-based assessment of the implications for UK capacity and capability. Conclusions 30. Prospect believes that sustained investment in the science and engineering base must be integral to the UK's growth strategy, and that it is also essential for the public good. The Government's 'Strategy for Growth' does appear to recognise this, but it will be crucial to hold them to account throughout the Spending Review period. We do not yet have a complete picture, for example on departmental SET expenditure, but we do know that government funded research makes a significant (and, until 2009, growing) contribution to the UK's overall R&D expenditure6. It is also evident that the cuts heralded by the Spending Review are in contrast to the approach in other key countries, including China, Germany, France, Australia and the USA, all of which are increasing their expenditure on science. 31. The Government's position on the importance of science for the public good is not clearly defined, though there are some worrying indications that the Government thinks that some public good science can either be privatised or in some way transferred to 'Big Society' volunteers. There is no evidence to suggest that either of these approaches will work. Though Ministers may not be aware of it, and the Minister's oral evidence was ambiguous in this regard, in practice government does depend on the specialist expertise of the staff it employs and relies upon for advice. They are also a crucial part of the investment pipeline, and failure to recognise this will exact a heavy and long-term price. Prospect 15 April 2011

6 www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gerd0311.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gerd0311.pdf

Written evidence submitted by University and College Union (SR 07)

Summary

1. The University and College Union (UCU) is the largest trade

union and professional association for academics, lecturers, trainers, researchers and academic-related staff working in further and higher education throughout the UK. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry into the impact of the science and research budget allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15.

2. Our submission will focus mainly on recurrent and capital spending plans for higher education research and science, including the potential impact of the new tuition fee regime. It also addresses the increased concentration of research funding, growing government interference in the research policy process and the reduction in funding for equality and diversity projects in science, engineering and technology.

Recommendations

3. UCU recommends that part of the inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee includes provision by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) of a consistent like-for-like comparison of final outcome funding for the 2007 Science Budget in 2010/11, with the 2010/11 baseline data used in the 2010 Science Budget.

4. UCU is opposed to the further concentration of research funding

and we call on both the funding and research councils to recognise and reward high quality research wherever it exists.

5. UCU calls on the select committee to investigate the process

by which the ‘key national priorities’ have been determined by the research councils.

6. UCU also recommends new legislation to protect the

independence of research councils.

7. UCU calls for independent public scrutiny of the selection process of Web of Science and similar resources to ensure all approaches to academic research are given equal treatment.

1

8. UCU calls on BIS to restore core funding to the UK Resource Centre (UKRC) for Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET).

2

UCU submission Science budget

9. Following the 2010 spending review, BIS announced ‘The

allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15’ in December 2010. In summary, recurrent funding – including QR recurrent research funding for HE – is being held constant in cash terms, while capital funding – including for HEIs – is being cut significantly.

Recurrent spending

10. Recurrent (resource) spending in the Science Budget (covering

Research Councils, recurrent HE research funding in England, national academies and other programmes) for the UK to 2014/15 is being held constant in cash terms at 2010/11 baseline levels of £4.575bn (which means a real terms cut of 10.1% over the period, on the basis of current Treasury forecasts for the GDP deflator).

11. Recurrent funding for the Research Councils is to rise by 2.0%

in cash terms, or be cut by -8.1% in real terms, over the period to 2014/15. The Medical Research Council will receive a 5.3% cash increase over the period, or a -4.8% real terms cut; the Arts and Humanities RC will receive a 2.3% cash cut (-12.4% in real terms); the remaining four RCs, and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) core programme, will get a 3.0% cash cut (-13.1% in real terms). STFC Cross-Council facilities funding and STFC International Subscriptions, will increase by 34% and 78% respectively in cash terms over the period.

12. Recurrent funding for research, i.e. QR funding, (allocated by

the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) but included here in the Science Budget) will have a -3% cash cut (or -13.1% real terms cut) over the period to 2014/15, falling from £1.62bn in 2010/11 to £1.57bn in 2014/15.

13. Recurrent funding for the national academies will be cut slightly

in cash terms to £86.5m by 2014/15. Recurrent funding for other programmes (including Science and Society, and Foresight) is to be cut by almost half in all to £24m by 2014/15, with the majority of the reduction falling in the Evidence and Evaluation programme.

3

Depreciation and impairment

14. The annual amount being written off under this heading rises from £130.7m in 2010-11 to £180.4m in 2014/15.

Capital spending

15. Total Science Budget capital spending will fall from £873m in

2010/11 to £517m in 2014/15, a 41% cash cut; the additional £100m funding announced in the 2011 Budget effectively means a 29% cash cut. At the time of writing it was not clear whether this additional funding would have any impact on capital funding for higher education and the research councils, or whether it would be entirely ‘stand-alone’ in relation to the four research centres the £100m is supporting.

16. It should be noted that MRC capital funding is unusually high

for 2010/11, but all RCs will see their capital funding cut significantly to 2014/15, and the AHRC will not get any capital funding. STFC funding will fall from £85.2m to £64.8m. Research capital for HEIs in the UK is also being severely reduced. Funding for the UK Space Agency will remain constant in cash terms. The Large Facilities Capital Fund will fluctuate over the period.

17. Capital funding figures are indicative for the three years from

2012/13 to 2014/15.

Analysis of spending plans

18. Although the outcome of the Science Budget under the 2010 Spending Review has been described in positive terms for science, with spending largely protected over the period to 2014/15, that appears to be an overly rosy view of the outcome.

19. First, recurrent or resource funding in the Science Budget is

being held steady in cash terms, which means a real terms cut. Funding for the Research Councils as a whole will rise in cash terms but fall in real terms, because of the forecast impact of inflation. QR Research funding will be cut in cash terms. Only funding for the UK Space Agency will approach level pegging with inflation.

20. Second, there will be an overall 41% cut in capital funding in

the Science Budget to 2014/15. And while UCU welcomes the announcement in the Budget for an additional £100m for four

4

science facilities,1 there will still be a 29% cut in capital funding. Just in one year, the cut in capital funding for higher education in England for 2011/12 has been announced by the Higher Education Funding Council as 58%. Although there has in the past decade been considerable investment in science and research infrastructure, not least in higher education institutions, this scale of reduction will have a damaging effect on UK science. It is also important to realise that many of our main economic competitors, such as the United States, China, Germany and France, are increasing investment in their scientific infrastructure.

21. Third, it is difficult to know whether there have been further

reductions in the Science Budget between the December 2007 Science Budget, covering 2008/9 to 2010/11, and the December 2010 Science Budget (SB), covering 2011/12 to 2014/15. The final year of the 2007 SB was 2010/11; that year was also the baseline year for the 2010 SB. However, it is difficult to make a like-for-like comparison between the ‘old’ 2010/11 and the ‘new’ 2010/11; the latter includes QR research funding and the Space Agency, for example, which were not in the former. 2

22. In addition, the funding for 2010/11 may have been amended

after the initial announcement in December 2007 because of subsequent funding cuts. It is possible that the changes in the level of funding for the 2010/11 baseline year may conceal further reductions in the new Science Budget. For example, the 2007 SB indicated an allocation of £412m for resource funding for the BBSRC for 2010/11; the 2010 SB baseline year data for 2010/11 indicates resource funding of only £362m for the BBSRC, suggesting a reduction in the 2010 baseline of £50m somewhere in the intervening period. This would indicate a much bigger reduction for the BBSRC than shown in the 2010 SB.

23. UCU recommends that part of the inquiry by the House of

Commons Science and Technology Committee includes provision by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills of a consistent like-for-like comparison of final outcome funding for the 2007 Science Budget in 2010/11, with the 2010/11 baseline data used in the 2010 Science Budget.

1The facilities are the Babraham Research Campus in Cambridge, the Norwich Research Park for environmental and life sciences, the International Space Innovation Centre at Harwell and the National Science and Innovation Campus at Daresbury. 2 As expressed in Table 2.1 in the 2008/9 to 2010/11 SB, and the allocations tables on pp17-19 of the 2011/12 to 2014/15 SB.

5

24. Fourth, the 2010 SB says that efficiency savings following the 2010 Wakeham review of research financial sustainability, should deliver £324m of savings in 2014-15, through implementing Full Economic Costing for RC funding in universities. Whether that level of saving can be delivered, let alone make good the cuts in the Science Budget remains to be seen. The cash cut in the 2010 SB in capital funding between 2010/11 and 2014/15 is £355m, which is more than the Wakeham efficiency gain (or £255m including the additional funding announced in the 2011 Budget). Once the impact of inflation is taken into consideration, the shortfall of the efficiency savings is increased.

25. Finally, the 2010 Science Budget covers the period when 80%

of the recurrent grant for teaching in higher education institutions (HEIs) in England is being cut, while tuition fees are set to rise to a possible £9,000 a year. The remaining 20% of recurrent teaching funding is intended to support teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as some other priority subjects needing support. Funding for teaching arts and humanities courses will be almost entirely dependent on the ability of these courses to attract fee-paying students.

26. The massive increase in tuition fees, combined with the government’s decision to cut teaching funding by 80% over the next three years, places the future of our universities at serious risk. It is a grossly irresponsible gamble which we believe will:

• deter many potential students from aspiring to enter higher education;

• lead to the closure of many courses and perhaps of whole

institutions;

• undermine quality of provision as institutions cut costs in the struggle to survive;

• embed more deeply the existing hierarchy of status and

resource among our universities and the matching pattern of social class participation; and

• threaten the idea of the university as a community of

scholars based on academic freedom and collegiality. 27. UCU is also concerned about the detrimental impact of the new

funding regime on UK research capacity. First, there is the

6

possibility of further cuts to the HEFCE research budget. David Willetts, for example, has suggested that “if the average of charges comes out higher than the £7,500..., we will have to consider the option of meeting that increased cost to the student finance budget by making offsetting reductions in the remaining HEFCE grant.”

28. Second, the Browne review and the new teaching funding regime reflect a highly ideological view of higher education. In particular, they are based on a view of students as ‘consumers’ purchasing a ‘product’ and seeking to maximise the ‘return’ on their ‘investment’. Current policy also reflects a flawed notion of institutions competing in a market driven by variable price and quality. UCU believes that a consumerist agenda will have a detrimental impact on quality and standards in higher education, but also for research capacity in our universities and colleges. It is clear that higher tuition fees will produce greater student demands on lecturers’ time and therefore reduce the amount of time available to produce high-quality research. Given the increased workloads of staff as well and reductions in the numbers of academic posts, we fear that the opportunities to produce innovative research will be considerably reduced.

29. Finally, we are concerned about the impact of increased undergraduate fees on access to postgraduate study, particularly doctoral education. Increased student debt is likely to deter many qualified candidates from enrolling on doctoral programmes and therefore becoming the researchers and scientists of the future. Despite the government’s ‘social mobility strategy’, current fee policy is likely to result in a more socially and economically exclusive academic profession.

Concentration of research funding 30. The Government’s allocation of research and science funding in

the CSR period should be analysed alongside its major policy objectives. One of the most significant is to concentrate research funding in a small number of universities. For example, in the recent HEFCE allocations to higher education institutions, research which received a 2* (quality that is recognised internationally) in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise is having its funding cut. The weighting for 2* research is being reduced from 1.0 to 0.294, and the funding re-allocated to 3* and 4* research (internationally excellent and world-leading respectively) as HEFCE implements the government’s desire for greater research funding concentration. It is likely that this reduction will mean that

7

developing research potential in the newer universities is disproportionately affected.

31. UK research funding is already highly concentrated in a

relatively small number of institutions. Further concentration of core research funding would carry with it the risk of reduced research capacity for some regions, greater difference in experiences for students and a reduction in the diversity of the UK's research base. For example, the policy of ‘more concentration’ will disrupt the developing research agenda in post-1992 higher education institutions.

32. Similar policies are being enacted by the UK Research Councils. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has restricted doctoral training support to pre-1992 institutions. The exclusion of all post-1992 universities from the new ESRC Framework underestimates the research capacity of these institutions and fails to recognise their strengths and contributions within the social sciences.

33. UCU is opposed to the further concentration of research funding and we call on both the funding and research councils to recognise and reward high-quality research wherever it exists.

Increasing micromanagement of research 34. UCU is concerned about increasing government interference in

determining the priorities of the research councils. Of course, the idea that research councils are free to set their own priorities ceased to be true in practice some years ago. However, the current administration appears to be going further than previous ones in using its control of the finances to ensure compliance with a political agenda. For example, we are alarmed at recent allegations that the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have been pressured into making the ‘Big Society’ a priority within its communities and civic values ‘strategic research area’. We call on the select committee to investigate the process by which the ‘key national priorities’ have been determined by the research councils. UCU also recommends new legislation to protect the independence of research councils.

35. In recent years there has also been a big push by government departments and quangos to force academics to focus on the economic impact of their research. The research councils have led the way on this agenda. Applicants for research council grants now have to submit an ‘impact summary’, answering

8

questions about who might benefit from the research and how an economic return could be secured. Recent research council strategy documents suggest a bigger role for the ‘impact’ agenda in the current CSR period.

36. Similar developments are planned for the funding council

allocations. In March the four UK funding bodies announced that the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) will include a 20% weighting for ‘research impact’. Despite the changes resulting from the REF pilot studies, UCU and academics are concerned that the 'impact' proposals will undermine support for basic research across all disciplines as well as disproportionately disadvantaging research in the arts and humanities. The new proposals will also add greatly to the bureaucratic nature of the research assessment process.

37. A related issue concerns the growing use of ‘bibliometrics’ as a

means of assessing the quality of research outputs. UCU is concerned about the over-reliance on commercial databases such as the Web of Science, which necessarily privilege certain types of journals and therefore approaches. We call for independent public scrutiny of the selection process of Web of Science and similar resources to ensure all approaches to academic research are given equal treatment.

Equality and diversity 38. UCU is concerned about the impact of the higher education cuts

on equality in the sector. Our biggest concerns relate to the 80% reduction in the teaching grant and the near trebling of tuition fees, and the disproportionate impact of this on women and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

39. However, one of the least well-known outcomes of the science budget is the abolition of funding for the UK Resource Centre (UKRC) for Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET). The UKRC is the key body offering advice, services and policy regarding the under-representation of women in SET. The organisation has a good track record in working with employers, unions, educational institutions, and women scientists to improve the gender balance in SET workplaces. UCU believes that the abolition of its funding will have a negative impact on the UK’s SET sector and for gender equality. We call on BIS to restore core funding to the UKRC.

9

10

Conclusion

40. Universities and research centres are a vital part of our economic infrastructure, and generate extensive employment, output and GDP. Globalisation, competition with the emerging economies such as China and India (both investing heavily in higher education and research) and the emergence of the ‘knowledge economy’ all suggest a more important economic role for higher education and the need for increased investment. In our view, the BIS document (‘The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15’) fails to meet these challenges.

University and College Union 19 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by members of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience (SR 08)

We are members of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, one of the world’s leading institutions for studying mental processes in the human brain. We are directly concerned about cuts to the UK’s science and research budget announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (10% in real terms from 2011/12-2014/15) that have already started to have a detrimental impact in our area of research, one in which the UK currently excels.

1) Many funding bodies have already announced cuts in their funding for cognitive neuroscience research:

a. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has announced large cuts (minimum 20%, equivalent to at least £4 million per year) to neuroscience and psychology funding;

b. The Economic and Social Research Council has terminated their Small Grants Scheme (for research costing £50,000-£100,000);

c. The British Academy has suspended the Research Development Award scheme (for research costing up to £150,000).

2) These cuts will disproportionately affect early career investigators (<10 years’

postdoctoral experience), who often depend on the smaller grant schemes that have been cut while building up experience to apply for larger grants. Often a small amount of initial funding allows collection of valuable pilot data that can then be used to make substantial grant applications more competitive.

3) The UK is currently a magnet for research talent, and provides exceptional value

for money on investment in science and research. These cuts have the potential to result in a loss of talent in cognitive neuroscience from the UK, as researchers realise that research funding is easier to obtain in countries that are investing in science. This loss may be particularly exacerbated amongst independent investigators towards the beginning of their career, for whom funding is now very difficult to obtain. Training world-class scientists takes many years, and these individuals would be difficult to replace. Hence, the impact of such migration would be most marked in future years, as these individuals no longer progress to more senior positions.

4) The reduction in overall grant funding available means that the number of

postdoctoral training posts and PhD studentships available in the UK will fall. As a consequence, it is not just more established investigators that are likely to move abroad, but individuals at the very start of their career. These individuals are less likely to return.

5) Graduating PhD students whose doctoral studies the UK has paid for, through

research council funds, the Higher Education Funding Council Research budget, or both, will find that it is more difficult to secure a postdoctoral research position in the UK. As a result, talented researchers who have completed many years of publicly-funded training will leave science for other careers, or go abroad to develop their careers.

These factors leave the future of cognitive neuroscience in the UK in a parlous state. Losing young talent in this field threatens the UK’s deserved world-class reputation in cognitive neuroscience. Dr Jonathan Roiser Signed on behalf of: Prof Sarah-Jayne Blakemore Prof Paul Burgess Dr Joern Diedrichsen Prof Jon Driver Prof Emrah Duzel Prof Patrick Haggard Prof Masud Husain Prof Nilli Lavie Dr Leun Otten Prof Geraint Rees Prof Sophie Scott Prof Vincent Walsh The signatories declare that they have no competing financial interests. Members of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (SR 09) 1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership set up to champion research supported by

the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the Government’s objectives for science and innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk

2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not

include, or necessarily reflect the views of the Knowledge and Innovation Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The submission is made on behalf of the following Councils:

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Medical Research Council (MRC) Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

3. Research, whether based in arts, humanities, engineering or the social, physical, biological,

medical or environmental sciences, is at the heart of the UK’s growth, prosperity and wider wellbeing. Public investment in research is an investment in the nation’s future, ensuring that the UK has a productive economy, healthy society and contributes to a sustainable world.

4. The allocation of the Science and Research Budget is a matter for the Department for

Business, Innovation and Skills. This submission provides an overview of the Research Councils’ delivery plans and strategic approach over the next spending review period.

5. The Science and Research budget, announced on 20 October 2010, will enable the UK

research base to contribute positively to the future prosperity and wellbeing of the UK. It will nonetheless present challenges to the research community. RCUK welcomes support for scientific capital projects such as UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, RRS Discovery replacement, Institute for Animal Health, the Birth Cohort Study and the Diamond Light Source. However, the overall cut in capital funding will present significant challenges to research and we will work with BIS to minimise the impact on affected disciplines.

6. The Research Councils received their individual allocations on 20 December 2010. The total

budget allocation across RCUK for the 2011/12 – 2014/15 spending review period is around £11.2billion.

7. To coincide with the announcement of the budgets each Research Council published its

delivery plan for the period. These delivery plans set out the priorities and commitments that Research Councils will meet in order to achieve their forward strategies. Summaries of individual Research Council delivery plans and links to related documents can be found at Annex A.

8. Alongside the individual delivery plans, the new RCUK Strategic Vision sets out how the Research Councils collectively will provide a vital contribution to economic growth and wellbeing within the UK as a result of investing this allocation in top-quality research. The RCUK Strategic Vision can be found here: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/RCUKStrategicVision.pdf

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/RCUKStrategicVision.pdf

Strategic Direction Over the next spending period the AHRC will focus its resources to generate excellent research and training and stimulate partnerships across disciplines, providers, agencies and countries. The AHRC Delivery Plan has three major aims: • To support arts and humanities research of the very highest quality and to ensure that strategic

capability in arts and humanities disciplines is sustained • To focus resources in order to obtain the greatest efficiencies and best value for money • To deliver maximum benefits for society and the economy Research Priorities Arts and humanities research in the UK is internationally pre-eminent. The AHRC will enhance this achievement by funding excellent research across a wide range of disciplines and will: • Award longer and larger grants to centres of excellence in HEIs and promote consortia

arrangements to develop collaborative critical mass • Invest in individuals and projects at all levels from postgraduates, through early career

researchers, to projects of exceptional scope and importance • Implement new thematic programmes • Sustain key areas of strategic national need – design, modern languages and heritage The AHRC’s new thematic programmes – Digital Transformations, Translating Cultures, Care for the Future and Science in Culture, as well as the Connected Communities programme delivered in collaboration with other Research Councils – will receive enhanced support to stimulate discipline-crossing research and respond to changing methodologies and opportunities. We will continue to invest in postgraduate research and training to maintain disciplinary capability. We will focus on proven centres of excellence as well as high-quality institutional consortia which will ensure support for important areas where current provision is dispersed. The AHRC will deepen its contribution to cross-Council programmes, prioritising Digital Economy and Living with Environmental Change alongside Connected Communities. We are also aware of the importance of our contribution to Global Uncertainties, particularly the research we fund on ideologies and beliefs. The AHRC will continue its leadership in Europe and develop its engagements in the US and South Asia. The AHRC will continue to support research that generates knowledge of the important languages and complex cultures of the parts of the world with which the UK is strategically engaged. Economic Impact The AHRC will embed the stimulus towards impact across all of its activities. In particular, we will focus on the creative economy which is of growing importance both socially and economically. We will create Creative Economy ‘hubs’ to develop research in partnership with the creative and cultural sectors including both commercial and public partners. We will also work alongside key government departments to assist in developing improved public services and evidence-based policymaking.

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BBSRC funds research across the life sciences to improve the fundamental understanding of the biological systems upon which all life depends. BBSRC research makes a significant contribution to the quality of life in the UK and beyond and supports a number of important industrial sectors, including agriculture, food, chemicals, healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Strategic Direction BBSRC’s goal is to deliver world-class research and training with a strategic emphasis on:

• Food security – Bioscience for a sustainable supply of sufficient, affordable, nutritious and safe food in a rapidly changing world.

• Bioenergy and industrial biotechnology - Energy and industrial materials from novel biological sources, reducing dependency on petrochemicals and helping the UK to become a low carbon economy.

• Basic bioscience underpinning health - Driving advances in fundamental bioscience for better health and improved quality of life reducing the need for medical and social intervention.

Research Priorities BBSRC will continue to drive excellence in bioscience. Building on current strength, BBSRC will:

• Improve coordination of UK food research by leading the new Global Food Security (GFS) partnership between five Research Councils, the TSB and Government including Defra, DFID and the Scottish Government.

• Increase the UK’s economic resilience to livestock diseases such as foot and mouth, bluetongue and African swine fever, particularly through the Institute for Animal Health (IAH).

• Position the UK as a global leader in wheat research and breeding for food and other products to increase yields and adapt to climate change.

• Drive innovation, growth and jobs through Industrial Biotechnology including advances in enzymology, biocatalysis and the design of biological systems for more efficient bioenergy, new biopharmaceuticals and renewable ‘green’ industrial feedstocks.

• Prepare for an ageing population and to maintain wellbeing through improved understanding of the basic biological mechanisms underlying healthy physiology.

• Support the development of the next generation of cutting-edge tools and technologies to accelerate the pace of discovery in bioscience.

Economic Impact

• BBSRC will prioritise actions to aid economic recovery, drive growth, and influence public policy. BBSRC’s research will make the UK well placed to exploit bioscience for renewable energy and chemicals in the new global knowledge based bio-economy.

• In addition to investing for growth in the new bio-based businesses of tomorrow, BBSRC will focus on extracting economic benefit from existing research though its Follow-on Fund, strengthen pathways to the application of research, implement BBSRC’s Campus strategy – with particular emphasis on the Babraham Research Campus and Norwich Research Park - and work with the TSB, industry and others to accelerate research into practice and economic benefit.

• BBSRC will provide people with the right skills through high-quality PhD training to boost business critical R&D and innovation skills.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) EPSRC is the only dedicated national funder of long-term, fundamental engineering and physical sciences research and training in the UK. We remain absolutely committed to excellence and impact in research. Strategic Direction Our 2010 Strategic Plan set out how we will keep the UK at the heart of global research and innovation, and deliver greater impact than ever before. Our Delivery Plan for 2011/12 to 2014/15 builds on this, and shows how we will more proactively partner with the research community to generate the fundamental knowledge, and develop the skilled people, essential to business, other research organisations and government. We have produced a challenging Delivery Plan that we are fully committed to, with three core goals:

1. Delivering Impact: We will create an environment in which impact arises naturally throughout our portfolio of research.

2. Developing Leaders: We will nurture the visionary leaders who set research agendas and inspirational team leaders who act as role models.

3. Shaping Capability: We will ensure we support the right people, with the right resources, in the right places to deliver the highest quality long-term research in areas where the UK leads internationally and where there is current or future national need.

Research and Economic Impact Priorities In order to successfully deliver our strategic goals of delivering impact, shaping capability and developing leaders we must work with our key stakeholders to ensure the best outcome for UK research to:

• Deliver a programme of transformational change. We will move from being a funder to a sponsor of research, where our investments act as a national resource focused on outcomes for the UK good and where we more proactively partner with the researchers we support.

• Make strategic funding choices based on international excellence and national need, shaping our portfolio in line with UK priorities and strengths.

• Provide our researchers with the space, support and opportunities to foster creativity and to empower them to undertake ambitious work.

• Set a balance between national capability and challenge themes of around 60:40. • Help rebuild the UK economy by driving an integrated research programme focused on

sustainable high-value manufacturing, low-carbon energy, healthcare technologies and the digital economy.

• Further embed impact, including public engagement, so that universities deliver it as normal business.

• Emphasise the role of research leaders. • Give priority to PhD quality. • Drive efficiency and effectiveness.

Our annual programme spend decreases in real terms by 2014/2015. To meet our commitments, we must make difficult choices, including:

• Maintaining funding for high priority research at the expense of the breadth and volume of research.

• Stopping our support for project studentships on research grants; enabling us to protect our quality PhD provision in Centres for Doctoral Training and Doctoral Training Grants.

• Stopping support for our own dedicated public engagement activity earlier than intended. It will be embedded through our research and training investments, enabling us to build a high-quality portfolio more closely linked to the research we fund.

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Strategic Direction ESRC funds strategic and responsive mode research in the social sciences. In addition, ESRC identifies and addresses key social and economic challenges through: funding of training and skill development; generating a highly skilled workforce for the wider economy; investment in the national social science research infrastructure; international research funding and co-ordination and; knowledge exchange and impact activities. ESRC has developed a focused investment strategy for the coming period, which will centre its strategic investment around three newly defined strategic priorities which are critical to the UK and wider international economy and society. The three priority areas are:

• Economic Performance and Sustainable Growth • Influencing Behaviour and Informing Interventions • A Vibrant and Fair Society.

ESRC’s standard response mode scheme will not be steered by the priority areas. Research Priorities ESRC’s strategic priorities will be to:

• Continue to deliver a critical contribution to the RCUK interdisciplinary research programmes. ESRC is one of two Research Councils participating in all six themes.

• Channel its resources into longer, larger grants that deliver ambitious social science. • Concentrate its PhD training in the most excellent centres. This will include targeting some

students towards key strategic areas. • Protect its essential investments in national data infrastructure, though it will make

efficiency savings across its portfolio of data resources. ESRC will give continued priority to the development of key longitudinal datasets which provide a critical underpinning for high-quality social science research and policy analysis.

• Continue to prioritise the generation of economic and societal impact from its investments

through further embedding impact as an integral part of funding schemes. • Expand collaborative activities with the private sector to complement the existing strong

partnerships with the public and voluntary sectors and civil society, to generate research which will impact directly on business.

• Continue to encourage and promote international collaboration through embedding international perspectives across the range of ESRC activities.

Economic Impact Delivering the benefits of its investment in social science is central to ESRC’s Strategic Plan 2009-14, which measures success through five objectives. ESRC will deliver impact through: world-class research; skilled people; infrastructure; partnerships and international leadership. Creating, assessing and communicating impact is not a separate strand of ESRC’s strategy; rather it provides the linchpin around which its activities are organised. ESRC will achieve impact by means of:

• Embedding impact as an integral part of its funding and assessment mechanisms from postgraduate training through to large-scale investments. ESRC will specifically be looking at increasing the impact from its current large investments in each of its strategic priorities.

• A commitment to innovative approaches and efficiency. As the ESRC continues to extend its collaborations with policy, business and civil society it will innovative its funding mechanisms for knowledge exchange and impact.

• The assessment and communication of impact. ESRC will continue to evaluate ESRC investments through its expert Evaluation Committee, extending its methodologies and programme of impact evaluations, including the impact of people and data investments, so that the results are widely disseminated.

Medical Research Council (MRC) Strategic Direction The MRC’s Strategic Plan sets out the key aims and research themes over the CSR period and how MRC will develop and sustain leading edge research programmes that will accelerate the transition of fundamental research into measurable positive impact on health, innovation and wealth creation. Fundamental to the MRCs delivery plan is a transformative translation agenda to drive innovation and speed up the exploitation of the best ideas in medical science, to deliver new preventive and therapeutic interventions and demonstrable improvements in the return on investment in the science base. Research Priorities ‘Research Changes Lives’ the MRC Strategic Plan, sets out key aims and objectives for the next 4 years. The MRC delivery plan highlights some major examples of activity that will rapidly deliver gains in health and wellbeing, together with increased economic impact. Understanding more about the mechanisms of resilience, repair and replacement will channel discoveries towards disease prevention and treatment. Addressing the complex interplay between genetics, development and life events or lifestyles will improve the chances of living a longer, healthier and productive life. New or developing programmes include:

• £60m new commitments in Stratified Medicine; • spend in the region of £130m in regenerative medicine; • £10m to support new initiatives in addiction research; • £150m across a range of activities in neurodegeneration and; • increased spending on experimental and translational medicine, likely to reach £250m over

the CSR period.

MRC will continue to develop the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) as a key element of strategy to increase the impact of science on health, now and for decades to come. In addition, MRC remains committed to reduction, refinement and replacement of animal use in scientific research. To help deliver on this commitment, as well as the Coalition Government pledge to reduce animal usage, MRC will continue supporting National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), working with BBSRC to maintain their joint contribution at the current level in real terms (rising to £5.6m pa by 2014/5). Economic Impact Worldwide the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors have been less affected by the global recession and are forecast to continue to grow. Richer nations spend more on health, so that future growth will be accompanied by a corresponding expansion in demand for healthcare, presenting enormous potential markets for countries that choose to make biomedical science a centre piece of their economies. MRC will aim to deliver the strong academic research base and highly skilled researchers, which are both so important in attracting and retaining these companies in the UK.

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Strategic Direction NERC funds research, training and knowledge exchange in the environmental sciences. Its goal for the CSR period is to secure competitive advantage for the UK in the race to a global green economy, and to help make the nation resilient to environmental crisis, by:

• Delivering strategic environmental knowledge with the strongest potential for the nation; • Creating vibrant business and policy partnerships to co-design research and maximise its

benefits; and • Transforming the delivery of NERC science to provide the most effective and efficient

support. During 2011-15 NERC will: increase focus on strategic research; increase economic impact and societal benefit; attract and retain top talent for the UK; transform delivery of national capability; and shift resources into frontline science. Research Priorities NERC will direct a growing share of its funding though seven strategic science themes to ensure the most critical issues in environmental science are tackled: climate system; biodiversity; sustainable use of natural resources; earth system science; natural hazards; environment, pollution and human health; and technologies. NERC will design this strategic research to deliver shared RCUK priorities in the following cross-Council programmes: Living With Environmental Change (LWEC); Energy; Global Food Security; Global Uncertainties. It will invest £344m in cross-Council programmes over the CSR period. On behalf of RCUK and other partners NERC will continue to drive LWEC, a transformative cross-Government partnership that accelerates the translation of research into environmental policy, business and societal outcomes with greater impact and cost-efficiency. Economic Impact NERC research and innovation enables a successful greener economy by providing UK competitive advantage, informing policy leadership, improving business performance and transforming public services. During 2011-15 NERC will deliver increased impact by engaging more strongly with business, targeting those sectors where research has the strongest potential to boost economic growth. By engaging with business, Government policymakers, local authorities and society - most notably through the LWEC business and partners’ boards - NERC is able to identify and prioritise the environmental sectors and new markets with most potential research to unlock for green economic growth. It will also develop and sustain the capability of NERC researchers and users to evidence and demonstrate the impacts of research.

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Strategic Direction The STFC promotes and delivers world-class research, innovation and skills to generate knowledge, solutions and skilled people. We achieve these by delivering three distinct but interrelated functions:

• sponsoring university-based research, innovation and skills in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics;

• ensuring access to world-leading, large-scale facilities for the physical and life sciences and enabling research, innovation and skills training in these areas;

• leading the development of the UK’s Science and Innovation Campuses at Harwell and Daresbury to promote academic and industry collaboration.

The STFC carried out a thorough prioritisation of its programme in 2009 which focused support on its highest priority activities. This forms the strong basis of the STFC’s delivery plan for the next four years. Research Priorities During 2011-15, the STFC will maintain resource spending on research grants to support a world-class research programme in astronomy, particle and nuclear physics following the priorities established a year ago. The STFC will focus university research programmes in centres of excellence by continuing to place a premium on critical mass in research groups and encouraging research groups to self-manage demand. The Council will also streamline grant administration by moving all researchers from rolling grants to a single consolidated grant mechanism providing support for up to four years. The STFC will foster a complementary partnership with universities by focusing the capabilities of STFC’s in-house researchers on technology, instrumentation and detector construction, leaving university scientists to concentrate on research. In addition, the STFC will also protect national capability in strategically vulnerable areas by brokering consortia or setting up university hosted institutes. Economic Impact STFC will deliver the following outcomes:

• The Science and Innovation Campuses hosting over 200 hi-tech companies with over 5,500 employees to grow to 20,000 within a decade;

• Increased commercial use of STFC’s UK large facilities, doubling since 2006/07, that, for example, have aided new aircraft development, improved drug discovery and development, developed new medical diagnostic tools and helped reduce oil pipeline blockages;

• Facilitate inward investment into the UK high tech industry. For example, £282m international investment and £180m from national sources to UK high tech firms over the last three years;

• Increase innovation output by translating technical and science ideas into new spin outs, technology patents and proof of concept projects each year – in 2008/09 6 spinouts, 23 technology prospects and 31 proof of concept projects were delivered;

• Inspire and attract 2,500 undergraduates to study physics, whilst training 1,000 physics and astronomer graduates through our STFC-funded researchers.

AHRC Future Directions Consultation: Emerging themes http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Pages/FutureDirections.aspx Delivery plan: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/DeliveryPlan2011.pdf BBSRC The Age of Bioscience Strategic Plan 2010-2015 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/strategic_plan_2010-2015.pdf Delivery plan: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/delivery_plan_2011_2015.pdf EPSRC EPSRC Strategic Plan 2010 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRC_strategic_plan_2010.pdf Delivery plan: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCDeliveryPlan2011-15.pdf ESRC ESRC Strategic Plan 2009-2014: delivering impact through social science http://www.esrc.ac.uk/Image/Strategic_Plan_FINAL_tcm11-13164.pdf Delivery plan: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/ESRC%20Delivery%20Plan%202011-15_tcm8-13455.pdf MRC Research Changes Lives - MRC Strategic Plan 2009-2014 http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC006090 Delivery plan: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC007642 NERC Next Generation Science for Planet Earth: NERC Strategy 2007-2012, refreshed 2010 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/strategicplan/documents/strategy07.pdf Delivery plan: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/perform/documents/deliveryplan201012.pdf STFC STFC Corporate Strategy 2010 – 2020 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/STFCCS2010.pdf Delivery plan: http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/dp2011-15.pdf Research Councils UK 19 April 2011

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Pages/FutureDirections.aspx

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/DeliveryPlan2011.pdf

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/strategic_plan_2010-2015.pdf

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/delivery_plan_2011_2015.pdf

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRC_strategic_plan_2010.pdf

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCDeliveryPlan2011-15.pdf

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/Image/Strategic_Plan_FINAL_tcm11-13164.pdf

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/ESRC%20Delivery%20Plan%202011-15_tcm8-13455.pdf

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC006090

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC007642

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/strategicplan/documents/strategy07.pdf

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/perform/documents/deliveryplan201012.pdf

http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/STFCCS2010.pdf

http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/dp2011-15.pdf

Written evidence submitted by the Office of the Vice-Provost (Research), University College London (SR 10)

UCL is pleased to make a submission to the Select Committee inquiry into the Spending Review 2010. Our comments below are confined to the impact of the Science and Research Budget allocations, as determined by the Spending Review. The short-term impact of the Research Budget allocations 1. The Spending Review 2010 announced a flat-cash settlement for research

funding, equating to a predicted cut in research funding of around 10% over four years in real terms. The allocation undoubtedly represents a tight funding settlement – particularly as regards the reduction in capital spending – and poses challenges for universities and for the wider research base. (For universities, the settlement must also be seen in the context of significant reform of public funding for teaching.)

2. However, we recognise that given the heavy reductions in public spending

elsewhere, the science and research budget does represent a comparatively positive settlement, and reflects the Government’s acknowledgement of the importance of investing in research. We also welcome the ring-fencing of the HEFCE research funding stream within the overall science and research budget as an important protection in principle for research funding.

3. That being said, we emphasise that this reduction in funding should be a

temporary measure as part of a wider fiscal constraint. Once the UK economy starts to recover, investment in science and research should be increased. Continued and sustainable investment in research remains essential for the future, both to underpin economic growth and to secure the UK’s international competitiveness.

4. Increased investment in the research base in recent years has enabled the UK

to maintain a world-leading position1, 2, in the face of fierce and growing international competition. It will be important that this is not undermined by a lack of future investment that would risk negating the benefits of sustained investment in recent years. This point is particularly acute with regards to capital funding – where costly remedial investment through CIF and its predecessor funds, as well as the introduction of fEC, was made necessary by years of under-investment.

Supporting arts, humanities and social sciences research 5. It should also be noted that funding for arts, humanities and social sciences

research is under pressure from reductions in both Funding Council and Research Council funding. As research in these areas is heavily dependent on QR,3, 4 it is particularly vulnerable to cuts in the block grant, especially so in the

1 The UK is second only to the US in terms of research output: with 1 per cent of the world’s population, the UK produces 8 per cent of world publications and account for 12 per cent of citations – second only to the US (our share of global citations has continued to rise even though our share of papers has slightly fallen since 1999); and 14.4 per cent of the top 1 per cent of most highly cited papers – ahead of the US. (Evidence Ltd / Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, International comparative performance of the UK research base, September 2009.) 2 The UK is number one in the G8 of advanced industrial nations for research publication productivity (Ibid.) 3 Available data in 2007-08 shows a balance between QR and Research Council funding for arts, humanities and social sciences of 80:20 (compared to 58:42 for overall funding of all subjects) (Figures from Universities UK, used in Steve Smith's speech "World class or on our knees? The future for UK Higher Education" made 26 March 2010. (http://www.dassh.org.uk/steve-smith-keynote.html). Within the Research Councils, AHRC and ESRC funding combined account for only around 10% of the total allocation 2010/11 to 2014/15, whilst representing around 50% of

1

http://www.dassh.org.uk/steve-smith-keynote.html

context of HEFCE’s reaffirmed commitment to protecting STEM subjects within mainstream QR5. We emphasise the importance of the block grant to universities both to support arts, humanities and social sciences research and to ensure that institutions have discretion to make important strategic decisions.

Allocation of funding 6. Having confirmed the total amount of funding provided for research via dual

support funding through the Spending Review, the allocation of the funding within the research base will be important. A priority for the UK must be to sustain its world-leading universities – which provide concentrations of research excellence and world-class infrastructure – to maintain international competitiveness. To that end, we would suggest that, particularly at a time of very limited funds, funding should be primarily concentrated on the highest levels of excellence and on those institutions that offer research excellence across a breadth of disciplines. We discuss how multi-faculty research-intensive institutions can generate added value in paragraphs 20–21 below. We also make some comments on the important role of research collaboration in paragraphs 22–27 below.

Institutional responses to the Spending Review 7. The tight funding settlement illustrates the importance of individual institutional

autonomy to sustain the UK’s research performance. The ability of universities to respond flexibly, taking into account their own research profile and key research areas, in order to preserve excellence and implement strategic decisions, is critical.

8. For example, UCL has made a number of important strategic decisions in

response to the Spending Review allocations for the science and research budget:

• we will use funding as flexibly as possible to ensure we can sustain our commitment to recruiting and retaining the most talented researchers;

• we will ensure that the ‘surplus’ generated at the end of the financial year (which is re-invested in the university) is targeted to capital funding and infrastructure in particular, to alleviate reduced public funding for capital investment;

• we are firmly committed to continuing to support arts, humanities and social sciences research, and will make the appropriate strategic investment decisions to do so (this would prove impossible without the block grant);

• we will continue efforts to diversity our research funding sources, including from business and from European sources (UCL performs particularly well in ERC grants and will seek to build upon this success) as well as continue to work with UK funding bodies to ensure the most effective distribution of resources.

The longer-term impact of budget allocations 9. The short-term impact of the research budget allocations may be broadly

manageable by seeking greater efficiencies and alternative funding sources, although the UK must prepare for some downturn in activity and output. The

the research population in the UK. (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2010/11 – 2014/15. December 2010.) 4 The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills has noted that support for these subjects currently amounts to around a third of total mainstream QR research funding (HEFCE grant letter 2010. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/h/10-1359-hefce-grant-letter-20-dec-2010.pdf) 5 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2011/cl05_11/

2

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/h/10-1359-hefce-grant-letter-20-dec-2010.pdf

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2011/cl05_11/

more serious potential consequences, however, are to the long-term health and future of the research base and to the UK’s international competitiveness as an economic and research power.

10. The Royal Society’s recent report The Scientific Century6 emphasised that

science and innovation must be at the heart of the UK’s long-term strategy for economic growth; and that the UK must recognise the intense competition from countries which are investing heavily in research at a pace that the UK will struggle to match. This last point is made particularly acute by the contrast between the reduction in funding in the UK, and the economic stimulus packages developed by many of our established and emerging competitors which have provided significant new investment in research7 (in recognition of its importance in supporting economic growth8).

Intensifying international competition 11. The reduction in research funding must also be seen in the context of the UK’s

position consistently lagging behind other G7 nations and comparator OECD nations in terms of investment in R&D as a share of GDP9. This means that the UK is not reducing funding from a position of strength, but rather from a position of having already been out-paced.

12. Meanwhile, a wealth of evidence shows the scale of investment by established

and emerging competitor nations, which pose a serious challenge to the UK’s position10. There is a serious risk that the UK will lose ground to our international competitors to the extent that it will not be possible to make it up. The EU Commissioner’s comments on the importance of investment in research in advance of a recent visit to the UK were telling11.

13. We therefore reiterate that, as the public finances recover, investment in

research must be increased at the earliest possible opportunity. We note the example of the Canadian Government’s response to economic downturn in the 1990s: initial austerity measures gave way to re-investment in research once as the economy started to recover. The UK Government should continue to work towards the target of investing 2.5% of GDP in R&D, as set out in the Science and Innovation Framework 2004–2014.

14. It remains an urgent priority for the UK to respond to growing

international competition, in terms of both other nations’ investment in research and research performance (as measured by outputs, citations, and ability to recruit), and safeguarding past investment to ensure a sustainable research base in the future. The strong research performance of recent years will not be sufficient to sustain the UK’s international competitiveness and excellence without sustainable funding, particularly at a time where we must increase investment simply to maintain our standing. Without continued

6 The Royal Society. The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity. March 2010. 7 The Scientific Century, pp.31-32. 8 This policy was successfully pursued by Finland and Korea in response to economic crises in the 90s. (Policy responses to the economic crisis: Investing for long-term growth. OECD, 2009.) 9 Despite the investment of recent years, the UK is still under-spending on research: total spending on R&D declined from 2% of GDP in 1991 to 1.8% in 2008, whilst Government spending on R&D declined from 0.3% of GDP in 1991 to 0.2% in 2008. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. SET Statistics 2010. 10 The Scientific Century, pp.28-34. 11 “This is an area, regardless of the cuts which have to be made in other areas of an economy, which needs investment. We have China breathing down our necks; we have the US far ahead of us...I think it’s disappointing ... that what is being done in France and Germany is not being replicated in the UK.” Financial Times, 6 February 2011. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b9d6e20-323d-11e0-a820-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1G0ouT319

3

investment, the UK will start to lose ground and the excellence of our research base will be undermined.

The risks of under-investment 15. The importance of investment in science and innovation for long-term economic

growth points to the necessity of maintaining international competitiveness; this requires a long-term commitment to sustainable investment in science and research. We strongly endorse the recommendation of the Royal Society that the Government should outline spending plans over a fifteen year period to provide stability and a commitment to maintaining sustainable investment for the research base.

16. The consequences of under-investment are extremely serious. The current

settlement already prompts significant concerns about universities’ ability to recruit and retain the most talented staff, maintain breadth of disciplines, and invest in equipment and infrastructure. These are all vital in order to sustain the UK’s ability to undertake globally competitive research. In particular, we do not yet know the extent of the impact of constrained funding on the next generation of researchers, many of whom are now going abroad or leaving research. Without adequate support for younger researchers, the UK research base will crumble. There is a serious risk that the years of investment in the UK research base will be undone if spending on research remains reduced for too long.

17. We recognise that the Research Councils and other funding bodies have

committed to investment in research capital – including infrastructure, people and skills – despite the reduction in overall spending, and this is welcome. However, such investment remains challenged and the potential deleterious consequences of the cuts to capital funding should not be under-estimated.

The importance of cross-disciplinary capacity 18. A particular concern is the impact of the spending review allocations on UK

research excellence across a breadth of disciplines – a major strength of the UK research base. Over-specialisation or neglect of particular disciplines risks seriously damaging the UK’s research base and our long-term capacity for globally competitive research and international collaboration.

19. Research is increasingly a cross-disciplinary and global endeavour which

makes sustaining breadth even more important. For example, research in the social sciences and the arts and humanities underpins many areas of research in scientific disciplines12 as well as generating important insights in its own right and providing the foundation for our understanding of the world, and many technological innovations cannot be fully understood or implemented without the benefits of insights from the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, sustaining excellence across disciplines maximises the UK’s capacity to benefit from global research and “absorb the fruits of the best research, wherever it may have taken place”13.

12 The Academy of Medical Sciences has emphasised the importance of 'a multi-disciplinary approach to health research', including the social sciences and humanities (Academy of Medical Sciences, Letter to Lord Drayson, 30 March 2009); likewise the Wellcome Trust provides significant funding for research into the medical humanities and public engagement in recognition of their importance for promoting understanding of medical history and ethics and public engagement with science. 13 The Royal Society. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration n the 21st century. March 2010. p.105

4

20. Ensuring the UK retains the capacity for specialisation across a board spectrum of disciplines also ensures our ability to undertake cross-disciplinary research, which is essential to address major global challenges. The UCL Grand Challenges14 thus seek to harness research and expertise from disciplines across the university to tackle complex global problems, stimulating cross-disciplinary research collaboration to address aspects of challenges facing humanity in each of our Grand Challenges: Global Health; Sustainable Cities; Intercultural Interaction; and Human Wellbeing.

21. Cross-disciplinary research enables the consideration of problems and their

possible solution from multiple perspectives. We argue that such cross-disciplinary collaboration can only occur fully in multi-faculty research-intensive institutions that are able to bring a range of expertise to bear on complex problems. This provides novel and unique insights beyond what any individual discipline could generate: more significant outcomes can result when experts from different disciplines act in concert, enabling the synthesising and contrasting of knowledge, perspectives and methodologies of different disciplines – and ultimately, the judicious application of knowledge.

Research collaboration 22. Limited resources for higher education and research funding require serious

consideration of how funding can best sustain excellence and a world-class research base. It is likely that a tight funding climate will mean, as well as fewer resources, greater concentration of research funding on centres of research excellence in research-intensive institutions that offer critical mass. We would suggest that increased collaboration between institutions will be necessary both to rise to the challenge of limited funds, and to exploit the full strengths of the UK research base.

23. By combining collective expertise, institutional-level collaboration can expand

capability and capacity; enhance research strengths; and bring talented individuals and research groups together. Collaboration also allows the opportunity to share expensive facilities and equipment, develop joint grant applications, make joint research appointments and undertake joint supervision of doctoral students, and facilitate novel cross-disciplinary research. We would suggest that this model should be encouraged where possible and where there are clear mutual benefits to institutions and to the UK.

24. We would also suggest that increased collaboration between research-

intensive institutions and other ‘islands of excellence’ will be vital to ensure that the ‘islands’ have access to sustainable funding via research-intensive ‘hubs’. We believe that this would allow the most efficient use of resources and sustain concentrations of excellence whilst ensuring the dynamism of the research base and making the most of all the UK's research talent. Such a model would ensure support is maintained for excellent researchers wherever they are based, without risking the dilution of resources that could undermine our leading institutions or damage the UK's research infrastructure. It would also enable institutions to work collectively to share complementary strengths whilst pursuing distinct missions.

25. UCL has taken a strategic decision to actively pursue research collaborations

with other institutions, both with research-intensive peers and with smaller institutions in the south-east region, as well as collaboration in equipment and

14 www.ucl.ac.uk/grand-challenges

5

postgraduate training. Further details of our strategy and activity regarding collaboration is available on request.

26. We would urge funders to consider how they can best incentivise and facilitate

collaboration between institutions, including a model of investing in regional research ‘hubs’ with an imperative to collaborate with other institutions; or establishing a competitive research collaboration funding stream for universities. We would recommend a specific funding initiative to support research collaboration between universities with 'pockets of excellence' and well-resourced research-intensive universities, to be implemented within the current spending review period. Funding should be awarded on a competitive basis to pairs of institutions that demonstrate complementary research strengths, a vision for developing research collaboration aimed at generating shared programmes, facilities and training, and a willingness to both initiate and sustain it at a strategic level. We suggest that this could be delivered at a cost of £450,000 per collaboration over three years.

International collaboration 27. The imperative of collaboration also applies internationally. Recent years have

seen a significant growth in publications from emerging economies and internationalisation of research activities15 coupled with increasing co-authorship of scientific articles16, 17. The Royal Society has noted “the emergence of an increasingly multi-polar, networked system of global science and innovation” which places an increasing imperative on the UK to maintain its research capacity in order to remain a partner of choice for international collaboration, as well as to maintain absorptive capacity. Collaboration across international borders is increasingly necessary to address major global challenges and participation in such collaboration is vital to ensure the UK remains a global economic and research power.

28. UCL is pursuing a number of international initiatives to develop collaborations.

These include:

• The UCL–Yale collaboration, also involving UCL Partners and Yale-New Haven Hospital, which aims to improve global health through scientific research, clinical and educational collaboration, in recognition that more can be achieved by working together than by each institution working alone. By involving both the universities and their partner hospitals, the alliance provides opportunities to exchange best practice, analyse clinical research and clinical care, and explore healthcare delivery in diverse settings.

• The UCL School of Energy & Resources in Adelaide, established by UCL

in partnership with the Government of South Australia. The school offers a two-year MSc in Energy & Resources, as well as a portfolio of executive education programmes, and is developing research activity.

• Establishing a UCL campus in Doha, to provide research programmes and

15 The OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009 shows an increasing number of inventions made abroad. 16 OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009. Around 22% of scientific articles had international co-authorship in 2007 - three times greater than in 1985. 17 In 2007, almost half (47%) of the UK’s scientific publications had a non-UK co-author in 2007 (compared to 33% in 1999) and that the citation impact of such publications, particularly with Germany, France and the US, is significantly higher than the UK average (itself 1.5 times the global average. Evidence Ltd (2009). International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK.

6

masters degrees in archaeology, conservation and museum studies as well as a wide range of bespoke training courses for museum and heritage professionals; teaching at Qatar University; outreach programmes involving cultural heritage teaching for school children; and research of relevance to the Gulf and to the Arab world more broadly.

• A partnership with the Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan to

deliver a foundation year at the NUA and a programme in English for academic purposes starting in September 2010, to enable talented students to meet entry requirements for bachelor degrees.

• UCL’s MoU with the Max Planck Society builds on already-extensive

collaborations to further strengthen links between the two institutions. This will enable UCL to work in partnership with a leading research organisation, fostering international collaboration and combining our significant expertise to deliver leading-edge research.

Research funding mechanisms

29. UCL continues to have concerns over the efficiency of current mechanisms employed by the Research Councils for the allocation of research funding, which place a significant burden on universities. We welcome moves to introduce longer, larger grants, and target more funding to investigators rather than specific research projects in order to reduce bureaucracy and provide greater freedom in pursuit of research. We would encourage the Research Councils to continue to explore ways of reducing the bureaucracy and burden of their funding allocation process.

30. Looking to the future, we would suggest that the Research Councils should

take more responsibility for joined-up strategic planning across the research base as a whole at the national level, in terms of capacity and infrastructure, whilst universities should have greater flexibility through an enhanced block grant to make strategic decisions and investments, recognising that researchers themselves are best placed to identify the future direction of research.

Conclusion 31. The outcome for the science and research budget following the Spending

Review was not as bad as had been feared. However, the reduction in funding still presents major challenges for the UK research base and for universities. The longer-term consequences, as well as the short-term impact, of the spending review must be considered. Sustaining the UK’s research base must remain a priority for Government, particularly in the context of fierce international competition and the increasingly global nature of research. Increasing collaboration between institutions is likely to play an increasingly important role in sustaining the UK research base and helping to alleviate some of the reduction in funding; maintaining international competitiveness; and addressing global challenges.

32. We therefore recommend:

• Increasing investment in research as soon as the public finances start to recover. In particular, the block grant should be sustained and enhanced.

• The Government should set out a long-term strategic framework for research for at least the next ten to fifteen years.

7

8

• A specific funding initiative to support collaboration in the UK between research-intensive hubs and groups in smaller institutions.

Office of the Vice-Provost (Research) University College London 20 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Rolls-Royce plc (SR 11)

Declaration of Interest 1. Rolls-Royce is a global business providing integrated power systems for use on land,

at sea and in the air. The Group has a balanced business portfolio with leading market positions, developing products that add value for our customers, improve efficiency and reduce environmental impact. In 2010 Rolls-Royce invested £923m in R&D1, approximately two-thirds of this in the UK. The Company is widely and consistently recognised as a leading practitioner of truly collaborative industry-academic research2,3.

2. Rolls-Royce primarily operates two highly successful models for academic collaboration: its world-wide network of University Technology Centres (UTCs), and its partnerships in Advanced Manufacturing Research Centres (AxRCs). These partnerships have consistently delivered advanced technologies that can be traced through to many of today’s world leading products. The majority of the Company’s fundamental research is carried out through collaboration with these centres, making them critical to Rolls-Royce. Additionally, Rolls-Royce has significant relationships with other research centres around the world, including National research centres in Japan, Singapore, China, Germany, and the USA.

Experience of Rolls-Royce in leading Science and Research

3. A consistent strategy of developing long-term relationships has provided Rolls-Royce with close contact with world-class academic institutions, provided stability for the researchers, and given the Company and the academic institutions access to a wealth of talent and creativity to help protect competitiveness into the future. This has fostered an increase in successful collaborations, allowed a more strategic approach to be taken by all parties in planning for future challenges, and encouraged the development of skills and exceptional talent through a challenging and stimulating environment.

4. Successful, leading concentrations of research such as these provide the UK with an ideal platform for playing a major role in international research projects, offering significant opportunities to exploit the results. A long-term, focused approach to ensure stability has been essential.

Response to the Funding Allocation

5. The Company welcomes the Government’s general protection of the science budget, as announced in the December 2010 report4, particularly in respect of the focus on Engineering and related skills through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Learned Societies. The cross-cutting nature of Science & Engineering has the added benefit of underpinning and facilitating development in other essential sciences in which the UK has strength.

6. It is critical that the Government continues to invest in key elements of the country’s research infrastructure if it is to maintain its position as an attractive place for business to carry out research. This investment should be targeted on those areas of technology where the country has a world-leading position and on those institutions with a proven track record of excellence and delivering impact, or on emerging technologies where the UK has the business infrastructure and skill-base to become world leading.

1 Rolls-Royce Group plc Annual Report 2010 2 Ingenious Britain, a report by Sir James Dyson, March 2010 3 Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report, HM Treasury, December

2003 4 “The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/14, Investing in World-Class Science and Research”, Dept for Business Innovation & Skills, December 2010.

7. Public funding for research and support for pull-through of research output promotes private investment and growth, and stimulates additional inward investment by foreign companies. It is clear that many of the other world economies are protecting or increasing their investment in research for just such reasons. Businesses have to date invested in UK research because it is recognised as amongst the best in the world. However, other countries are becoming increasingly competitive and UK industry now has more choice than ever before. Many Governments, for example Singapore and Germany, are investing heavily to develop their research capability and providing attractive incentives for Companies to move their R&D efforts. It should be noted that much of this investment is based on a long-term national ‘vision’ that stretches well beyond a ten-year horizon.

8. The Technology Strategy Board and the Research Councils should continue to be encouraged to work closely together. The TSB has an essential role in promoting collaboration and encouraging effective pull-through of research outputs to industry. The Research Councils provide the steady pipeline of talent and fundamental research. Therefore, both the TSB and the Research Councils have an equally important part to play in ensuring that the UK remains competitive in the long term. We believe that there is a clear case that funding to TSB should be significantly increased, but it is not suggested that this funding is simply diverted from other elements of the research base..

9. It must be noted that simultaneously with these settlements the English RDAs are being disbanded. The RDAs did much to support access to the science base by SMEs and to provide the capital support for larger collaborative research activities in conjunction with the TSB. There seem to be no plans to provide additional budget to TSB to allow them to fulfil these functions going forward.

10. Reduction in Capital budgets, particularly as applied to the Research Councils where capital appears to be outside of the ring-fence, is an understandable consequence of fiscal restraint. In the short term it is reasonable to expect efficiency savings to be realised by the shared use of facilities, both large and small. However, over time, the capability that the UK can offer will deteriorate as equipment ages, and will eventually erode not only the ability to carry out leading edge research but also the ability to attract and develop new talent. It is recommended that the Research Councils and other public sector stakeholders be given appropriate flexibility in their funding settlements such that, in the medium term, they are in a position to take action before the problem becomes acute.

11. The EPSRC’s key themes of Delivering Impact, Shaping Capability, and Developing Leaders, along with its efforts to consult widely on the plan for delivery, are appreciated. However, it is inevitable that some hard choices will be required, as the settlement still represents a contraction in real terms. There will be those who will see this as a threat rather than an opportunity to concentrate on their key strengths, and understandably seek to defend their position. Concentration of effort on the key elements of a long-term strategy, which has clearly articulated ambition, vision and intent, will be required to avoid distraction from those elements that are critical to the UK. A stable environment with consistent funding mechanisms that recognises the importance of research is essential.

12. There is no question that the quality of research must remain internationally competitive. It also has to be recognised that the traditional “outcomes” of a research project are not the only measure of success, and indeed for business they can be argued as secondary to whether the research has real impact. Research Councils and the Learned Societies have an important role in promoting the topics deemed to be strategically important to the UK.

13. The dual funding system in the UK is recognised as a strength, but an increase in the proportion allocated to the Business QR stream should be strongly considered. This would allow due recognition of those universities that take active

steps to foster improved links with industry. This is not to say that blue-skies, purely curiosity-driven research is not valued, but simply to recognise that working with business is not somehow less important, or less academically challenging. Apparent misunderstanding of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), intended to replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 2014, has not helped to shift this perception, and we would encourage the public sector stakeholders to continue their efforts in conveying this message.

14. It is essential in any response to current financial constraints, that the numbers of PhDs in engineering and science subjects are not significantly reduced. However, a greater emphasis on quality, rather than quantity, would be an appropriate response. The Company recognises the critical importance of doctorate research, both PhD and EngD, with over 350 Doctorate students supported by Rolls-Royce through its UTC network, the majority in the UK. This number has increased, not declined, over recent times. This reflects the importance we place on this level of research, but it would not be possible without the surrounding infrastructure of the existing UK science base. Many of these people go on to take up positions of significant influence, not just in the academic field, but also in business, politics, teaching, leadership, and so on.

15. Finally, Rolls-Royce recognises the drive for further efficiency savings in the research and higher education sector. The Company operates in a highly competitive market, and is acutely aware of the need to remain cost-competitive whilst simultaneously delivering leading technology. The introduction of Full Economic Costing around 2005 allowed the Universities to better understand the cost of their research activities, and ensure they were placed on a sustainable footing. However, the cost of carrying out research, and the price that the external market can bear, must be kept in proportion. The CBI has indicated that the cost of post-doctoral research in the UK is amongst the most expensive in the world5, and this is likely to be having an adverse effect on where industry focuses its research efforts. The quality of UK research may for some time prevent any mass exodus; however, the increasing competition from overseas is not to be underestimated, and we therefore generally support initiatives to reduce the overhead cost associated with research in a sustainable manner and increase value for money to industrial research funders. Savings from such exercises should be reinvested into the higher education sector, with those Universities that demonstrate improvements in efficiency being allowed the flexibility to reinvest in line with their strategies.

Conclusion

16. A strong and vibrant research base is essential to the success of UK companies competing in highly competitive global markets. Successful models of academic-industry collaboration exist, and those pursued by Rolls-Royce serve as examples; there are of course others. It is possible to deliver high-quality research that simultaneously has a direct impact on business performance, is recognised as world leading, and produces exceptionally talented people.

17. Promoting stable and long term partnerships that fit with national strategies can lead to a high degree of success.

18. Consistent, focused research investment by the public sector can have a disproportionately large economic impact, encouraging investment and growth, and maintaining a robust infrastructure, upon which UK business and academia can flourish.

5 “Stronger Together, Businesses and Universities in Turbulent Times” – A report from the CBI Higher Education Task Force, p.18, Sept 2009

19. The Company therefore welcomes the Government’s protection of much of the science budget, but recognises that it still presents some significant challenges to the higher education sector and the associated public sector bodies.

20. In times of fiscal constraint there needs to be more focus in our research base, more emphasis on funding those with a proven track record, and a refreshed balance between long-term, fundamental research and research with nearer term economic impact.

21. Organisations that demonstrate a commitment to achieving these aims should be recognised and supported.

Yours faithfully On behalf of Rolls-Royce Group Professor R J Parker, FREng Director of Research & Technology 21 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Professor George Lees (SR 12)

1. Background and Context of my Evidence

1.1 No need for Spending cuts in MultiDisciplinary research or in the Arts and Humanities. We have the best healthcare system in the world but are about to engage in a free‐market experiment akin to the one the banking sector pursued recently based on flawed ideology (which cost the world an estimated $11,900 billion pounds up to 2009). The NHS costs approximately £102 billion pounds/annum but we (the world) had already spent $3000 billion in armed responses in Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2009. In stark contrast, The total Wellcome trust commitment to charitable research funding for 2010 was around £0.68 billion and UK government funding on R&D was around 12 billion Euros ( at least back in 2007 before we entered the austerity environs): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS‐32‐10‐225/EN/KS‐32‐10‐225‐EN.PDF). Scientists who find themselves in a reductionist funding rut should try and find the time to look out from their narrow field at a broader horizon and visit the web site of Professor Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/ (and hit the search terms war criminals) to impress upon our political leaders how they urgently need to objectively look, with an International and Historical perspective, at the costs and likely reputational outcomes of current policy. With this easy to obtain perspective, I have no doubt that policy change will quickly emerge and Britain’s science, technology and medicine can once again lead the world with common goals of research‐led peace, prosperity, good health and wellbeing. Scanning this horizon of perspective is fascinating and the websites of Professor Rosling (http://www.gapminder.org/) and David McCandless (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/) show graphically how easy it is to restore morale in UK science(by learning from Imperialist history since its inception in Greece) and the vital importance of providing education and scholarly research to create a sustainable educated world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w with research at the helm, supported by visionary & popular political policy makers and enlightened academics. These statisticians working with governmental advisors like Professor Sir Michael Marmot (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wgq0l )have the capacity to inspire career researchers at both ends of the very very steep funding ladder and to inform justified policy change.

1.2 I have a lifelong interest in multidisciplinary research across the spectrum of Physiology, Neuroscience, Pharmacology, Toxicology, Anaesthesia, Medical and Pharmacy education, and Intensive care. My involvement in/ collaborations with industry have helped to develop new drugs and pesticides (which are important in treating drug resistant epilepsy, neuropathic pain). In toxicology we need a flexible workforce in science who can take on big issues when they occur and this is important in food production, crop‐pest control, food safety, bio‐security, and many other fields in public health. It is a thrill to be even a minor part in productive teams like this. To succeed the teams need specialists in all types of science from Clinical and Social to Cellular and Molecular. Britain has expertise in all the areas but for a variety of reasons the PHARMACEUTICAL industry (a major driver for the European economy) are leaving our shores and this is a threat to multidisciplinary science, job creation and technological productivity. Taking ideas from lab bench to bedside is virtually impossible without expert multi‐disciplinary input (no point in getting excited about a new drug that works in a test tube unless it is formulated effectively and can get into target

1

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-32-10-225/EN/KS-32-10-225-EN.PDF

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-32-10-225/EN/KS-32-10-225-EN.PDF

http://www.chomsky.info/

http://www.gapminder.org/

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wgq0l

organs). So this type of joined up scientific thinking is vital if the UK is to succeed in practical, goal‐driven science.

1.3 The UK have become besotted with impact and league tables and this, I think, has already been recognised to be damaging by HEFCE and the devolved research councils. It leads inevitably to ultra‐expert superstars in relatively narrow fields....it is dangerous to broaden your horizons or take a risk in case one loses that “superstar” mantle that makes you fundable and gets you noticed. So there are no real incentives to think outside of the reductionist silo. Even the “one‐stop” web site that I visited before drafting this was encouraging contributors not to tick more than one of the specialist boxes. I wanted to tick the social sciences and politics (because I believe that if you are to succeed in life, you need to learn from the past and apply this in the future as a policy maker, see 1.4) but these crucial topics have disappeared from the research map and any sort of academic or objective critique on the banking collapse in the published literature (around the Greenspan ideology) is virtually non‐existent. We have opted to give taxpayers money as “bail‐outs” to struggling European economies and know that by charging 6% interest (without consulting the taxpayers) that this is going to cripple the participating countries with all the downstream effects on migration and social turbulence/open revolt and similar pernicious interest rates are applied tom development funding in the third world (i.e. perpetuate the problem for global taxpayers that is being used to encourage banking leaders and their tiny group of shareholders to think that they can respin this malicious web without resistance from our effete and corrupt democratic system) . Scientists need to remember their childhood dreams and mobilise outside the reductionist silos to fix our simple problems http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ So forgive, forget old grievances and the perpetual need for a fast buck to drive every human enterprise and let us move back to peaceful prosperity (and restore the right to childhood dreams for future generations) .

1.4 The funding for research in the UK is good for these “narrow” specialists, referred to above, but with some joined up thinking between scientists and ministers we can change the prospect of making a bigger difference for patients as well as UK & Global prosperity and welfare. It needs an injection of strategic thinking from the politicians and the sciences across ALL of the boxes that we were not allowed to tick and I know that the British Pharmacological Society (BPS) and the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) are constructively looking for solutions to these immediate problems for UK technology and our economy. Harsh ministerial policies in these areas have created a crisis of morale in the life and physical sciences areas but in social sciences and the arts, research funding has been strangled almost completely. Well‐rounded citizens with interests in the arts, history and culture are invaluable societal props in times of austerity and many unemployed or underfunded researchers run the risk of incurring mental illness if they have been led into the sharp end of a funding silo that is no longer a priority for research funders or ministerial goals.

1.5 Within the NHS, University and Polytechnic sector there is a lack of cohesion and strategic thinking particularly on workforce development needs and new fee structures to encourage participation all the way through to completion of a higher degree. With a four year Honours degree costing £36,000 to complete, MSc and PhD enrolments are almost certain to slump (but see 1.8) The “science is vital” map and the reductionist trends suggest that there is no joined up thinking and that short term leadership and policy making (in Universities and in Government) is generating most of the problems which are being aired by scientists, administrators and technical staff across the nation. Charismatic HODs, Divisional Heads or Deans raise funds in their silo and starve rival

2


departments of funds. Other leadership teams close workshops, shed skilled technicians and make senior staff redundant before they can mentor young researchers, technicians or administrators. This very quickly strangles technological innovation e.g. making prototypes or the repair of essential research instrumentation. The concept that research kit and patented prototypes can come from a catalogue is a fundamental flaw. All of these concepts are also under threat because of the fear of litigation if your radical new prototype or invention causes personal injury (so we are increasingly led to the catalogue where a corporate supplier underwrites the risk)...this is not technological innovation it is decay.

2. Simple Solutions

2.1 It is crucial to bring this historical perspective into this crucial and timely debate and remind the ministers (and the exchequer) that they are in a narrow policy path too. Insist on a ppt presentation and show them graphically what our science budget is compared on the billion dollarogram (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/)........which graphically illustrates the disproportionate knee jerk spending on civil defence (all of which is taking place overseas, an expensive paradox) at great cost to the treasury and to our children who are to inherit our overdraft (but have no pensions to look forward to). The cynical deployment of these responses (despite electoral pledges) has left UK and US science in a sad state of decline (even atrophy) and is opening the floodgates of competition for China, India and the Pacific regions (where the vast majority of post‐docs now come from). So we are concurrently eroding our research productivity and our UK training base whilst continually extending the burden of Debt at the treasury and for our own students.

2. 2 UK scientists need to find time to see that our crisis is just a paradoxical clash of priorities. The massive amounts of taxpayers money which underpins interventionist foreign policy and armed aggression overseas can be democratically allocated to research and development (across the disciplines at home and abroad). The Universities have greedily enrolled children of dictators only to send them home in times of trouble...it would be more enlightened, surely, to speak calmly and constructively to these alumni and their peers and try and show them the benefits of peace, democracy and staying on for a self‐funded higher degree (i.e to implant by social networking and open peer‐pressure our “developed” society into these troubled regions). The cross faculty fiefdoms should also put their weapons back in the chest and work together to achieve an integrated and expert multi‐disciplinary society driven by technological discovery and development. Insight into the funding/budgetary statistics will show how trivial these issues are to reverse: assuming we retain democratic means of expressing our constructive wishes to our political leaders (we are in a similar position to the dictators children in this respect...completely in the hands of those who promised a quality product and a lifetime of happiness and a long productive career). Britain’s war chest is admittedly much smaller than that in the USA (see Mccandless web sitehttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/) but both Nations have flexible economies that can switch to caring support in the developing countries and at home (where the pounds will be back in our pockets and available for R&D rather than perpetuation of violence)

2.3 Since President Kennedy’s untimely death peace has been an unattainable solution for researchers across the world but I have an even more radical and difficult concept for you. In times of austerity all sectors of society should consider working a four day week. In Universities the benefits are clear cut (20% reduction of the tertiary education payroll budget can be ploughed into

3



4

research funding: particularly for young faculty and those brave enough to stay in the career researcher pool) This will create time for scholarly activity (out with those precious sabbaticals that only a few enlightened or prestigious Institutions can give to their staff), save jobs across all sectors and create the most important factor of all...TIME TO THINK, polish up your research grants, papers and give you time with the graduate students in the lab and by the sports field . Our selfish generation have imposed tuition fees and are now raising this burden for their own kids (VC’s should lead this: they get bigger salaries than our political leaders and this will be an inspirational gesture in the eyes of our young charges in teaching, research and career mentoring) Many will initially be shocked by this concept that we would take the pound from our pocket and throw it at the students and our own research activity but it is better than continuing to rip off our own children and grandchildren in the shameful way we have done so since 1984!

2.4 I would be happy to come and speak at Westminster on any of these issues. I am currently unemployed and have no political, commercial, religious or academic affiliation. What I DO HAVE is time to think after 30 frantic years in research and I thoroughly recommend the enlightenment that time (and a good life/work balance) can give to all UK and global citizens. If I do get a job I will be asking to work a four day week on principle. So it is easy to fix with transient austerity measures and UK researchers will once again lead innovation and the restoration of a peaceful prosperous global society: ENJOY

Professor George Lees PhD FRPharmS Honorary Chair School for Health, University of Durham UK)

25 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by The Royal Society (SR 13)

1. The Royal Society welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee’s important and timely inquiry into the health of the science and innovation system in the wake of last year’s Spending Review and the March 2011 Budget announcements. The Society has argued consistently over the last year that, whatever short-term measures are necessary, over the medium to longer term the UK must retain its scientific excellence, its leading scientists and the foreign investment they attract. Any cuts must be administered carefully so that they do not cause lasting damage and can be reversed when the public finances allow.

2. The Royal Society has welcomed the relative protection afforded to budgets for scientific research1. However,

we have also expressed concerns about cuts to key investments that threaten to destabilise the science and innovation system. It is still too early to say what the impact of these cuts will be, but we can offer some pointers towards issues of particular vulnerability.

3. There are a number of other current policy decisions which could have unpredictable impacts on the UK

research system, in particular in relation to reforms to higher education. It is unclear how these reforms might affect individual disciplines and institutions, or how they may alter the choices of future career cohorts.

4. Many impacts of recent funding settlements and other policy decisions will not be felt until we are well into the

Spending Review period. It will be important to identify how any adverse impacts might be addressed or reversed in future Spending Reviews.

Background 5. During the Spending Review process, the Society was one of seven bodies, alongside the British Academy, the

Royal Academy of Engineering, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Council for Science and Technology, the CBI and the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee, invited to advise on investments in science. Our submissions drew on our report, The Scientific Century2 published in March 2010. This report argued that Government’s continued investment in science is vital for sustainable economic growth by underpinning corporate R&D, training a skilled workforce and developing new products and services.

6. A first letter was sent from the President of the Royal Society to Adrian Smith FRS on 11 June 2010. This reiterated the argument and evidence from The Scientific Century in support of sustained funding for scientific research and called for maintenance of the dual-support mechanism for research funding.

7. A second letter followed the June 2010 emergency budget3, at which an average cut in public spending of 25%

across non-ringfenced departments was announced. The headline messages of this submission were:

a) Investment in science is vital for economic growth and international competitiveness. Our ability to attract the best talent and R&D investment is highly vulnerable to overseas competition.

b) Short-term budget cuts will put our long-term prosperity at risk. We oppose any budget cuts, but if necessary, they must be reversible, and followed by sustained investment once finances allow.

c) The UK should maintain its breadth of research, and prioritisation should remain in the hands of funding bodies and universities.

d) The balance of the current system (e.g. between Research Councils and quality-related (QR) funding) should be preserved where possible.

e) A 10% cash cut will be damaging but may be reversible, while a 20% cut will be catastrophic for the future of UK science and economic growth.

1 http://royalsociety.org/news/spending-review-2010-response/ 2 http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/ 3 http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/spending-review-submission/

http://royalsociety.org/news/spending-review-2010-response/

http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/

http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/spending-review-submission/

8. The Spending Review announced flat cash for much of the existing science budget. David Willets, Minister for

Universities and Science, appeared on radio on the afternoon of the spending review praising the science and research community for their role in this good result: “The scientific community has assembled very powerful evidence, such as in that Royal Society report, The Scientific Century, about what the benefits are of scientific research... that’s really strong evidence and we deployed it.”

9. But this level of funding is still a cut in real terms – greater than 10% over the four years of the Spending

Review period. In the Society’s July 2010 Spending Review submission to Adrian Smith FRS (then Director General, Science and Research, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) the Royal Society argued that such a cut would be ‘painful but manageable’. The protected budget includes funding from the UK’s Research Councils and funding for research allocated through higher education funding councils. It no longer includes capital expenditure, which has been subject to much deeper cuts, putting strain on the UK’s ability to maintain international subscriptions and large scale facilities. Structural changes to higher education funding for teaching – in response to the Browne review – are also likely to impact on research. Following rapid and disruptive changes to funding models, universities are entering a period of great uncertainty. University scientists are not just researchers. They may also be teachers, supervisors, administrators or entrepreneurs. There are likely to be unintended consequences for scientific research and training, which will demand close observation in the coming months.

10. Following the Spending Review announcement in October 2010, we were subsequently asked to comment on

how this budget might be divided up. The Society declined to offer detailed advice on allocations. Our 11 November submission4 described our ongoing concerns with capital investment, university funding and departmental research and reiterated our recommendation that the balance between Research Councils and HEFCE’s QR funding should remain the same. We did not feel that, given new and existing uncertainties within the higher education sector and the apparent productivity of current arrangements, there was any reason to alter the balance of funding between the two legs of the dual support system. To do so would risk destabilising parts of universities that are particularly dependent on either stream.

11. We also expressed concern about the distribution of capital investments for research. In the short-term, cuts to

capital expenditure will present acute problems for those Research Councils that are committed to long-term capital projects. In the long-term, while cuts to infrastructure are less visible than cuts to jobs and student numbers, they can be just as damaging to the UK’s research base. We know from a similar trend in the 1980s that cuts to labs and equipment can be expensive to reverse if left for too long. We therefore urged that capital investment is prioritised as soon as the public finances improve.

12. We expressed our concern about the research expenditure of government departments. Although Sir John Beddington has improved BIS’s oversight of departmental R&D, the long-term trend of decline demands careful observation. We welcome the ongoing review of departmental R&D budgets being undertaken jointly by Sir John and Sir Nicholas Macpherson (HM Treasury) and look forward to its conclusions. Parts of the research base have built up strong links with particular departments. Cuts to budgets will put university departments and possibly higher education institutions at risk while also reducing the UK’s strategic research capacity in key areas. Departmental R&D and the Public Sector Research Establishments have enormous potential to complement other parts of the research base and provide demonstrable economic and public value. There is a danger that Research Councils are expected to compensate for cuts to other funding streams, which will put pressure on their existing programmes.

4 http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/follow-up-spending-review/

http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/follow-up-spending-review/

Research Council allocations and capital expenditure 13. Budgets for individual Research Councils and Funding Councils were announced on 20 December 2010. The

picture of UK science funding looks similar to previous years, and we received some more clarity on Government priorities for science funding, including emphases on promoting the impact of research, supporting economic growth, concentration of resources in centres of excellence, developing cross-council research programmes and delivering efficiency savings. Medical Research was given a boost with rising budgets for the MRC and capital investment for the new UKCMRI.

14. Cuts to capital spending in other areas will, however, be difficult to manage. While these cuts may be

optimistically viewed as delays to new infrastructure on some projects, in other areas this will affect the maintenance and usability of existing facilities, with knock-on effects on research and technician staff numbers.

15. Budget restrictions are likely to force higher education institutes and Research Councils to focus on ‘core

business’. This prioritisation runs the risk of squeezing out some of the more ‘creative’ and cutting-edge activities which have often fostered profitable innovation. Funding for interdisciplinary research, public engagement, international collaboration, and PhD studentships are all at disproportionately high risk of being cut to preserve the 'priority' core. Such changes, coupled with the drive for efficiency savings, would alter the landscape of UK research quite markedly.

16. The Society welcomed the £100 million of new capital expenditure for science announced in the March 2011

Budget alongside the Government’s Plan for Growth, and expressed a hope that it would be a first step in plugging the gap in funding for equipment and facilities.

Global comparisons 17. The UK has traditionally been a hub for international science, but we are in an increasingly competitive market

place.5 The global economic downturn saw a range of countries choosing to use stimulus packages to invest in science and innovation. The USA made substantial extra research funds available, Germany increased the education and research budget by €12billion by 2013, and France invested €35billion in the knowledge and green economy.

18. Post stimulus policies are now being forged. The Royal Society has been made aware of the difficult situations

for scientific communities in certain countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) faced with significant cuts to their science budgets. However, the trend in those nations that are the UK’s closest competitors and collaborators in research has been to maintain support. US science investments fared relatively well during the tense budgetary negotiations in April 2011, although the trajectory set by President Obama’s administration to rapidly scale up spending now looks doubtful.

19. In the emerging ‘BRIC’ nations, commitments to science and innovation investment remain strong and are

increasing. China remains committed to increasing its spend on R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2020, at a time while GDP is still increasing at a swifter rate than most other parts of the world. President Medvedev has promised increased investment for Russian science. President Rousseff’s ‘Blue Book’ confirmed in January 2011 Brazil’s target of reaching 2.5% of GDP spend on R&D by 2022 (although the 2011 science budget was actually a reduction on the previous year). In India the 2011/12 science budget was increased by 14% on the previous year.

20. The EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 2010 showed that in 2009 in Europe and the USA leading companies’

investment in R&D decreased, while it increased by over 20% in India and 40% in China. The emerging economies are increasingly viable competitors for industrial investment in R&D; certain countries, notably

5 See http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/knowledge-networks-nations/ for recent data and analysis

http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/knowledge-networks-nations/

Singapore and South Korea, have specific policies to proactively attract researchers and R&D investment to their shores.

21. While UK investment in science falls in real terms over the coming years, it will be important to ensure that

any retrenchment in the UK’s global scientific position is reversible. Brain Circulation 22. One of the scientific community’s most pressing concerns at a time of budget cuts is the possibility of a new

brain drain. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee pointed to this issue in its consultation with the Vice-Chancellors of six leading UK research universities in 2010.6

23. Looking internationally, there is a trend for elite scientists to migrate towards countries with higher R&D

spending. But this hides a more important trend towards faster brain circulation. Scientists and innovators move increasingly easily between countries in search of opportunities.

24. It is therefore important that the flow of talent is not interrupted by immigration rules. Changes to visa

regulations threaten to prevent the immigration of scientists such as Konstantin Novoselov who, with Royal Society funding, moved to the UK, to Manchester University, where his work with Andre Geim recently won the Nobel Prize for physics. The Royal Society is currently discussing with the UK Border Agency how new regulations relating to Tiers 1 and 2 may be improved so that they do not damage the UK science base.

Monitoring the health of science and innovation in the UK 25. The Royal Society has publicly welcomed the Government’s continued support for excellent scientific

research. But we are in no doubt that, as science and innovation budgets continue to rise in other parts of the world, our situation is precarious. The coming years will be difficult for the UK science and innovation system. If current squeezes on budgets are a short-term necessity, we look forward to increased investment as public finances improve.

26. The announced closure of Pfizer’s large R&D facility in Sandwich reminds us that talent and investment are increasingly mobile in the competitive global economy. Over the coming years, there will be a clear need for close monitoring of the inevitable changes to UK science. In particular, Government must be alert to unintended consequences of policy and budgetary actions. Above all, changes must be reversible to ensure that intellectual and physical capital and the opportunities that come with them are not permanently lost.

27. The Royal Society will play its part in maintaining a close watch on the vitality of the science and innovation

system in the coming years. The Society’s Council has approved a series of ‘Healthchecks’- targeted pieces of work to keep abreast of trends, changes and emerging risks in the science and innovation system. We will write to the Committee and the Minister with fuller details as the project takes shape.

28. In recent debates, the UK research community has been consistent in stressing the importance of a broad and

diverse research base. The 2010 Spending Review achieved a cross Party consensus on the importance of research as a whole, rather than resorting to trade-offs between the STEM and arts and humanities, or basic versus applied research. The Royal Society applauds this, and hopes that this perspective can be maintained throughout this Parliament and beyond.

29. Although the impacts of the last Spending Review are yet to emerge, it is not too early to think strategically

about the next Spending Review. Despite the relative protection afforded to scientific research, there have been few clear signs from the Government about a long-term vision for science and innovation. A clear statement of

6 Letter from Lord Krebs, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, to the Rt Hon David Willetts MP http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Researchfunding/LtrBIS220910.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Researchfunding/LtrBIS220910.pdf

intent will help the UK is to demonstrate and fulfil its ambitions to maintain scientific leadership and attract the best scientists, innovators and research-intensive companies.

The Royal Society 25 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (SR 14)

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee’s consultation on the Science and Research Budget Allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 47,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. The RSC has a duty under its Royal Charter "to serve the public interest" by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and it is in this spirit that this submission is made. RSC Response to the Science and Technology Select Committee consultation on

the science and research budget allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15 The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 47,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. The RSC has a duty under its Royal Charter "to serve the public interest" by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and it is in this spirit that this submission is made. The chemical sciences lie at the heart of the multi-disciplinary research needed to tackle global issues. Chemistry research supports 6 million jobs and enables the UK to generate £258 billion each year, or 21% of our GDP. The RSC believes that the strong case for investment in science and technology necessitates a long-term national strategy for the chemical sciences. The BIS strategy contrasts heavily with our global competitors such as China, France, Germany and the USA, who even in times of austerity are increasing investment in science and technology. The RSC has the following comments to make:

• Cuts to the teaching grants will be detrimental to the quality of education and training.

• A Chemistry degree costs in the region of £10,000 per year to teach, which is

unlikely to be covered even with £9,000 tuition fees.

• Chemistry departments have already made significant efficiency savings. The demand for more efficiency savings could potentially compromise the quality of departmental teaching and research: unless there is a coherent strategy to

cluster activities around strategic need alongside developing centres of excellence.

• Deficits in teaching and research activity in UK chemistry departments may

increase from current levels. In 2007-2008 UK Chemistry departments operated on average with a 10% teaching deficit and with a 35.8% research deficit.

• The focus on strategic priorities or grand challenges must not weaken support

for fundamental research.

• Cuts to quality-related (QR) funding may result in less fundamental research and fewer development opportunities for early career researchers.

• Reductions in operation time at central Science and Technology Facilities

Council (STFC) facilities will have a detrimental effect on multidisciplinary research.

• For several years, chemistry has been awarded the highest number of Project

Studentships – the removal of this funding immediately reduces the number of PhD students in the chemical sciences.

• The current focus on excellence without an underlying regional strategy has

the potential to create regions where there is no provision of the chemical sciences at an appropriate level.

Teaching Grants 1. The RSC believes that reductions in funding for both the recurrent teaching grant

and the teaching capital grant will be detrimental to the quality of education and training provided in the chemical sciences.1 This could lead to a decline in the number of students choosing to study the chemical sciences. Since 2004, there have been sustained increases in both A-level entries and enrolments on university courses in Chemistry.2

2. The RSC has reported that the average deficit on teaching income in chemistry

departments in England is 10 %. Outside of England, the average UK deficit is even higher (50 % of teaching income) reflecting the absence of additional funding for resource intensive laboratory-based subjects.3 Reductions in funding could worsen this situation, leaving chemistry departments accruing even larger deficits in teaching. An additional concern is that the proposed changes in post-study work visas may put off visiting international students from coming to the UK. International student fees make up a vital and significant part of the university funding.

3. The RSC found that in 2007-8 the cost of teaching a chemistry student was on

average £10,000 a year.3 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) currently fund Band B subjects (such as the chemical sciences) at £8,700 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE). David Willetts has suggested this government contribution will decrease to £1400 per FTE in 2012/2013.4 Tuition fees of £7,500 (the proposed average) will leave a deficit of around 10% per FTE. Even the maximum fee of £9,000 is unlikely to cover the cost of a chemical sciences course. Additionally, reductions in the capital budget could mean that outdated practical laboratories and equipment cannot be replaced. We have a real concern that universities may respond to these pressures in an ad hoc manner that has the potential to seriously undermine the national capability of the discipline. There is a clear need for a national strategy to support disciplines like the chemical sciences which make an essential and significant contribution to economic growth. Incorporated Master’s courses and industrial placements provide invaluable training and experience for the student of the chemical sciences, and are now considered a necessary preparation for PhD and for CChem accreditation.5 The future economic growth in the science industry relies on the sustained supply of high quality, and qualified individuals.

1 The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15 - BIS, December 2010 2 RSC response to the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010, October 2010 3 The Finances of Chemistry and Physics Departments in UK Universities - RSC Report, June 2010 4 David Willets speech at the British Academy, London. March 1st 2011 5 Requirements for CChem accreditation, RSC website - accessed 05/04/11

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/science/docs/a/10-1356-allocation-of-science-and-research-funding-2011-2015

http://www.rsc.org/images/RSC%20Submission%20to%20the%20CSR_tcm18-191865.pdf

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/financechem2010.asp

http://bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-arts-humanities-social-sciences

http://www.rsc.org/Membership/join/CharteredStatus/cchem.asp

Research priorities 4. The RSC believes that the allocation of funding for fundamental or applied

research should be informed by the nature of challenges which society needs science to address. Accordingly the RSC broadly agrees with the six priority areas highlighted by BIS. Chemistry is a key underpinning science in the multidisciplinary approach required to tackle these global issues. This is highlighted in the RSC roadmap for the chemical sciences, Chemistry for Tomorrow’s World. 6 It is vital that these priority areas build on the strengths of the UK science base, enabling research communities here to exploit the funding available.

5. The RSC believes that a focus on grand challenges must not weaken support for

fundamental research that is needed to underpin solutions to these challenges. Research that contributes to capacity building but that is not immediately aligned to grand challenges must still receive funding. Innovation can stem from fundamental research as well as applied research as shown by the Nobel prize-winning graphene research at Manchester University.7 An evaluation of economic impact at Russell Group institutions noted that 56 % of successful spin-out companies and commercialisation ventures had stemmed from fundamental research studies.8

6. Scientific progress is supported by a wide range of chemical science subject areas

(such as, but not limited to analytical science, catalysis, chemical biology, computational chemistry, materials chemistry, supramolecular chemistry and synthesis). The 2009 International Review of Chemistry (IRC 2009) assessed the UK as world-leading in a number of these areas.9 The RSC does not wish excellence in these areas to be compromised by researchers having to ‘fit’ into a predetermined framework in order to gain support.

7. The BIS allocations are dependent on efficiency savings in 2014-15 (7 % of the

£4.6bn resource funding).1 UK chemistry departments have already made significant efficiency savings by increasing student:staff ratios and lowering departmental space per member of academic staff.3 Clustering of, and/or collaboration between chemistry departments is a further step that could identify potential areas for sharing facilities that maintains the breadth of science in the UK. This clustering is likely to require a national overview that identifies the key scientific, regional and economic requirements that must be supported.

6 Chemistry for Tomorrow’s World - RSC Report, July 2009 7 Graphene scoops the physics Nobel - Chemistry World, October 2010 8 The economic impact of research conducted in Russell Group universities - Russell Group Report, March 2010 9 The International Review of Chemistry - EPSRC and RSC, July 2009

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/roadmap/

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/October/05101002.asp

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/uploads/RG_ImpactOfResearch2.pdf

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/uploads/RG_ImpactOfResearch2.pdf

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/InternationalReview09.asp

HEFCE Funding and QR allocations 8. The RSC has identified that in 2007-2008, chemistry departments operated on

average at 35.8 % deficit in research income.3 The RSC is concerned about the decrease in QR funding from both overall cuts (3 % without inflation over 4 years), and at specific institutions due to the redistribution from 2* rated research. In addition, ‘top-sliced’ efficiency savings on existing grants applied from June 1st 2011 could remove significant levels of funding that institutions had already ear-marked for other activities. Together, these reductions in QR funding may have a number of consequences:

- Chemistry departments could seek to reduce running costs by stopping current

activities funded through QR - Fundamental research could be reduced, if QR funding is used to cover

shortfalls elsewhere

- The career development of researchers could be adversely affected if less bridging funding is available to retain early career researchers beyond the scope of funding for a specific project

- The numbers of support staff or technicians could be reduced resulting in a

lack of flexibility at departments

- Maintenance or servicing of existing facilities stopped to save costs 9. BIS have stated their intention to focus resources on areas of proven excellence,1

and is discontinuing funding for 2* rated research. This has the potential to severely inhibit high-calibre research groups in departments that have QR resource decreased.10

Funding through RCUK 10. The RSC stresses that access to excellence in academic chemistry research is a

fundamental enabler for a knowledge-based economy, and provides an important stimulus for continued inward investment. RCUK funding must maintain breadth and excellence across scientific disciplines to maximise national capability. A focus on national priorities, as defined by the RCUK Grand Challenges, must be carefully balanced with supporting the research base of the UK. The RSC believes that scientists are best placed through peer review to approve funding, and that there needs be continued consultation between the research councils, the scientific community and business to establish that the correct priorities are being set.

10 The RAE 2008 rated 37.2 % of chemistry research at 2*

11. The majority of government funded chemistry research is funded through the EPSRC; however additional funding is also secured through cross-council funding.9 This is a reflection of the interdisciplinary nature of research in the chemical sciences. The RSC is concerned that despite a mostly universal 3 % reduction in resources, each research council will deliver this budgetary reduction through different approaches. This has led to proposed budget cuts for research grants (excluding inflation) of up to 14 % (EPSRC)11 and 9 % (BBSRC)12 over the next four years. Including inflation increases the significance of these reductions. Within the next EPSRC delivery plans there is an increased emphasis on funding the Grand Challenge projects this will require ongoing oversight to ensure the correct balance is maintained.

12. The RSC is concerned that the decrease in operation time at central STFC

facilities will have a detrimental effect on multidisciplinary research. For example, approximately 50 % of users of the ISIS facility are researchers in the chemical sciences.13 By only operating the facility for 120 days per year (a significant decrease from 180 days historically), and also restricting the number of concurrent experiments, scientific output will not be maximised. The benefits of the capital investment in this facility, including those recently announced,14 will not be realised. The RSC has similar concerns for the Central Laser Facility (CLF) which is scheduled to run under-capacity.

PhD Studentships 13. PhD students are the lifeblood of the chemical sciences, carrying out a sizable

proportion of research in chemistry. In 2009-2010, EPSRC ‘Project Studentships’ supported 422 Chemistry PhD students through research grants (27% of total number of EPSRC Chemistry PhD students).15 Responding to academic and industry demands, over the last 4 years the chemical sciences has been awarded the highest number of Project Studentships. The removal by the EPSRC of this funding mode from 1st April 2011 will immediately decrease the number of PhD students in the chemical sciences, and also distort the distribution of these students across the country. The chemistry community is very concerned that such a policy has been implemented without careful consideration of the impact on (i) the skills pipeline of the discipline and (ii) the remaining centres for doctoral training are the most appropriate from a discipline or regional standpoint. The long-term impact of this strategy could lead to fewer postgraduates to supply demand in industry and research who contribute to the strength of the UK economy.

11 EPSRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 12 BBSRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 13 ISIS Neutron and Muon Source Proposal System Data – Personal Correspondence 14Announcement of increased instrument funding at ISIS - ISIS website, March 2011 15 EPSRC Annual Report and Accounts 2009-2010

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCDeliveryPlan2011-15.pdf

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/delivery_plan_2011_2015.pdf

http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/news/2011/science-minister-announces-11-million-funding-for-new-instruments-at-isis11742.html

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCAnnualReportAndAccounts2009-10.pdf

Supporting Early Career Researchers 14. The RSC is concerned that the focus on funding existing excellence could impact

negatively on researchers who have not yet reached that level of recognition. This includes both early career researchers (ECRs) and those located at institutions without a high proportion of 3*/4* research. At present, there is no strategy to develop such researchers into becoming internationally excellent. If ECRs are dependent on individual institutions to nurture their career, more information and guidance must be available to ensure fair access and to guard against nepotism. The RSC encourages close working between RCUK and chemistry departments in coordinating fellowships to provide support and better career development.

Diversity 15. The RSC advocates a highly diverse level of participation in the chemical sciences

to enable social-mobility, to reflect diversity within society, and to produce the best science. Research conducted by the RSC indicates how gender imbalance is established from PhD studies onwards.16 The RSC is concerned that the removal of funding for the United Kingdom Resource Centre (UKRC) may impact negatively on diversity initiatives. In particular this programme worked to encourage women to continue in STEM careers, and although BIS proposes to ‘embed good practice on gender issues’ through project management, at present there is no clear strategy in place to achieve this.

Collaboration with Industry 16. Industry-derived funding in the chemical sciences declined by 15 % in the five

years prior to 2009.9 In order to stimulate investment, initiatives to foster knowledge transfer and collaboration are essential. The RSC believes that the Technology Strategy board (TSB) is vital to stimulate effective knowledge transfer and to coordinate a UK-wide innovation network.17 In the chemical sciences, Chemistry Innovation KTN (CiKTN) provides a blueprint for coordinating initiatives across the UK. Examples include collaborative R&D projects between universities and industry, and working with locally based enterprise (e.g. Scottish Enterprise) to further university and business involvement. The investment of £200m to create Technology Innovation Centres (TICs) is a welcome boost, although the RSC is concerned that the overall budget for the TSB has yet to be confirmed.

17. A mechanism to establish the TIC network structure should include the input of

all stakeholders, including government, academia, research councils and industry. In particular, in creating new networks or clusters to support economic growth, consideration needs to be given to the location of any new centres. By focusing only on geographic areas of existing excellence, and without an overarching national strategy on TIC location, the RSC is concerned that regions of the UK may not benefit from this investment.

16 RSC Diversity Reports - RSC website, accessed 05/04/11 17 RSC Response to Technology Innovation Centres Inquiry - December 2010

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/Diversity.asp

http://www.rsc.org/images/RSC%20Response%20to%20Technology%20Innovation%20Centres%20Inquiry_tcm18-197052.pdf

Capital Reduction 18. The RSC believes that the proposed level of capital reduction (a 66 % decrease in

2011/12)18,19 threatens the UK position as a world leader in the chemical sciences. Whilst capital funding may only represent 2.6 % of the overall HEFCE grant in 2011-2012 (from a previous level of 5.2 %), the UK Higher Education system must be able to deliver science teaching and research facilities fit for the 21st Century. This includes the provision of modern laboratories, excellent teaching facilities to engage students, and provisions to enable internationally recognised research.

19. The IRC 2009 report highlighted the excellent state of equipment and

infrastructure within UK universities.9 The maintenance of excellent facilities requires continual and sustained capital investment. Capital budget cuts in both teaching and research do not amount to a viable strategy to sustain this excellent infrastructure.

20. As documented by the Royal Society, decades of reinvestment were required for

the UK academic scientific community to recover from the previous decline in funding and underinvestment.20 Between 1981 and 1987 the UK percentage of highly cited papers in Chemistry fell from 10.1% to 4.5%, indicative of the decline in British Science21. In contrast, from 1999-2008, and despite a 33 % overall increase in global publications, the UK maintained a 7 % share of publications.22 The benefits of reinvestment have also been reported with market sector productivity benefitting significantly from the increase in public sector spending on research and development.23

The future of the chemical sciences 21. The RSC believes that the strong case for investment in science and technology

necessitates a long-term national strategy for the chemical sciences. This would protect the excellent infrastructure, identify areas of strength and realise opportunities for growth through collaboration. Economic growth is directly related to strong investment in education and providing an attractive environment for industry. Provision for universities across the UK, linked with KTNs and TICs will enable collaboration, innovation and will maximise the impact of research.

18 Funding for universities and colleges for 2010-11 and 2011-12, HEFCE, February 2011/ 19 RSC Press Release: David Phillips Criticises The Government’s ‘Protection’ of Science - accessed 20/04/11 20 The Scientific Century report - Royal Society, March 2010 21 British Science in the 1980’s – has the Relative Decline Continued?; B.R.Martin; Scientometrics, 29, 1, (1994), p27-56 22 Knowledge, Networks and Nations report - Royal Society, March 2011 23 Public Support For Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector; Haskell and Wallis, February 2010

http://panther/sites/pic/P0348/default.aspx

http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2011/sciencemyth.asp

http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2011/sciencemyth.asp

http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-nations.pdf

22. The current focus on excellence, without an underlying regional strategy has the

potential to put individual university departments at risk. This could lead to regions without provision of research and teaching in the chemical sciences at an appropriate level. The university system needs to be organised in a framework that reflects the needs of the UK population, with provision across the UK enabling access to an education in the chemical sciences for anyone with the ability and desire to study the subject. The ScotCHEM research pooling initiative demonstrates how sector driven change can improve research quality, attracting more industry funding and access to resources.24

23. The RSC believes that there must be a steady supply of high quality, and qualified

individuals. This will ensure the next generation is equipped with the scientists and engineers needed to tackle global challenges, as well as a wider, more scientifically-literate general workforce. It is vital that the supply of high-quality chemistry graduates is maintained to ensure the future recruitment of subject-specialist teachers. These are the people who will nurture the next generation of chemical scientists to maintain the chemical sciences’ major contribution to the UK economy.

Royal Society of Chemistry 26 April 2011

24 RSC response to the Evaluation of the ScotCHEM pooling exercise - September, 2010

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/ScotCHEM_evaluation.asp

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) (SR 15)

1. The Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) welcomes this opportunity to comment on the inquiry into the science and research budget allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15 and Spending Review 2010. 2. The Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) is the learned society and professional body for geography. Formed in 1830, our Royal Charter is for 'the advancement of geographical science'. The Society is a charity that seeks to develop, promote and support the discipline of geography and its practitioners in the areas of research and higher education, teaching and fieldwork, policy and wider public engagement. The Society has more than 15,000 Fellows and members, of whom a substantial number are academics and other researchers whose work we support through a range of activities. These include holding the largest geographical research conference in Europe, publishing three of the leading international peer-reviewed geography journals in the world (including Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers which is often ranked first), co-ordinating twenty seven specialist research groups, and providing small grants for researchers at all career stages. We work very closely with all Higher Education (HE) geography departments in the UK. 3. Within BIS’s spending allocation1, as highlighted in evidence given to the committee from the Science Minister, David Willetts MP, “the learned societies and the academies [are] getting £100 million” 2. The Royal Geographical Society (with IBG), in common with most of the single subject-based learned societies, receives no Government funding from this budget, and no other core Government funding from elsewhere, to support any of our activities. Any changes in levels of funding within these budgets therefore have no direct impact or influence on the Society. 4. This Society makes four main points in this submission:

4.1. We strongly endorse the dual support approach to funding, and the principle of keeping the balance between the Research Council and the Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE)’s Quality-related Research (QR) streams broadly as they are.

4.2. Research funding should not focus overly on STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) subjects. Other disciplines across the social sciences, arts and humanities make significant contributions to both pure and applied research and these must not be marginalized. In terms of geography, it is time that HEFCE’s formal recognition in 2010 of its (50%) part-STEM status for teaching funding is followed with the appropriate allocation of 50% ring fenced QR funds at the STEM level; the remaining 50% being at social science QR funding levels.

4.3. The important need to fund both science and social science is well illustrated by geography, which is special in bridging the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities and unique in being the spatial discipline, illuminating differences ‘on the ground’ at national, regional, local and community-based scales. Many of the nation’s and the world’s challenges, such as climate change, natural resource security and migration, demand an integrated understanding of the scientific processes, of human and behavioral (social science) perspectives, and of spatial differences and interconnections. Geographical research lies at the heart of such work and is important therefore in terms of its contribution to government and Research Council priorities, as well as to the UK economy and business.

4.4. Research funding should not lose sight of the importance of funding high quality ‘blue skies thinking’ across all research areas, including STEM and the social sciences. There must be a balance between research tailored to assist with government policy priorities and the need for blue skies research.

1 Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) 2010 The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: Investing in world-class science and research pp45-54 2 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010) Spending Review 2010 - uncorrected evidence - 24 November 2010 HC 618-i Evidence given by Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science. 5/21 lines 12-13

The approach and balance taken to funding research 5. We strongly endorse the current balance of research funding, with QR allocations from HEFCE providing

a baseline funding across qualifying institutions on the basis of RAE assessments, and funding on a peer-reviewed proposal basis through the Research Councils. These two streams serve two different, and important, purposes and each does it well. We are pleased to note in the Minister’s statement to the committee, the commitment to “having these separate two flows of money, one for university research via the RAE, the REF, and a separate one via the Research Councils”3. We see no benefits at all in placing all funding with the Research Councils.

6. We welcome the government’s commitment to, and clarification of, the Haldane Principle that ‘decisions

on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review’.4 Looking beyond STEM funding 7. In linking research more directly to benefit the nation’s priorities – whether economically,

environmentally, socially, or in terms of individual quality of life – the sciences, social sciences and the humanities all have important and complementary roles to play. It is essential that this pluralism is properly recognized and funded by government. The needs extend far beyond, for example, a simplistic view of public or policy engagement with science; it reaches to the core of understanding, for example, peoples’ motivations, behaviours, values and identities, their engagement with the processes of governance, the work that they do, where and how they live, and the communities, neighbourhoods and places that people are affected by, and engage with and shape.

8. With regard to Geography specifically, it has long been regarded as a part-laboratory subject, with a part-

STEM status accepted by HEFCE on the grounds that almost all research-active Departments of Geography maintain scientific research laboratories, often highly sophisticated, with technician support in order to deliver departmental research agendas and meet the needs of both research and teaching staff in physical geography. This status is reflected too in the research papers submitted to the past RAE exercise and in the research funding, and infrastructure grants, received by geographers.

9. These essential science infrastructure costs are further augmented by field equipment, costs of undertaking

research ‘in the field’, as well as by Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing computer-based needs. These are especially important elements of both research and teaching at a time when environmental issues of concern to physical geographers (for example, climate change, fluvial processes and flooding, sustainable development) are some of the most pressing ones facing society and government. Indeed, these priorities are recognised within BIS’s Spending Review 2010 document on research funding allocations, as being among those most important for research funding priorities5.

10. Early in 2010 the Society made the case successfully to the Higher Education Funding Council for England

(HEFCE) for geography to be designated as part-STEM in the context of HEFCE teaching funding. While teaching funding levels have risen slightly to reflect this, HEFCE is aware that the 50% ring-fenced allocation, that should rightly follow the designation, has not been met by a long way. They have committed to reviewing this in 2014.

11. The Society re-affirms that, as the Research Councils and HEFCE acknowledge, the part-STEM 50% of

geography needs to be fully funded at STEM levels within future streams of QR funding, as well as in teaching

3 Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) 2010 The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: Investing in world-class science and research pp13 4 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010) Spending Review 2010 - uncorrected evidence - 24 November 2010 HC 618-i Evidence given by Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science. 6/21 lines 44-46 5 Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) 2010 The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: Investing in world-class science and research pp5-9

allocations.

The important role of geographical research 12. There are many different ways in which research by geographers has economic and/or policy impact through

its applications in the private and public sectors, and how geographical research can enhance quality of life. In doing so, geographical research contributes to the priorities set out by both government and Research Councils. Given that economic, social and environmental processes and their effects will continue to be differentiated spatially across the UK and the world, geography will undoubtedly continue to be essential to policy, practice, business and to the public. We cannot plan and manage future challenges without properly-funded geographical research.

13. The relevance and measured impact of geographical research in areas relevant to current policy and

practice is exemplified by a selection of case studies developed by the Society (see www.rgs.org/makingthecase). The case studies illuminate some of the ways in which geography contributes to policy, building on its disciplinary character (section 4.3). For example, three of the featured case studies relate closely to the areas of research outlined by BIS5as priorities: the first on Maintaining the capability to respond to emergencies, including flooding; and the latter two linked to one of the cross Research Council priority areas Lifelong health and well-being. These include:

• More cost-efficient approaches to flood management: research by Professors Colin Thorne, Nottingham

University, and Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Middlesex University. • Helping the public and private sectors get the most from the census: research by Professor David

Martin, University of Southampton. • Improving urban environments and well-being by developing ways to revitalise degraded rivers:

research by Professors Angela Gurnell, Queen Mary University of London, and Geoff Petts, University of Westminster.

Other exemplar ‘impact’ case studies include the development and sale of new technologies for predicting ice on roads; better understanding of internal migration in the UK; and the creation of new methods of spatial analysis to help local authorities optimise the provision of services and to identify areas of greatest financial need for assistance.

The importance of geographical perspectives and research linked to other priority areas, for example Living with Environmental Change and Energy; and Global food security were recently illustrated during a policy seminar “A perfect storm ahead: Geographical perspectives on food, water and energy security to 2030”, held by the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) in February 2011. Geographers contributed research evidence from major research programmes on energy, water and food security. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP, and the Director of the Living with Environmental Change programme both spoke at the event6.

Funding ‘blue skies thinking’

14. The impact of all research cannot be foreseen, which is why research funding should not lose sight of the importance of funding high quality ‘curiosity-driven research’ across all research areas, including STEM and the social sciences. One often-quoted example was the critically important role of measurements in Antarctica undertaken by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) over decades, which led to the documentation of the ozone hole.

15. It is worth noting that in almost all of the geographical research impact case studies drawn together by the

Society, the research topic was pursued independently by the scholar and funded as ‘curiosity-driven’ research.

6See www.rgs.org/pefectstorm for further details

http://www.rgs.org/makingthecase

http://www.rgs.org/pefectstorm

Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 26 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Astronomical Society (SR 16)

1. The RAS welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the Committee’s inquiry. We submitted evidence to the previous inquiry that specifically concentrated on particle physics and astronomy, largely funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

2. The British Geophysical Association, a joint association of the RAS and the Geological Society, covers the work of our Fellows who are employed in the area of geophysics. The BGA and Geological Society have submitted separate evidence relating to the Spending Review, including the issue of funding for MSc studentships for geophysics.

3. This note covers the work of our Fellows who work in the area of ground-based Solar-Terrestrial Physics (STP), which is now largely funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

4. STP and in particular the ability to predict ‘space weather’ events caused by outburst (coronal mass ejections) on the Sun is recognised as an area of direct importance to the wider economy, for example in understanding how to secure infrastructure such as power supplies and communications systems. A full description of this work can be seen in the RAS submission to the Committee inquiry into ‘Emergencies’ in 2010)

Capital spending 5. One of the major features of the CSR settlement for the Research Councils is the BIS-

led marked reduction in capital spending (amounting to 50% for NERC) by 2012-2013. This decision is seen as a short-term measure that allows the Research Councils to protect the UK skills base in scientific research by giving some protection to their resource budgets, although nonetheless has serious consequences for some groups that for example depend on frequently updating high-performance computing facilities.

6. The Society wishes to highlight the future consequences of the decision to make drastic cuts to capital spending. We believe that it is crucial that current planning for UK science expenditure beyond 2015 (i.e. the next Spending Review) can assume a restoration of capital budgets, so that UK scientists can participate effectively now in preparatory work for the next generation of major scientific projects. Many of these projects are now being coordinated at European level through the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) and thence to a broader world level, e.g. through discussions between ESFRI and the US National Science Foundation (NSF).

7. Recent ESFRI-NSF discussions have focused on a number of environmental research projects including several within the scientific remit of the RAS. A key example is the European Incoherent SCATter radar system (EISCAT_3D) that will revolutionise studies of the upper atmosphere at high latitudes with potential for major impacts in areas such as space weather and also solar effects on climate and the surveillance of near-Earth space. It is now a major focus for the next generation of research in solar-terrestrial physics in Europe.

8. This new radar will exploit recent advances in radar technologies (now available for civilian use) to give the UK and the rest of Europe a leading position in this area of

research. The UK has played a major leadership role in the preparatory work for EISCAT_3D – as we did for the original EISCAT radar system, built 30 years ago. British scientists are well-positioned to maintain that role and exploit the exciting new science that it will produce – and that will address the growing recognition that the Earth’s upper atmosphere is an important part of the environment within which human activities take place. The project will also create opportunities for UK industry to develop and build the advanced hardware and software technologies that will be at the heart of the new radar.

9. However, it is crucial that the UK is seen as a serious international player in programmes for the next generation of major scientific projects. Thus it is important that the long-term financial planning for the Research Councils, beyond the immediate CSR settlement, can assume a significant level of capital expenditure – so that there is the potential for projects such as EISCAT_3D to develop bids for funding and have a reasonable chance of success. It does not require commitment to any particular project at this time, just the opportunity to make reasonable plans.

References

RAS submission to Select Committee inquiry into Emergencies http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/S_and_T_-_Scientific_evidence_and_advice_in_emergencies.pdf

RAS submission to Select Committee inquiry into Particle Physics and Astronomy http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/RAS_submission_to_astronomy_and_particle_physics_inquiry.pdf

Royal Astronomical Society

26 April 2011

http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/S_and_T_-_Scientific_evidence_and_advice_in_emergencies.pdf

http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/S_and_T_-_Scientific_evidence_and_advice_in_emergencies.pdf

http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/RAS_submission_to_astronomy_and_particle_physics_inquiry.pdf

http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/RAS_submission_to_astronomy_and_particle_physics_inquiry.pdf

Written evidence submitted by the Council for the Mathematical Sciences (SR 17)

About the Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS) The CMS (www.cms.ac.uk) was established in 2001 by the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA), the London Mathematical Society (LMS) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS). They were joined in 2008 by the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (EMS) and the Operational Research Society (ORS). The CMS provides an authoritative and objective body that exists to develop, influence and respond to UK policy issues that affect the mathematical sciences in higher education and research, and therefore the UK economy and society in general. • The IMA is the UK’s learned and professional society for mathematics and its applications and has

around 5,000 members. • The LMS was founded in 1865 and has as its purpose the advancement, dissemination and promotion of mathematical knowledge in the UK and worldwide. • The RSS, founded in 1834, aims to nurture and promote statistics, encouraging statistical knowledge and disseminating good practice in society at large. • The EMS was founded in 1883 and has around 450 members. Its aims are the promotion and extension of the Mathematical Sciences, particularly in Scotland. • The ORS is the world’s oldest-established learned society catering to the Operational Research

profession, with 3,000 members in 53 countries.

SUMMARY: UK mathematical sciences research is excellent on an international scale, and its high quality crucially depends on the diverse and distributed nature of the research community: over 1100 staff FTE of world leading or internationally excellent research from 56 different institutions were submitted to RAE2008. Mathematical Sciences underpin our 21st century technology, economy and society, and this is recognised in the employment market, where our graduates are in extremely high demand. However, EPSRC funding in mathematical science has decreased significantly in real terms over the past decade, to the point where current funding levels threaten the health and continued excellence of the discipline. There are potentially severe consequences of the reduction or concentration of core Research Council support to mathematical sciences, including the loss of productive relationships between companies and their local mathematical science departments, and a reduction in the number of highly-skilled mathematical science graduates. This has potentially profound consequences for business, for industry, and for education. A. MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES: RESEARCH 1. CMS (Council for the Mathematical Sciences) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence on the Spending Review 2010. The term mathematical sciences encompasses pure, applied and applicable mathematics, including statistics and operational research. They constitute fundamental scientific disciplines in their own right, but also provide languages, theories and tools for every field of engineering and science and impact on fields such as economics, psychology, sociology, medicine, and many others. 2. As stated in the 2010 International Review of Mathematical Sciences commissioned by the EPSRC1, Major contributions to the health and prosperity of society arise from insights, results and algorithms created by the entire sweep of the mathematical sciences, ranging across the purest of the pure, theory inspired by applications, hands-on applications, statistics of every form and the blend of theory and practice embodied in operational research. 3. Current mathematical sciences research has a substantial impact on UK society. For example, statistical epidemiologists are adapting containment and treatment strategies for pandemic influenza in preparation for potentially more serious strains of H1N1. Pure mathematicians work (necessarily unpublicised) on crucial areas of national security at the Heilbronn Institute, funded by GCHQ. In energy, new mathematical models and numerical algorithms are improving both the efficiency of oil and gas extraction as well as the operation of renewable and traditional energy markets. In finance, sound quantitative risk management will be essential for developing effective regulatory procedures. The IMA has recently produced a set of case studies to illustrate some of the many ways that mathematics research impacts on contemporary society2.

1 International Review of Mathematical Sciences, draft report presented on 28 January 2011, available from www.cms.ac.uk/activities.html 2 Mathematics Matters case studies, Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, www.ima.org.uk/i_love_maths/mathematics_matters.cfm

http://www.cms.ac.uk/

http://www.cms.ac.uk/activities.html

http://www.ima.org.uk/i_love_maths/mathematics_matters.cfm

4. Page 12 of the BIS funding allocation document3 states: Our policy is to concentrate funding further on research centres of proven excellence, so these centres have the critical mass to address national challenges and compete internationally. Such research concentration may be appropriate for some academic disciplines, but it is not appropriate for the mathematical sciences, as research excellence is currently widespread (ground-breaking research in mathematical sciences is often undertaken by individuals and very small groups) and further concentration would not be beneficial. Any proposed additional concentration would have a negative effect on both education and on industrial support. Indeed, two of the main findings of the recent International Review of Mathematical Sciences1 are that (with our emphasis): Overall, mathematical sciences research in the UK is excellent on an international scale, and that the high quality of UK mathematical sciences research depends critically on the diverse and distributed research community, where `diverse' includes research area, group size and institution size, and `distributed' refers to geographical location. 5. For this reason we welcome Professor David Delpy's answer during his Select Committee appearance4 that: Critical mass and concentration is relevant in a large part of our remit but not in every subject. 6. The wide geographic distribution of excellent mathematical sciences research is demonstrated by Table 1, giving the volume of research rated as world leading (4*) or internationally excellent (3*) in RAE2008. The corresponding figures for physics and for chemistry are included for comparison. (The figures for each row are calculated by multiplying the output percentage in these quality bands by the number of academic staff in each RAE submission, and adding over all submissions.)

Unit of Assessment (UoA)

No. of institutional submissions

3*– 4* research in RAE2008 (staff FTE)

Chemistry (UoA 18) 33 737

Physics (UoA 19) 42 957

Mathematical Sciences (UoAs 20-22)

57

1129

Table 1: academic staff FTE of 3* and 4* research from RAE 2008

B. MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES: EDUCATION 7. The size and importance of the discipline is evident at the undergraduate level: with 5475 graduating students in 2007/08, the mathematical sciences undergraduate cohort is nearly the same size as those for chemistry (2965) and physics (2765) combined. Figure 1 on the following page shows the number of first degree qualifications obtained by UK students in mathematics and physical sciences over the last 25 years. 8. Mathematical sciences graduates are in high demand in the UK economy, as shown for example by starting salaries. Table 2 below shows the average salary of undergraduates and postgraduates six months after graduation in 2007/08.

Subject First degree Postgraduate (ex PGCE) Biological Sciences £16,500 £22,500

Physical Sciences £19,000 £24,000

Computer Science £21,000 £24,000

Engineering & technology £23,000 £25,500

Mathematical Sciences £22,500 £27,000

Table 2: average salary of undergraduates and postgraduates six months after graduation in 2007/085

3 Department for Business Innovation & Skills, "The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15", December 2010 4 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee: Spending Review 2010 (19 January 2011), Q150 5 Taken from the table on p 94 of Adrian Smith's report One Step Beyond: Making the most of postgraduate education (March 2010)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Year

No

. of

gra

du

ates

Number of first degree qualifications

MathPhysChem

Figure 1: number of first degree qualifications obtained by students at universities in mathematics, physics (including astronomy) and chemistry from 1985/86 to 2008/09. The data up to 1993/94 relates to universities only and does not contain any data for polytechnics (shown by the vertical dotted line)6

9. Even with such a large graduate cohort there is a severe lack of qualified mathematics teachers. Figures in a recent Royal Society report7 show that only about 2% of primary teachers in England have a specialist mathematical science qualification (fewer than one for every four primary schools). An earlier RS report8 estimated that there were 21,126 mathematics teachers (including 11,652 who have a mathematical sciences degree, or about 55%) in English secondary schools. DfE data on the shortfall in mathematics teacher recruitment is tabulated in another RS report9 and graphed in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: cumulative shortfall in meeting mathematics recruitment targets, 2000/01 to 2007/089

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008−4000

−3000

−2000

−1000

0

Year

Peo

ple

6 Data (originally from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, HESA) taken from www.iop.org 7 Science and mathematics education, 5-14, The Royal Society, July 2010 8 The UK's science and mathematics teaching workforce, The Royal Society, 2007 9 The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity, The Royal Society, 2010

http://www.iop.org/

C. MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES: RESEARCH FUNDING 10. Contrasting with the strong performance in research and education outlined in sections A and B, CMS wishes to draw attention to the very low levels of research funding in mathematical sciences. A high proportion of Research Council support for the mathematical sciences is provided by the EPSRC. Table 3 lists EPSRC's published "research grant commitment by programme" from 2002/03 to 2009/10. Programme /Year 2002/

03 2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

% change (7 years)

Mathematical sciences 9 11.7 16.2 16.4 21.5 24.2 15.3 12.0 33%

Information and communications technology

44 63.6 80.4 88.8 87.2 83.3 75.6 72.0 64%

Physics 26 32.0 39.1 38.2 49.2 33.1 - -

Chemistry 26 46.1 42.7 48.2 51.7 42.8 - -

Physical sciences - - - - - - 100.4 88.0

Subtotal: Physical sciences 52 78.1 81.8 86.4 100.9 75.9 100.4 88.0 69%

EPSRC total 259 378.0 435.2 490.6 621.5 537.5 548.4 459.0 77%

Table 3: EPSRC research grant commitment by programme (in £m)10

11. Table 3 shows that EPSRC's total research grant commitment has increased by 77% during the seven year period 2002/03 to 2009/10. This increase includes a uniform uplift of 45% because of the introduction of full economic costing (fEC) in April 2006. Note however that the corresponding increase for mathematical sciences is only 33%, which when the fEC uplift and inflation are factored in, represents a large cut in research grant commitment in mathematical sciences. 12. We note also that the overall level of EPSRC support in the mathematical sciences is very low compared to disciplines such as chemistry and physics. This is in spite of the excellent research performance and substantial educational contribution outlined in Sections A and B respectively, both of these being of crucial importance to the long-term scientific, industrial and economic performance of the UK. Figure 311 below clearly shows that this is not predominantly because of higher equipment costs for experimental sciences – the fact is that far fewer staff are funded in mathematical sciences than in other major disciplines. The very low number of funded postdoctoral positions has profound consequences for the future health of the discipline, as we discuss below. D. CONCLUSIONS 13. There are potentially severe consequences of the reduction and concentration of core Research Council support to mathematical sciences. The most immediate threat is that of a decline in the amount of internationally excellent research in the mathematical sciences produced in the UK. Some other less obvious consequences are described below. 14. The "pipeline problem": given the very low numbers of postdoctoral positions, it is difficult for UK-educated PhD students to gain enough research experience in order to compete for academic posts. The International Review1 panel regards this fragility as a serious potential risk to the UK's future international standing in mathematical science. While mathematical science is an international subject, so that UK departments have been able to recruit excellent staff from around the world (in most but not all fields), there are risks stemming from this solution: a lack of stability, and a possible shortage of role models for undergraduate mathematical scientists.

10 Taken from the tables called Research grant commitment by programme from the EPSRC annual reports from 2002/03 to 2007/08 and Research grant investment by programme for 2008/09 and 2009/10 11 EPSRC data

PG (tot: 9646) PDRA (tot: 7328)0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000People funded by EPSRC in Mar 2009

Math SciPhys SciICT

Figure 3: number of postgraduate students (PG) and post doctoral researchers (PDRA) funded by EPSRC as of March 2009 in mathematical sciences, physical sciences, and information and communications technology

15. Although it is government policy to concentrate research3, it is not government policy that industry and commerce should be concentrated: indeed the opposite is required. However, research concentration could lead to the loss of productive relationships between companies and their local mathematical science departments, together with a narrowing of the supply of research advice, interns and knowledge transfer. The movement of new PhDs into industry and commerce is one of the best forms of knowledge transfer, a process which currently works well at both local and national levels. 16. Unintended consequences of current policies: Advanced undergraduate teaching in mathematical science is necessarily “research informed”. Faced with reduced research council funding, departments will shrink or even close: there is already anecdotal evidence from several of the large English mathematical sciences departments that their universities are preferentially choosing to hire staff in `big science' disciplines where there is the potential to bring in large amounts of fEC funding, rather than mathematical sciences where RCUK funding levels are low. Cutting the research base in this way may reduce the number of highly-skilled graduates available to industry and as teachers, particularly at a time when large fee increases could cause more undergraduates to study close to their parental home. Council for the Mathematical Sciences 27 April 2011

Annex AHEIF 4 ‐ Weighted Impact of Funding by HEI (using 1:2:7 model HEFC

Table shows income generated as a multiple of funding received (weighted using t

Institution

Total Funding Received during HEIF4

1 University of Oxford 5,381,382£ 2 Imperial College London 5,381,382£ 3 University College London 5,381,382£ 4 University of Manchester 5,381,382£ 5 University of Hertfordshire 4,953,973£ 6 University of Southampton 5,379,409£ 7 University of Leeds 5,381,382£ 8 King's College London 5,381,382£ 9 University of Liverpool 4,950,052£

10 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 5,255,769£ 11 University of Cambridge 5,329,790£ 12 Institute of Education 1,716,727£ 13 University of Birmingham 5,381,382£ 14 Cranfield University 5,381,382£ 15 University of Warwick 5,122,830£ 16 University of Bristol 5,276,636£ 17 London School of Economics and Political Science 2,837,332£ 18 University of York 5,127,482£ 19 Queen Mary, University of London 5,013,825£ 20 University of Sheffield 5,381,382£ 21 Institute of Cancer Research 1,182,221£ 22 University of Surrey 5,262,097£ 23 London Business School 4,797,056£ 24 University of Nottingham 5,240,544£ 25 Anglia Ruskin University 2,908,111£ 26 University of Durham 4,882,706£ 27 Coventry University 4,894,131£ 28 University of Central Lancashire 3,802,809£ 29 University of Leicester 3,226,520£ 30 University of Hull 3,357,996£ 31 University of Exeter 4,855,660£ 32 University of Northampton 2,224,733£ 33 University of Wolverhampton 3,948,198£ 34 Royal Veterinary College 2,343,481£ 35 University of the Arts London 5,177,267£ 36 Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln 300,000£ 37 Guildhall School of Music & Drama 630,518£ 38 University of Sussex 3,873,313£ 39 Liverpool John Moores University 4,326,890£ 40 University of Bath 5,157,068£ 41 Buckinghamshire New University 1,664,452£ 42 University of East Anglia 3,911,297£ 43 Lancaster University 4,903,453£

44 University of Reading 4,901,064£ 45 Liverpool Hope University 1,566,562£ 46 Royal Northern College of Music 607,878£ 47 University of Salford 4,373,364£ 48 Southampton Solent University 2,165,817£ 49 Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance 969,881£ 50 University of Chichester 736,344£ 51 Leeds Metropolitan University 3,993,689£ 52 University of Greenwich 4,728,886£ 53 Loughborough University 4,512,666£ 54 Staffordshire University 3,360,600£ 55 Goldsmiths College, University of London 945,777£ 56 Royal Agricultural College 436,138£ 57 Conservatoire for Dance and Drama 630,518£ 58 Aston University 4,905,063£ 59 City University, London 5,007,524£ 60 University of Westminster 3,797,295£ 61 London Metropolitan University 4,728,886£ 62 Oxford Brookes University 5,046,573£ 63 University of Plymouth 4,643,987£ 64 School of Oriental and African Studies 1,484,776£ 65 University of Teesside 4,017,378£ 66 Canterbury Christ Church University 2,837,332£ 67 Royal College of Music 651,775£ 68 University College Falmouth 969,399£ 69 University of Huddersfield 3,219,364£ 70 h lManchester Metropolitan University 4,774,160£ 71 St George's Hospital Medical School 3,233,448£ 72 Royal College of Art 1,064,176£ 73 University of Chester 1,559,375£ 74 University of the West of England, Bristol 4,255,997£ 75 University of Bolton 1,145,961£ 76 Bournemouth University 2,445,585£ 77 University of Northumbria at Newcastle 4,850,724£ 78 Birmingham City University 5,030,808£ 79 Royal Academy of Music 565,276£ 80 Sheffield Hallam University 4,809,063£ 81 Roehampton University 1,929,386£ 82 University of Sunderland 4,347,508£ 83 University of Bradford 4,581,729£ 84 Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts 378,409£ 85 Arts Institute at Bournemouth 577,342£ 86 University of Gloucestershire 1,461,550£ 87 Central School of Speech and Drama 441,552£ 88 Keele University 3,339,514£ 89 Brunel University 5,053,104£ 90 School of Pharmacy 864,807£ 91 University of Winchester 760,695£ 92 University of Brighton 4,731,228£ 93 University of Worcester 1,063,245£

94 University College Birmingham 746,087£ 95 De Montfort University 4,987,743£ 96 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine 990,910£ 97 Nottingham Trent University 4,193,450£ 98 University of Essex 3,686,056£ 99 Middlesex University 2,837,332£

100 University of Portsmouth 3,929,782£ 101 York St John University 790,314£ 102 Open University 5,082,868£ 103 London South Bank University 4,233,414£ 104 St Mary's University College 709,066£ 105 University of Kent 4,532,826£ 106 Harper Adams University College 1,471,111£ 107 Kingston University 4,755,123£ 108 Royal Holloway, University of London 2,981,689£ 109 University College for the Creative Arts at Canterbury, Eps 1,223,227£ 110 University of Bedfordshire 2,518,730£ 111 Norwich School of Art & Design 408,888£ 112 University of East London 3,398,014£ 113 Birkbeck College 3,242,102£ 114 Newman University College 434,211£ 115 University of Derby 3,709,566£ 116 University of Lincoln 2,620,992£ 117 University College Plymouth St Mark & St John 578,735£ 118 Leeds Trinity & All Saints 537,398£ 119 Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication 575,845£ 120 ld fCourtauld Institute of Art 300,000£ 121 Rose Bruford College 300,000£ 122 Writtle College 848,007£ 123 Bath Spa University 883,904£ 124 University of Cumbria 2,296,376£ 125 Heythrop College 300,000£ 126 Edge Hill University 1,281,828£ 127 Leeds College of Music 300,000£ 128 University of London 634,699£ 129 Thames Valley University 2,746,380£

* Courtesy of Bishop Grosseteste University College

tCE have applied to HEIF5) ‐ (Table 1)*he criteria applied in HEIF5)

Total HEIF 4 Income Generated (weighted)

RatioHEIF 5 Indicative Allocation Annually (£)

134,202,900£ 24.9 2,850,000£ 105,009,900£ 19.5 2,850,000£ 84,872,000£ 15.8 2,850,000£ 80,873,100£ 15.0 2,850,000£ 67,028,800£ 13.5 2,850,000£ 62,359,800£ 11.6 2,850,000£ 61,969,600£ 11.5 2,850,000£ 57,392,100£ 10.7 2,850,000£ 52,321,600£ 10.6 2,850,000£ 54,333,600£ 10.3 2,850,000£ 54,514,300£ 10.2 2,850,000£ 16,919,700£ 9.9 1,021,022£ 51,345,400£ 9.5 2,850,000£ 44,051,000£ 8.2 2,850,000£ 39,421,800£ 7.7 2,850,000£ 39,600,600£ 7.5 2,850,000£ 21,082,700£ 7.4 1,687,500£ 37,784,400£ 7.4 2,850,000£ 35,287,400£ 7.0 2,850,000£ 36,577,000£ 6.8 2,850,000£ 7,324,700£ 6.2 703,125£

32,174,000£ 6.1 2,850,000£ 28,591,000£ 6.0 2,850,000£ 30,803,000£ 5.9 2,850,000£ 15,379,700£ 5.3 1,729,596£ 25,464,500£ 5.2 2,850,000£ 24,724,300£ 5.1 2,850,000£ 18,353,500£ 4.8 2,261,717£ 13,919,700£ 4.3 1,918,970£ 13,362,000£ 4.0 1,961,504£ 18,333,800£ 3.8 2,685,923£ 8,137,900£ 3.7 1,192,212£

14,246,200£ 3.6 2,087,085£ 8,147,200£ 3.5 1,193,574£

17,198,700£ 3.3 2,519,630£ 991,800£ 3.3 ‐£

2,084,400£ 3.3 305,367£ 12,693,700£ 3.3 1,859,642£ 13,793,800£ 3.2 1,941,434£ 16,219,000£ 3.1 2,376,103£ 5,164,700£ 3.1 756,635£

12,058,300£ 3.1 1,766,555£ 15,103,000£ 3.1 2,212,607£

14,820,100£ 3.0 2,171,162£ 4,674,900£ 3.0 684,878£ 1,735,100£ 2.9 254,194£

12,200,600£ 2.8 1,787,402£ 5,984,400£ 2.8 876,722£ 2,658,900£ 2.7 389,532£ 1,944,800£ 2.6 284,915£

10,247,000£ 2.6 1,501,198£ 11,808,100£ 2.5 1,729,901£ 11,165,600£ 2.5 1,635,774£ 8,206,000£ 2.4 1,202,189£ 2,260,400£ 2.4 331,151£ 1,040,300£ 2.4 ‐£ 1,492,900£ 2.4 ‐£

11,537,300£ 2.4 1,690,228£ 11,430,400£ 2.3 1,674,567£ 8,534,500£ 2.2 1,250,314£

10,561,500£ 2.2 1,547,272£ 11,178,500£ 2.2 1,637,663£ 10,270,600£ 2.2 1,504,655£ 3,243,800£ 2.2 475,221£ 8,693,800£ 2.2 1,273,652£ 5,995,700£ 2.1 878,377£ 1,376,900£ 2.1 ‐£ 1,934,700£ 2.0 283,436£ 6,365,500£ 2.0 923,553£ 9,436,400£ 2.0 1,382,444£ 6,380,800£ 2.0 934,795£ 2,053,300£ 1.9 300,811£ 2,984,800£ 1.9 437,277£ 8,065,900£ 1.9 1,181,664£ 2,087,400£ 1.8 305,807£ 4,377,100£ 1.8 641,250£ 8,538,600£ 1.8 1,250,915£ 8,829,300£ 1.8 1,293,503£ 981,600£ 1.7 ‐£

8,261,600£ 1.7 1,210,334£ 3,148,100£ 1.6 461,200£ 7,057,200£ 1.6 1,033,888£ 7,397,200£ 1.6 1,083,699£ 593,500£ 1.6 ‐£ 905,500£ 1.6 ‐£

2,288,300£ 1.6 335,239£ 689,000£ 1.6 ‐£

5,101,400£ 1.5 747,361£ 7,675,500£ 1.5 1,124,470£ 1,296,200£ 1.5 ‐£ 1,140,000£ 1.5 ‐£ 7,053,800£ 1.5 1,033,390£ 1,550,000£ 1.5 ‐£

1,048,800£ 1.4 ‐£ 6,993,300£ 1.4 1,024,527£ 1,376,100£ 1.4 ‐£ 5,779,000£ 1.4 846,630£ 5,058,300£ 1.4 741,047£ 3,784,800£ 1.3 562,500£ 5,122,600£ 1.3 773,116£ 999,200£ 1.3 ‐£

6,286,000£ 1.2 950,000£ 4,938,100£ 1.2 807,516£ 824,900£ 1.2 ‐£

5,252,400£ 1.2 897,455£ 1,619,400£ 1.1 ‐£ 4,546,700£ 1.0 911,055£ 2,823,900£ 0.9 484,978£ 1,098,400£ 0.9 ‐£ 2,190,500£ 0.9 484,056£ 342,700£ 0.8 ‐£

2,841,200£ 0.8 608,391£ 2,681,600£ 0.8 640,793£ 339,300£ 0.8 ‐£

2,837,400£ 0.8 674,476£ 1,975,100£ 0.8 509,526£ 399,300£ 0.7 ‐£ 330,600£ 0.6 ‐£ 353,200£ 0.6 ‐£ 171,900£ 0.6 ‐£ 130,000£ 0.4 ‐£ 303,500£ 0.4 ‐£ 304,000£ 0.3 ‐£ 704,200£ 0.3 ‐£ 91,500£ 0.3 ‐£

378,800£ 0.3 ‐£ 62,700£ 0.2 ‐£ 37,400£ 0.1 ‐£

‐£ 0.0

Annex B

THE CONSORTIUM FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE, SUPPORT & TRAINING

The CREST provides an innovative model for how to further research excellence and promote institutional and interdisciplinary collaboration. Taking as its premise the principle that quality researchers should be recognised and funded wherever they are found, regardless of the size of the institution, the Consortium builds on the ‘islands of research excellence’ secured in the RAE 2008. The CREST plays a vital role in telling the story of these ongoing research achievements to the wider Higher Education community and to the general public. This activity is particularly timely and important given that the specialised, near-to-market, commercial and community-centred research pursued by CREST’s members is central to local, regional and national regeneration in the post-recession UK.

WHAT CREST DOES As sustainability is vital, particularly in light of the Browne Review and the CSR, institutions have to make a distinctive offering; the kind of collaboration that CREST facilitates builds on existing strengths, and provides new opportunities for research-active staff and postgraduate research students to work together.

The CREST offers a virtual community (www.crest.ac.uk) for researchers and PGRs, including: networking software to promote communication; distance learning technology to facilitate the sharing of best-practice; and a repository to showcase research outputs. This allows members to interact and present research within an evolving forum that takes into account the logistical, time and financial constraints facing the modern researcher.

The CREST also:

• brings together researchers and PGRs for interdisciplinary symposia, providing the opportunity to present specialist research to a diverse audience, in particular through the CREST Symposia (most recent: 13th & 14th December 2010)

• supports exchange lectures and topical, interdisciplinary seminars • organises skills training seminars for research-active staff and PGRs • provides access to peer reviewers supporting grant applications and research proposals • supports policy awareness and data curation in relation to REF, HEIF, ERA, RDAP, etc. • acts as a repository and disseminator of information about UK, EU and international

research policy and events relevant to its members

CREST has received SDF pump-priming funding from HEFCE matched by phased subscriptions from its members. The Consortium is currently made up of a number of GuildHE members, but expects to expand its activities to include allied and partner institutions interested in concentrating and developing their research.

http://www.crest.ac.uk/

The current list of participating CREST members includes:

The CREST is run via a series of interactive working groups to ensure engagement with and investment from senior administration, research-active staff, PGRs and HE stakeholders.

Research Group (3‐5 Meetings / year)

Director: Prof Graeme Wilkinson, Glyndwyr

University;Research Leads

GuildHE Council and Executive

CREST Council (1 AGM)Chair: Prof Chris Gaskell, Royal Agricultural College, Heads of CREST member institutions (18); Research Leads (18)

Subject Groups (3 meetings / year plus

events):Subject leads

GuildHE CEO & CREST Secretary

CREST Research Network Coordinator

HEFCEWhilst active as a funder

Task Groups

Symposium

Art, Design, Media &

Performing Arts

Applied sciences

Humanities

Sport, Well‐being, Ageing & Physical activity

Practice Groups

REF

Etc.Web

IP

Etc.Education

For more information about the Consortium, visit www.crest.ac.uk or contact Dr Alisa Miller, CREST Research Network Coordinator, GuildHE.

http://www.crest.ac.uk/

Written evidence submitted by GuildHE (SR 18) GuildHE and CREST welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Science and Technology Committee and we consider the inquiry both timely and appropriate. GuildHE’s major concerns about the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 centre on how cuts to research funding disproportionately affecting the small and specialist sector negatively influence sustainable long-term growth in UK Higher Education and the national economy. Our concerns are based on the following arguments:

1 The scale of research activity in Higher Education institutions is now favoured over its quality.

2 Innovation in specialist areas key to economic growth and vital to regional development is threatened by concentration.

3 Quality research and teaching are vital to producing high-level graduates.

4 The international reputation of the specialist sector should be leveraged to its full

potential.

5 The general instability in the Higher Education sector in the wake of the CSR needs to be considered with an eye to unintended consequences.

1. Scale Increasingly it is recognised that small research clusters, as opposed to large companies and organisations, have the greater potential to innovate and support economic systems, resulting in new or offshoot local, regional and national industries. Introducing thresholds, cutting relatively small, stragic funding for projects and researchers, and concentrating public resources even further on large institutions ignores the complexity of the research and innovation chain, and will curtail the development of and the access to research vital for UK growth in the short and long term. In a recent interview, Lord Willis of Knaresborough expressed concern about the 45 percent cut to the research capital budget. He went on to state that the UK could ‘probably sustain ‘no more than 30’ universities with capacity to attract the best global researchers and carry out world-class research’. He suggested that the others should ‘merge with neighbouring colleges of FE to create US-style liberal arts and comunitiy colleges to deliver the high-quality skills training the UK is ‘dying for’.’1 While this may represent an extreme position, we are concerned that the need to curtail spending by increasing concentration of research funds is a foregone conclusion in government. Although at the Science and Technology Committee’s Oral Evidence session on 19th January 2011, Chief Executives from the Research Councils pointed out that the majority of research funding is already concentrated in this manner, the thinking expressed in Lord Willis’s interview, and implicitly supported by sector trends, exemplified by the ESRC’s approach to creating Doctoral Training Centres, runs counter to the system targeting the very skills gap he correctly identifies as central to UK economic growth.

The decision to concentrate funding on 3 and 4* research is, to some extent, understandable. However, when this is coupled with thresholds premised on ‘critical mass’, as occurred in the case of HEFCW, unintended consequences can mean the removal of funding from small, skilled teams of researchers engaging directly with business and targeting particular economic growth areas. This is the case with Glyndwr University, which recently experienced a 100% cut to their HEFCW-administered QR budget despite the excellent internationally recognised work undertaken on behalf of the European Southern Observatory2 and at the Centre for Solar Energy Research, which is researching, in direct collaboration with local SMEs, ways to make the UK a

1 Paul Jump, ‘Leave it to the select few’, Time Higher Education Supplement, 24 March 2011, p 20. 2 If Glyndwr University’s work on this project could lead to a successful contract not only to develop but to manufacture panels for the ESO, resulting in the creation of manufacturing jobs in a deprived region of North East Wales.

leader in sustainable building practice and manufacturing. Glyndwr University, like many GuildHE members, also works in direct partnership with research-intensive universities, helping these institutions in particular with the difficult job of translating their ‘pure’ research and “packaging” it for real-world use. 2. Innovation Alterations to the method of allocation for the HEFCE administered Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) exemplify the potential damage disproportionately inflicted on small and specialist institutions by CSR 2010 thinking and cuts.3 The potential loss of funding due to the introduction of a threshold limiting access to HEIF 2011-15 means that translational research benefiting SMEs and regions will be curtailed in key economic sectors; including food security, health, education and the creative industries.The new allocation method moves money away from certain institutions – as well as localities and specialist sectors - in favour of others; it does not save money, or increase the value of national Knowledge Exchange programmes. A number of HEIs who will receive funding under the new threshold-governed allocation have achieved a lower rate of return on HEIF4 investment than smaller and specialist institutions who, with the proposed methodology and threshold, will not receive any funding at all in HEIF 2011-15.4 Hence, scale is preferenced over true performance. The allocation threshold also has the potential to disproportionately affect economic growth in specific sectors and places. Many smaller and specialist institutions work in places and/or sectors where their interactions with business are unique and they may be the only source of such support and expertise5. Many smaller towns and cities and their economic base are likely to lose out completely and given the focus of their institutions in certain areas of economic activity6, the loss of funding is likely to be disproportionately damaging to local, regional and national growth.

Every penny of HEIF funding is valued by small and specialist institutions and their partners, and its loss has a disproportionate effect on the activity these HEIs are able to offer to local economies, just as its presence in recent years has represented real value-for-money investment.7 The new allocation method means that engagement with industry and communities will need to be scaled back during a period of austerity; the sharing of close-to-market, translational research with local and regional business will be jeopardised, with detrimental effects to communities as well as to their HEIs. This is exacerbated where either the specialisation of research and teaching activity and / or the lack of alternative HE providers

3 See HEFCE Circular letter 06/2011: Higher Education Innovation Funding 2011-15: consultation on a threshold allocation; and indicative institutional allocations for further explanation of the proposed changes. GuildHE has produced a response to HEFCE’s consultation on HEIF 2011-15, as have individual institutions. 4 See Annex A, ‘HEIF 4 – Impact of Funding by HEI (Tables 1 and 2)’. Using the 1:2:7 HEIF 2011-15 weightings, 13 GuildHE member institutions produce the same or better rate of return on investment than HEIs who are receiving substantial HEIF allocations and / or moderation. Growth of income is also important here: a few examples of HEIs who have excelled in a very challenging economic period include Bishop Grosseteste University College, which has increased it HEIF-eligible income by a rate of 23 times; University College Birmingham, which has increased its HEIF-eligible income from £525,000 to £1,323,000 in 3 years; and Newman University College, which has achieved a 150% rate of growth in HEIF 4. In the report Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Role of HEFCE/OSI Third Stream Funding (April 2009/15) the KTP income growth rate for the arts cluster, of which a number of GuildHE member institutions represent a substantial and growing body, was 35%, compared with an overall average of 12%. 5 For example, Harper Adams University College’s three flagship land-based innovation projects: the Open Fields Research / Knowledge Library, which was shortlisted for a THES ‘Outstanding ICT Initiative of the Year’; Women in Rural Enterprise (WiRE), targeting a particularly underutilised group of entrepreneurs; and the National Care Farming Initiative (NCFI), supporting farming business and developments in public health. Writtle College uses HEIF to support work with national supermarkets on food preservation systems, central to issues of food security and world population growth. The University of Worcester uses its National Pollen and Airobiology Research Unit facilities to test prototypes with partners including Dyson. St Mary’s University College has concentrated its HEIF-related activity on health enterprise activity, including the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies, the Endurance Performance Centre, and the Centre for Workplace Health, the latter which works with partners including the British Heart Foundation, Carphone Warehouse, Sainsbury’s, Bovis Lend Lease, Age Concern, St Dominics Sixth Form College and Thompson Reuters. 6 Food security and agriculture; teaching; health; and the creative industries. 7 For example, University College Falmouth used HEIF-supported staff to secure a collaborative bid for the Academy for Innovation and Research economic regeneration project, which received £9m in EU/RDA capital and revenue funding in September 2010.

means that an HEI losing HEIF is often the sole provider of incubation and investment.8 A large amount of HEIF-funded activity has been focused on improving graduate employability, in particular providing incubation and support for graduate start-ups.9 With the loss of HEIF funding, these programmes will be discontinued. Students attending institutions that have performed well under previous HEIF rounds, and are now experiencing a total loss of funding due to the introduction of a threshold, will not have access to programmes that directly target the translation of HE skills and knowledge to the workforce. Again this further jeopardises and penalises activity in specialist sectors and in specific locations in England.

The effects of the threshold are further compounded by the availability of moderation funding only for those institutions continuing to receive HEIF funding. Small and specialist institutions will therefore receive no HEIF funding with no moderation of the effect. The capacity built up in past rounds (both staff and dedicated facilities) will be severely damaged by this decision. The percentage of income lost represented by the complete removal of HEIF is disproportionate amongst GuildHE HEIs, and frequently made worse because many of these institutions also fall below the threshold for moderation funding in HEFCE’s main recurrent grant, meaning that they are likely to be doubly penalised for their size and mission.

3. Teaching and research In policy and funding terms, research is increasingly valued only for its immediate ability to contribute directly to the UK economy, without consideration of its role in shaping inquisitive and discerning graduates capable of leading in an information age. While contract research with companies like Pfizer has, of course, been vital to sustaining the UK science base, the work undertaken by researchers engaging in translation research with UK SMEs and regional business is no less vital to the national economy. Central to that system is the creation of a generation of skilled graduates capable of competing not only in the STEM subjects, but engaging in research and innovation that targets communication and behaviour – both central to the art, design, media, performing arts and humanities research and learning that contributes substantially to the ‘creative industries’ the UK is internationally recognised for. This emphasis on critical thinking, enquiry, communication and engagement is also central to research undertaken in the land-based sector, which continually decries the UK’s lack of skilled graduates and postgraduates. GuildHE institutions are nationally and internationally recognised for the quality of their teaching and their research in to education practice at all levels. Their research-active staff engage directly with with undergraduates and postgraduates, many from widening participation backgrounds, tapping in to the UK’s under-exploited human capital. Students learn about and work on cutting-edge research projects,10 they learn how to collaborate with business, and many (supported by public and private funds) go on to create graduate start-up companies, generating jobs as a direct result of their exposure to research innovations in small and specialist clusters. As a result of the CSR 2010 and the requisite cuts and concentrations stemming from an overhaul to the the UK HE system, small and specialist institutions are experiencing a substantial loss of support for both research and teaching. The long terms effect of these cuts will be a deskilled and less-diverse graduate population, detrimental both to the research base and the knowledge economy.

8 See Falmouth, Worcester, Winchester, Cirencester, Shropshire and Cumbria, for example. 9 Examples include the University of Winchester’s Business Start-up Scheme, benefiting Hampshire in particular, York St John University’s work on Bar Lane Studios, which provides practical support, skill development and facilities for individuals innovating in the creative industries, and Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts’ partnership with the NCGE, which includes translational research on the ways in which performance graduates can contribute to, for example, workforce training and mental health support programmes. 10 For example, University for the Creative Arts works in scientific and medical imaging, using their excellent graphics and animation departments to generate visuals that help scientists make breakthroughs in their own research, and aid in teaching new clinicians and researchers. Here, as in many other case, arts specialists and STEM researchers work together, dependent on one another for the means to achieve innovation.

4. International reputation The introduction of thresholds and the concentration of resources11 on a small group of research-intensive institutions means that small and specialist HEIs will find it difficult to maintain and actively seek out mutually beneficial relationships with European and international partners. These potential collaborators are reluctant to enter in to partnerships, even in areas of vital international concern (for example, research into sustainability and food-security), if they feel that the UK government is not committed to its research base and is, however unintentionally, acting to undermine its quality and diversity. This is compounded by problems created by UKBA reforms to student visas. International students want to undertake undergraduate and research degrees not only at large, research-intensive institutions; they come to GuildHE member institutions because of the particularly innovative, specialist work undertaken in an environment where teaching and research are treated holistically. Many return home to introduce innovations they have learned or developed in the UK to their own practices and economies. Other wish to stay on and work with partners in the UK to develop business and research ideas. This option is increasingly under threat as a result of government reforms, which could mean a further cut to research budgets across the sector.12 5. Instability GuildHE is concerned about a series of de facto cuts to research funding for small and specialist institutions, which rely on the strength and coherence of the HE ecosystem, and are facing multiple losses of research income at a time when the overall HE system is particularly unstable. The delay to the HE White Paper, coupled with cuts and reforms to the Departments for Education, Health, and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has result in a lack of joined-up thinking with respect to these institutions. GuildHE member institutions have proved that they are some of the leanest, most efficient HEIs in the sector.13 They have also committed to innovative and sustainable methods for developing their collaborative and interdisciplinary research capacity, exemplified by the creation of the Consortium for Research Excellence, Support and Training.14 Despite their performance, they are now threatened with disproportionately cuts to a variety of funding streams, despite claims by the government that, along with sustainability, growth, innovation and diversity are the stated ends of HE reforms. The research undertaken by GuildHE member institutions is central to the national growth story, and offers not an alternative to but a vital link in the chain connecting ‘pure’ and ‘translation’ research. GuildHE urges this Committee to aid in its efforts to capitalise on the diversity and excellence of the UK research base, and to ensure that short-term thinking about cuts and concentration does not impede innovation and growth. Declaration of interests This response is submitted on behalf of GuildHE, one of the two formal representative bodies for Higher Education in the UK. It is a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Charity. It was founded in 1967 as the Standing Conference of Principals, registered as a company in 1992 and became GuildHE in 2006. GuildHE has 31 members/associate members. These include publicly

11 The concentration of UK Research Councils to Doctoral Training Centres will also effect international graduates undertaking research degrees at small and specialist institutions. 12 For evidence on the sector-wide reliance on oversears students, see HEFCE’s Financial health of the higher education sector: 2009-10 financial results and 2010-11 forecasts, pg 5: Figure 1, ‘Overseas fee income as percentage of total income (2009-10)’. 13 See Grant Thornton’s report, cited in the Times Higher Education Supplement article of 7 April 2011, entitled The Financial Health of the Higher Education Sector. GuildHE institutions have achieved a surplus of 6.1 per cent of income, the highest in the sector. 14 See Annex B for more information on CREST.

funded higher education providers, a smaller number of private providers of higher education plus some further education colleges offering higher education programmes. For more information about members and activities, visit www.guildhe.ac.uk/ GuildHE 27 April 2011

http://www.guildhe.ac.uk/

Written evidence submitted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (SR 19)

Introduction

1. The role of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is to allocate funding provided by the government to universities and colleges in England for teaching and research (including support for knowledge exchange). In doing so, it aims to promote high quality education and research, within a financially healthy sector. The Council also plays a key role in ensuring accountability and promoting good practice.

2. HEFCE funding for research is allocated to enable universities collectively to maintain a research base of world leading quality across the full range of disciplines, creating a sustainable and flexible national baseline capacity which enables the sector to respond strategically to a changing external environment and on which research and other activity funded from other sources can build. Within the dual support system, our funding is allocated as a grant which the receiving institutions may spend in ways that they consider will best meet these aims, and is distributed selectively by reference to robust indicators of research quality.

3. HEIs are best placed to make informed decisions on how their HEFCE grant should be spent based on the knowledge of their strengths and strategic priorities. HEIs are engaged with and informed by those who take their research forward to applications. The grant also supports HEIs in nurturing and providing support for collaborative research. Assurance of the appropriate use of research funding within the flexibility provided by the grant is provided by the periodic assessment of research quality via the RAE and benchmarking activities undertaken on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

4. In particular, our funding supports HEIs undertaking innovative research, including in new fields and opening new lines of enquiry; the potential that it creates for them to make connections across subjects with a technological, business and social focus is particularly important in this context. It also makes a substantial contribution to maintaining a strong and stable physical and human environment in which excellent research funded from a variety of sources can be carried out. In our view the operation of the dual support system, under which government funding is channelled through complementary grant systems providing both block grant and project funding, has been a major factor in achieving and maintaining the exceptionally high quality of the UK research base in the face of growing international competition.

5. Research funded by HEFCE achieves positive economic and social impacts in several ways, including through the direct application and exploitation of HE research (supported by our Higher Education Innovation Fund); by underpinning the contribution of all HEIs to creating a highly educated, skilled and flexible workforce; and by contributing to a national culture of innovation. We are currently working to establish stronger and

more direct links between our funding and the impacts made by the research activity that it supports.

HEFCE funding for research 2011-12

6. In 2011-12 HEFCE will distribute £1,558 million in recurrent research funding. This is a reduction in cash terms of £45 million compared to the 2010-11 allocations published in October 2010. 7. The total recurrent funding for research is made up of the following elements:

a. £1,053 million for mainstream QR grant b. £32 million for London weighting for mainstream QR

c. £205 million for the research degree programme (RDP) supervision fund

d. £198 million for the charity support element

e. £64 million for the business research element

f. £6 million for research libraries.

8. The main policy aim underpinning our funding for research during the period 2011-15 is to maintain and strengthen excellent research capacity through a period of funding constraint. This is reflected in our grant allocation by making the following adjustments to individual elements within the grant for 2011-12:

a. We have retained the elements for charity support and business research at their cash value in the initial allocations for 2010-11. In the 2010 grant letter, the Government asked us to protect these elements. We regard them as highly significant both in encouraging HEIs to undertake research commissioned by charities and business – especially at a time when less public funding will be available for research – and in helping them to remain competitive as excellent and affordable providers in an increasingly international market. b. We have retained the element for research degree programmes at its cash value on the same basis. This too has been identified as a national priority.

c. We have reduced the element for mainstream QR and allocated this more closely targeted on research of the highest levels of excellence.

9. Previously, mainstream QR has been allocated taking into account research activity of a quality that is at least recognised internationally (2* and above) in the 2008 RAE. The allocations weighted activity at 3* (internationally excellent) and 4* (world leading) level at 3 and 9 respectively relative to a weighting of 1 for 2* research. From

2011-12 we have now begun a two stage process to allocate mainstream QR by reference only to activity at 3* and 4* activity. 10. For 2011-12 we have removed £45 million out of mainstream QR and reset the “slope” so that only £35 million is now allocated driven by activity at 2* level – resulting in a slope of 0.294:3:9. From 2012-13 we propose to cease counting 2* activity in the allocations with a slope of 0:1:3.

11. When fully implemented over two years this will produce a modest but significant increase in the share of mainstream QR grant received by a dozen or so institutions with exceptional concentrations of 3* and 4* activity; roughly freezing the share received by the next dozen or so; and a reduction in the share received by the rest on a scale reflecting the overall research quality profile of each institution.

Concentration of total research funds

HEI Group 2010-11 2011-12 Change

Top 5 in 2010-11 33.3% 34.3% 1.0%

Top 10 in 2010-11 49.3% 50.2% 0.9%

Top 20 in 2010-11 69.7% 70.4% 0.7%

Top 50 in 2010-11 91.8% 92.3% 0.5%

12. Although allocation to particular disciplines within universities is at the discretion of the institution, the notional effects of the change for individual discipline fields should be manageable over the two years in all cases. Some subjects, where there are comparatively more departments with a less strong quality profile, will see correspondingly greater notional reductions in 2011-12. Breakdown on total research funding by broad subject group

2010-11 2011-12 Difference Percentage difference

Clinical Subjects 315.7 310.1 -5.6 -2%

Subjects Allied to Medicine

117.0 113.4 -3.6 -3%

Sciences 463.7 448.0 -15.7 -3%

Engineering Subjects 158.4 152.9 -5.5 -3%

Social Sciences 224.9 217.8 -7.1 -3%

Humanities 154.3 149.8 -4.6 -3%

Arts 64.6 62.3 -2.3 -4%

Education 34.2 33.6 -0.6 -2%

Total 1,532.8 1,487.9 -44.9 -3%

13. We are currently consulting on proposed changes to the allocation method for the research degree programme supervision fund from 2012-13. We are inviting comments on proposals:

a. To increase the value of the RDP supervision fund by up to £35 million. b. For options to link the allocation of RDP supervision funding to quality, meeting HEFCE’s aim of supporting the supervision of students in higher-quality research environments.

c. That the value of an institution’s RDP grant relative to its mainstream QR grant provides a useful indicator of the sustainability of postgraduate supervisory activity at whole-institution level, which we might take into account in future funding.

HEFCE funding for research capital

14. We aim to provide as much as possible of our funding through the core grant. Further non-recurrent funding, in the form of special funding and earmarked capital, is provided for specific purposes and to promote change that cannot easily be achieved through other routes. 15. Most of our earmarked capital for research is allocated by formula, through the research capital investment fund (RCIF). Allocations recognise the excellence of the research of an HEI and are based on a combination of HEIs’ Research Council research income, QR and other research income. £549 million is to be distributed through RCIF2 for four financial years 2011-12 to 2014-15. RCIF aims to:

a. Contribute to the long-term financial sustainability of an HEI’s research and the supporting physical infrastructure. b. Contribute to reducing carbon emissions, improved space utilisation, and increased sharing and utilisation of research equipment. c. Promote collaborative partnerships between HEIs, industry, charities, Government and NHS Trusts. d. Promote world-leading research capability in all disciplines with the capacity to respond to developing national priorities.

16. Research capital comes via both HEFCE and the research Councils. The Research Councils element (£253 million out of the £549 million total) will contribute to the full economic costs of the research projects funded by the Research Councils over 2011-12 to 2014-15.

Higher Education Innovation Funding 2011-15

17. Higher education innovation funding (HEIF) is provided to support knowledge exchange activities in higher education, strengthening links with businesses, public services, communities and the wider public in order to increase economic and social impact. In recognition of the importance of universities and business continuing to work more closely together in the context of the economic recovery and growth of the nation, we have maintained in cash terms the funding for HEIF. 18. For the period 2011-15 funding of £150 million per annum will be allocated: this comprises £113 million from science and research ring-fenced funding and £37 million from HEFCE. This reflects the fact that HEIF supports all forms of knowledge exchange, and that it is interlinked with both research and teaching.

Efficiency savings 19. We have been working jointly with the Research Councils on taking forward the Wakeham recommendations. It has been agreed that indirect cost rates will be used as proxies for relative efficiencies, with HEIs required to implement efficiency reductions. We would expect to see this being achieved through actions such as:

a. Restraining pay costs b. Further improvements in asset utilization c. Further improvements in procurement

20. HEFCE is investing up to £10 million (from the £20 million provided under the University Modernisation Fund to support the further development of shared services) to develop shared data centres, applications and data management services and support. The major users and beneficiaries will be research intensive HEIs leading to efficiencies through data being managed more efficiently (generating both cash and carbon savings) and being more easily shared. Higher Education Funding Council for England 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (PESGB),

The British Geophysical Association (BGA), and The Geological Society of London (GSL), working through its

Petroleum Group (SR 20)

1. This submission has been produced jointly by three organisations which, between them, represent a significant part of the science and engineering base of the UK Oil and Gas industry. All three bodies promote, for the public benefit, education in Earth sciences related to petroleum exploration, development and production. They are:

• The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (PESGB) • The British Geophysical Association (BGA) • The Geological Society of London (GSL), working through its Petroleum

Group

The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain the national community for Earth scientists working in the oil and gas industry, with over 5,000 members worldwide. The objective of the Society is to promote, for the public benefit, education in the scientific and technical aspects of petroleum exploration. To achieve this objective the PESGB makes regular charitable disbursements, holds monthly lecture meetings in London and Aberdeen and both organises and sponsors other conferences, seminars, workshops, field trips and publications.

The British Geophysical Association represents geophysicists in academia and industry who are members of the Royal Astronomical Society or the Geological Society of London. Its role is to promote geophysics and knowledge about geophysics at national and international levels.

The Geological Society is the national learned and professional body for Earth sciences, with 10,000 Fellows (members) worldwide. Of these, around 1,800 are members of the Society’s Petroleum Group, which encompasses those working in industry, academia and government, with a wide range of perspectives and views on policy-relevant science, and the Society is a leading communicator of this science to government, policy makers, media, those in education and the broader public.

The group which has prepared this submission includes senior figures from academia and from several sectors of the hydrocarbons industry. The document also draws on consultation carried out with the course leaders of UK petroleum geoscience MSc courses.

2. We have chosen to focus this joint submission solely on the effect which the science and research budget allocations have had on the provision of taught Masters courses in petroleum geoscience, and the likely consequences for the oil and gas industry. In particular, we note with concern the decision of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to discontinue from 2011 the provision of studentships for those following MSc programmes across the Earth and environmental sciences, in light of the pressures on its overall budget. We now view the risk of serious market failure

with regard to the provision of suitably qualified scientists and engineers as being sufficiently important to the future of the UK oil and gas industry to warrant a combined response from our organisations, including the present submission to the Committee’s call for evidence. While our focus here is on the hydrocarbons industry, we note that the risk to future supply of suitably qualified personnel is replicated in other sectors dependent on Earth science and engineering skills.

Future skills needs

3. NERC’s response to budgetary pressures, including the decision to discontinue MSc funding, has been informed by a skills needs assessment report entitled ‘Most Wanted: Skills needs in the Environment Sector’. This report takes a somewhat simplistic view of the energy and environmental landscape. In particular, the section on energy refers only to renewable sources – yet in 2011, 60% of the UK’s total energy requirements will be met by oil and gas produced from UK reserves. Nonetheless, the skills framework document highlights the need for advanced geoscience skills for the energy sector.

4. In March 2011, an event at the Houses of Parliament was organised by PESGB Young Professionals, many of whom had graduated with Masters degrees in recent years. Government and opposition speakers noted the need to encourage students to take STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects, and the challenge the UK faces in this regard.

5. The UK hydrocarbons industry will depend on the supply of trained personnel qualified in a range of STEM subjects, including thousands of geoscientists, both to continue to develop the UK’s resource base, and to maintain its strong foothold in the industry globally – many UK-trained geoscientists have gone on to achieve management positions at the highest levels in oil and gas companies the world over. The domestic industry delivers enormous economic value to UK plc (£38 billion of GDP in 2007), much of which is returned to government through taxation. It is also fundamentally underpins UK energy security. Oil and Gas UK have estimated that 50,000 job vacancies will arise in the UK oil and gas industry in the coming years.

6. The expertise of geoscientists, and of the UK oil and gas industry, will also be essential to delivering the government’s stated aim of rapidly developing and deploying carbon capture and storage (CCS) at commercial scale – a necessity if we are to continue to burn fossil fuels while rapidly reducing our CO2 emissions. This is an industry in which the UK has the potential to become a world leader, and which could rival the present North Sea oil and gas industry in size. This too would require thousands of trained geoscientists. The March 2011 Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage report estimates that in Scotland alone, the industry will require an additional 859 geoscientists with postgraduate training.

7. The continuing exploration, development and production of the UK’s hydrocarbon resources, and the ability to ensure their sustainable use through CCS, demand a high degree of national capability in several geoscience disciplines, and a workforce equipped with skills and competencies which are not achieved at first degree level.

The added value to industry of Masters degrees is indicated by the observation of some employers that new recruits with such a qualification are typically regarded as ‘profitable’ within months, while for those with only a Bachelors degree this may take years. Applied Masters courses represent one of the principal sources of skilled personnel for industry, including those who go on to take senior management positions. The UK hydrocarbon industry’s strong global position depends to a great extent on its excellent graduates at both Bachelors and Masters level, and would be placed in jeopardy should this supply of high-quality trained personnel founder.

8. Among the geoscience skills most vital to the energy sector, are environmental and engineering geophysics. These are crucial in servicing both the conventional and renewable energy sector, often indirectly through site investigations for new power stations and wind farms, waste disposal sites, and cable and pipeline routing.

9. Many of those entering applied MSc courses in geoscience disciplines have first degrees in other STEM subjects. For these graduates, Masters courses serve as ‘conversion’ courses – a great strength in meeting the growing need for personnel with interdisciplinary skills, who can work in teams with colleagues from a variety of scientific and engineering backgrounds.

10. MSc graduates also represent one of the most effective mechanisms for knowledge transfer, taking outputs from research-informed teaching into the commercial workplace.

Sources of MSc funding

11. The 285 studentships previously provided annually by NERC represented the only stream of direct public funding for Masters training in these vital areas. While recognising the pressures on Research Council’s budgets, the BGA and GSL have previously written directly to NERC, pointing out some of the likely consequences of this decision. Notwithstanding the limitations of NERC’s consultation and analysis regarding skills needs, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that public support for taught MSc programmes must in future be delivered through the Funding Councils, which are charged with setting their own budgets in line with their own strategic priorities. Our concern is not which agency of government provides this modest but hugely valuable stream of funding, but to point out the potential unintended consequences of its withdrawal – namely, greatly reduced economic productivity, national capability and energy security. There may be some reluctance on the part of government to distribute funding via NERC specifically for the support of applied Masters courses, if it is thought to be interfering in Research Councils’ freedom to determine funding priorities. However, this is not a matter of setting research priorities – financial support for Masters training should be recognised as quite distinct from research funding.

12. Industry presently funds a significant proportion of MSc students in petroleum geoscience. The majority of this funding is from large oil and gas companies.

13. Other MSc students fund their studies themselves. With undergraduate fees rising, students may be less willing than before to take on more debt after graduation by undertaking self-funded Masters courses.

Risk of market failure

14. In the energy sector, it might be assumed that the hydrocarbon energy industry would make up the shortfall caused by NERC’s cuts, but our community believe that this is unlikely. As noted above, larger companies already provide a significant level of MSc sponsorship. However, there is insufficient incentive for individual companies to provide further funding. Graduates may not be retained in employment by their sponsoring company for long enough to justify the investment, particularly given the high level of mobility of geoscience graduates. This risk is relatively greater for SMEs, for which the loss of investment in an individual is relatively greater, and which do not benefit from the smoothing effect of employing more graduates. (Companies in the service sector, such as those providing geophysical services for plant siting and construction referred to above, are also unlikely to sponsor geoscience students, particularly given their relatively low profit margins.) Recent changes to the UK tax regime for the hydrocarbons industry are likely to lead to an increased focus on controllable expenditures external to the companies, including reducing student sponsorships. Indeed, those companies with the largest part of their investment portfolio residing in the UK, who already might offer student sponsorships, will be facing the tightest challenges from their own management over costs in light of increased pressure on post-tax margins. This reinforces our experience as industry professionals and educators that industry will not respond immediately to make up much of the shortfall in MSc sponsorships and course funding.

15. The organisations making this submission are nonetheless committed to stimulating and supporting industry funding. The PESGB already provides student bursaries as part of its charitable purpose, and is also considering the viability of an additional scheme to pool resources from SMEs to fund studentships. The GSL is planning a similar initiative for other industrial sectors. However, we do not anticipate that these efforts alone will be sufficient to replace the funding previously provided by NERC.

16. A number of geoscience specialisms relevant to the oil and gas industry are identified by government as already suffering skills shortages, and are therefore listed on the UK Border Agency Shortage Occupation List (March 2011) – applicants in these occupations for Tier 2 migrant status are to be assigned high priority under the new immigration regulations. However, it would be wrong to assume that we will be able in future to import the qualified personnel we need. Despite the large number of Earth scientists being produced in emerging economies, there is not expected to be any surplus in global supply (see AGI/IUGS workforce study 2011). China is undersupplied by 30% in comparison to its projected needs, and India is neither importing nor exporting trained Earth scientists. New constraints on the student visa system may further limit the number of international candidates entering the UK postgraduate education system.

Impact of reduced support for MSc students

17. We have consulted the directors of 12 courses at 9 universities (Table 1) offering vocational training in geology and geophysics related to the energy industry. They report that of over 300 places on these courses, a significant majority is now taken by independently funded foreign students. Of the remainder, NERC has funded around 30 students per year, at a cost in the order of £500,000 (just over 10% of the total number of NERC MSc studentships). As well as helping to sustain UK student numbers, NERC’s support has functioned as a quality kite-mark, recognising academic excellence. If this public funding is not restored or substituted, in the context of the increased pressures on industry funding and self-funding outlined above, the likely impacts are wide ranging. They include:

• The availability of significantly fewer UK-based geoscientists to meet national energy, environmental and economic needs.

• Increased risk to academic excellence. Securing a course place will be more likely to reflect a student’s ability to secure funding than academic capability. Fewer MSc students will reduce an important ‘feeder pool’ for primary research at PhD level and beyond.

• Reducing participation from less well-off students in Masters courses, adversely impacting industry’s access to talent and increasing the probability of social divisions in access to higher education.

18. These factors may combine sufficiently to threaten the financial viability of some courses, many of which have long-established reputations for academic excellence globally. In some smaller specialisms, there may be few courses already, and further closures may threaten national capability. The absolute number of such specialists needed by industry is small, but many of those currently in the workforce are relatively near the end of their careers. If they cannot be replaced, this will soon critically undermine industry’s ability to discover and characterise hydrocarbon resources, as well as increasing risk in the safe drilling of exploration and development wells. A crucial field of this kind is micropalaeontology, in which already there are no specialist MSc courses remaining (the last having been at UCL). What little capacity remains for teaching micropalaeontology within more general geoscience courses is further threatened by the loss of NERC funding. The UK was once internationally dominant in micropalaeontology and its industrial application in biostratigraphy, but is now a customer for such skills rather than a supplier. (See the Micropalaeontological Society’s submission to the NERC 2010 UK Taxonomy and Systematics Review for further detail.)

19. If companies cannot recruit the skilled personnel they need in the UK, they may relocate elsewhere, and large multinationals may shift the focus of their activities outside the UK, to the detriment of national energy security and economic wellbeing.

Recommendation

20. The change announced in funding policy for applied Masters programmes in Earth sciences, when considered in the context of other policy changes (notably regarding undergraduate student fees, the taxation regime for the hydrocarbons industry and visa requirements) and the outlook for the global geoscience workforce, runs the risk of significant unintended consequences. We believe that there is a real danger that these short-term changes could have a disproportionate adverse impact on the long-term competitiveness of the UK energy sector both in research and business, given the modest amounts of public funding at stake.

21. Given this, we urge the Science and Technology Select Committee to recommend that government attend urgently to the likely market failure in funding of applied Masters programmes as a vital investment in UK plc:

• Public funding of studentships should be restored, whether via NERC or through some other mechanism judged more appropriate in the context of the Higher Education policy regime more widely.

• Government should also consider providing additional incentives to stimulate industry funding of applied Masters programmes, for example through tax breaks or fund matching.

22. Our three organisations would be pleased to discuss further any of the points raised in this submission, to provide more detailed information, or to suggest oral witnesses and other specialist contacts.

References

American Geological Institute / International Union of Geological Sciences. 2011. Global Change Faces the Geoscience Profession. Paper from AGI/IUGS workforce study, published in First Break Recruitment Special (European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers), 6pp.

British Geophysical Association. January 2011. BGA response to NERC 2011-2015 Delivery Plan. Letter to NERC, 3 pp.

Environment Research Funders’ Forum. 2010. MOST WANTED: Postgraduate Skills Needs in the Environment Sector Report 7, 22pp.

Geological Society of London. February 2011. Natural Environment Research Council support for MSc training. Letter to NERC, 2pp.

Home Office UK Border Agency. December 2010. The Student Immigration System: a consultation, 30 pp.

Home Office UK Border Agency. March 2011. Shortage Occupation List, 9pp.

Micropalaeontological Society. April 2010. Submission to the NERC UK Taxonomy and Systematics Review, 4pp.

Oil and Gas UK. 2011. Activity Survey, 26pp.

Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain. April 2011. PESGB Young Professionals at the Houses of Parliament. PESGB Newsletter, and online at http://www.pesgb.org.uk/pesgb/pages/news-and-events/event-reviews/house-commons-review

Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage. March 2011. Progressing Scotland’s CO2 Storage Opportunities. Online at http://www.sccs.org.uk/progress-to-co2-storage-scotland, 72pp.

http://www.pesgb.org.uk/pesgb/pages/news-and-events/event-reviews/house-commons-review

http://www.pesgb.org.uk/pesgb/pages/news-and-events/event-reviews/house-commons-review

http://www.sccs.org.uk/progress-to-co2-storage-scotland

Table 1

University Course Directors Consulted, March 2011

MSc Course Director

University of Aberdeen Integrated Petroleum Geoscience Dave Jolley

Bangor University Applied Marine Geoscience Dei Huws

University of Derby Applied Petroleum Geology Dorothy Satterfield

University of Edinburgh Exploration Geophysics Mark Chapman

Heriot Watt University

Exploration, Appraisal and Development Andy Gardiner

Reservoir Evaluation and Management

Imperial College London Petroleum Geophysics Helmut Jakubowicz

Petroleum Geoscience Howard Johnson

University of Leeds Structural Geology with Geophysics Douglas Paton

Exploration Geophysics Roger Clark University of Manchester Petroleum Geoscience Jim Armstrong

Newcastle University Petroleum Geochemistry Martin Cooke The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (PESGB) The British Geophysical Association (BGA) The Geological Society of London (GSL), working through its Petroleum Group 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by The UKRC (SR 21)

Executive summary 1. The UKRC [www.theukrc.org] has a vested interest in the science budget. The UKRC was core funded by the government from 2004 until 2011 at an average of £1.8m p.a over the 7 years, (£2.5m in 2010/11) to address the serious under representation of women in science, engineering and technology (SET)1, working with organizations, business and individual women. The Science Budget Allocation included a decision not to renew funding for the UKRC from April 2011.2 A transition sum of £500,000 for 2011‐12 was latterly agreed. By 2012 the UKRC will have sustained a loss of 100% of its government funding. 2. The UKRC argues that it continues to have a vital role to play under the new policy framework as an independent expert organisation for equality and diversity in STEM acting as a driver and catalyst, requiring a realistic level of funding and appropriate timescales. The UKRC is particularly well placed to continue promoting good practice and identifying where equality of opportunity is lacking, assisting the government with “deep insight”3 of causes and solutions. This role is indicated in the recommendations that follow. This submission explains the concerns that the UKRC has in relation to the science budget allocation and the equality and diversity strategy being adopted within it. The argument is made in sections covering:

• Process on the funding decision • Background and Policy on women in SET • Mainstreaming, Equalities and Diversity – theory and practice • Strategies for Equality in SET

2. Recommendations for the Science and Technology Committee:

1. A framework and strategy for Diversity in the STEM workforce should be produced which clearly articulates how “embedding good practice”, the “right incentives and direction”, “better value” and “wider reach and greater impact”4 will be defined, assessed and progress measured.

1 SET and STEM are both used in this document according to the relevant policy linkage. SET largely for occupations and workforce and STEM to include education pathways. 2 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world‐class science and research, BIS, December 2010 3 The Equality Strategy ‐ Building a Fairer Britain 2010 www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx 4 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world‐class science and research, BIS, December 2010

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx

2. The Government should ensure that the costs and benefits of the decision not to renew funding for the UKRC can be assessed in the context of BIS’ strategy and the Government’s overall equality objectives, and put in place the appropriate mechanisms for accountability and scrutiny of diversity and equality initiatives.

3. The Government should ensure that relevant expertise for mainstreaming and

delivering equality is held by those funded to deliver programmes. 4. A new strategy on women in SET should be fully articulated and formalised. It

should be positioned within a diversity framework, which has explicit, resourced and measurable objectives, and supported by an independent expert organization acting as a driver and catalyst, backed by a realistic level of funding and appropriate timescales.

5. The Government should recognise that mainstreaming and the provision of an

expert resource and catalyst are not in conflict, and that mainstreaming will not be effective without an expert resource and driver. They therefore should resource a longer “transition” period to measure and assess the effectiveness of implementation of the new strategy.

6. The Government should continue to allocate core funding to the UKRC beyond

2011‐12. This will sustain an efficient expert centre that can: develop necessary equality resources and tools for the STEM community; provide an overview to address gaps in action, avoid reinvention and duplication; ensure co‐ordination of effort. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for all relevant stakeholders enabled to strategically align by an expert centre.

7. The Government should resource the UKRC to broaden its formal remit to

deliver on a wider diversity agenda, to align with the Equality Act 2011. 8. The Government should ensure that the leadership on Equality and Diversity

from mainstream bodies does not result in piecemeal and fragmented coverage. Equality analysis and capability for action should cover the breadth of the STEM sectors, the full range of professional and vocational occupations and career paths, and the barriers and progression issues across the career lifetime, and not only initial education and supply.

9. The Government should be challenged to ensure that the level of investment in

equality and diversity actions during the 2011/12 to 2014/15 period is maintained at equivalent to previous levels and is transparent within the mainstreaming approach.

1. Background 1.1 The UKRC [www.theukrc.org] has a vested interest in the science budget. The UKRC was core funded by the government from 2004 until 2011 at an average of £1.8m p.a over the 7 years, (£2.5m in 2010/11), to address the serious under‐representation of women in science, engineering and technology (SET)5, working with organizations, business and individual women. The Science Budget Allocation included a decision not to renew funding for the UKRC from April 2011. 6A transition sum of £500,000 for 2011‐12 was latterly agreed. By 2012 the UKRC will have sustained a loss of 100% of its government funding. 1.2 The areas of SET education and employment cover Higher and Further Education, Apprenticeships and research careers and research funding, employers of SET qualified people, the SET industrial sectors and the many associated learned societies, academies, professional bodies and women’s organisations. 1.3 In 2002 Lord Browne said “The under representation of women in SET is not an issue for a single organisation but for strategically aligned efforts from all relevant stakeholders.”7 1.4 The UKRC agrees. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for all relevant stakeholders enabled to strategically align by an expert centre. 2 Introduction to the UKRC 2.1 The UKRC was established in 2004 following the Roberts’ Review SET for Success (2001) and the Greenfield Report SET Fair (2002). The UKRC has received two rounds of core funding through the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and its predecessor departments. In the period 2008‐11 the UKRC was awarded £7.45m and in the period 2004‐2007 a total of £5.2m. 2.2 The UKRC has therefore developed over 7 years as the UK Government’s lead organisation for the provision of advice, services and policy consultation regarding the under‐representation of women in science, engineering and technology (SET). It creates, shares and delivers solutions to build the talents, skills and diversity of the workforce in these sectors.

5 SET and STEM are both used in this document according to the relevant policy linkage. SET largely for occupations and workforce and STEM to include education pathways. 6 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world‐class science and research, BIS, December 2010 7 SET Fair: A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2002 DTI

2.3 The UKRC has an advanced model of cultural change for SET business and organisations and a successful package of employability and career support for women. These are tried and tested models created in response to research evidence and achieving impact. The UKRC is closely connected with the SET sectors, with established relationships as a trusted advisor to many organisations and has extensive reach to women and organisations through its membership networks. 2.4 The UKRC has focused on the following strategic areas of delivery and impact:

• The UKRC supports business and organisations, including education and research institutions, to increase the recruitment, retention and progression of women scientists, engineers and technologists.

• The UKRC develops and delivers resources and programmes to support individual

women to get into, get established, return to and get to the top in SET career paths.

• The UKRC acts a central resource and single point of contact for expert advice,

know‐how and effective good practice models and tools for the SET sector and stakeholders

• The UKRC engages in policy debate, the provision of research, data and

statistical analysis and strategic influence within the SET community in support of its aims.

2.4 During the last contract period 2008‐2011, the UKRC directly reached over 7,000 women, of which 2,500 have participated in specific career development support, with approaching 900 women reporting positive outcomes at March 2011, such as raised profile, entering training, progression in work or returning to employment. The UKRC’s direct engagement with organizations and employers in the same period has so far led to over 300 organisations, encompassing over a million people, reporting positive changes and improvements in gender equality through their work with the UKRC, such as increased recruitment and retention, diagnosis and action plan, improvements in working environment. Additionally the UKRC supports and provides information and resources for groups and networks. The UKRC’s “Connect” project for groups and initiatives supporting women in SET has over 100 registered member organizations with a collective membership reach of over 25,000 women. 2.5 The loss of direct support services both to individual women and organisations and businesses is significant. 3 Science Budget

3.1 In its announcement8 on 20 December 2010, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) stated that: “Better value can be realised through … broader activities and through better direction of existing diversity projects. Therefore, from April 2011, funding for the UKRC will not be renewed.” 3.2 The announcement also states: “The way forward to tackle this issue is to encourage diversity in the STEM workforce by embedding and mainstreaming it through a number of the programmes we fund, and those of the partners with which we work.” And: “…given the right incentives and direction, we expect these (programmes) to establish a wider reach and greater impact on all areas of diversity and equality in the STEM workforce.” 3.3 BIS have not yet set out what impact and results the new mainstreaming strategy will seek to achieve, or how the equality and diversity objectives for each programme and project will be set, embedded, incentivized and measured. 3.4 The Government’s stated commitment to promoting equality and ensuring diversity in the STEM workforce remains welcome. 3.5 There are a number of problems with the decision not to fund the UKRC with public sector monies from the BIS science budget:

• Process on the funding decision • Background and Policy on women in SET • Mainstreaming, Equalities and Diversity – theory and practice • Strategies for Equality in SET

4 Process on the funding decision 4.1 There was a lack of involvement and transparency in the process on the decision not to renew the UKRC’s funding. 4.2 There was no formal and open consultation process concerning the funding to the UKRC, or the need for its work, or its effectiveness. No immediate stakeholders of the UKRC were involved and neither were any wider SET sector and community stakeholders. The UKRC would have welcomed discussion and debate to refresh its strategy and contribute to the new policy thinking and direction. 4.3 No Equality Impact Assessment has been done. Equality Impact Assessments are no longer a statutory requirement. However, public bodies are still required to assess the impact of their decisions, and be transparent and accountable to communities about the

8 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world‐class science and research, BIS, December 2010

decisions that they are making.9 4.4 No informal communication was received by the UKRC about the intention not to renew or the likelihood of a withdrawal. The UKRC was not invited to make proposals and no discussion was initiated. The UKRC did submit a paper in early November 2010, giving an outline for a forward strategy and way of working and requesting a meeting with the officials, but received no response at that time. 4.5 The announcement not to renew the UKRC funding and the new policy direction on mainstreaming diversity has met with alarm from organisations and women scientists and engineers. Many organisations are not confident that they can proceed effectively. They have strongly stated the continued need for a central body of expertise, a holder of and repository for best practice, an organisation that has a strategic overview of the equality in SET landscape, which gives visibility to equality and diversity issues, which has credibility and through facilitation can influence change in organisations involved in programme delivery. Without due process and proper planning it has not been possible to air views and discuss the issues of resourcing, expertise and transition time where a year isn’t long enough. The lack of timely transition planning in 2010 leaves them exposed. 4.6 The policy direction has changed without proper evaluation and evidence base. There has been no public review of the work of the UKRC since 2008 to inform the decision to change strategy from a “centre” offering strategic alignment, to a mainstreaming strategy lead by two or three other sector bodies. The UKRC has consistently met and often exceeded the requirements and targets agreed with the department. There is no evidenced case made for the new approach being ”better value”. 4.7 The outcome of this process is highly likely to undermine the previous investment of public money and progress to date. Concerns about lack of consultation, the need to retain expertise through policy changes and manage successful transitions, emerge strongly from the Inquiry into the Review of Public Bodies by the Public Administration Select Committee. The steps taken by BIS to secure a successful transition to the new strategy have been retrospective and not timely. There are concerns about the new approach too. 4.8 The scope and priorities for the new government strategy, and the leadership responsibilities and accountability, are not yet articulated or agreed. The Royal Academy of Engineering is mentioned in the Science Funding Allocation announcement as developing a “new diversity programme in engineering” with a small allocation of

9 http://www.bis.gov.uk/equality‐impact‐assessments http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8017174

http://www.bis.gov.uk/equality-impact-assessments

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8017174

funding, however the focus and outcomes are still to be determined. Neither has a parallel body to lead on the wider “science” domain been identified. There is a danger that the time needed to agree new roles and functions may consume much of the energy and resource available for the one‐year transition period. 5. Background and Policy on women in SET The Position of Women and Girls in SET 2010 5.1 At the end of 2010 the UKRC published Women and men in science, engineering and technology: the UK statistics guide 201010 Only 5.3 per cent (674 thousand women), or about one in twenty, of all working women are employed in any SET occupation, compared to 31.3 per cent for all working men (nearly one in three), in a total of 5.5 million women and men in SET occupations. This means that a man is six times more likely to work in a SET occupation than a woman. 5.2 The number of girls and women studying STEM has improved. However STEM graduates do not always work in SET occupations.11 Female STEM graduates of working age12 in the UK (a total of 620 thousand women) are more likely to take up employment in non‐SET than in SET occupations. Only 29.8 per cent (185 thousand) of all female STEM graduates of working age in the UK are employed in SET occupations compared to half (782 thousand) of all male STEM graduates of working age. Nearly 100 thousand female STEM graduates are either unemployed or economically inactive. 5.3 Women were only 12.3 per cent of the workforce in all SET occupations including health and skilled trades in 2008. This is an increase of 2.0 percentage points since 2003. Review of the position of women in SET 2002/3 5.4 In 2002, the government established a review into the representation of women in SET. The SET Fair report called for an integrated approach to address the fragmentation of efforts, the need for culture change and the importance of policy implementation at organisational level. The government responded in 2003 with a strategy on women in SET which included setting up the UKRC to work with businesses and organisations and individual women, particularly returners.13 It also set up an Implementation, later “Expert Group” on Women in STEM, originally tasked to monitor the whole strategy’s implementation. The future role of various STEM advisory groups has not yet been finalised, however, volunteer groups and forums should not be confused with the role of

10 Available in pdf at: http://www.theukrc.org/resources/ukrc‐statistics‐guide‐2010 11 STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is the term used in an educational context, while SET (science, engineering and technology) is used in relation to occupations and industries, in the official data sources used here. 12 Term ‘working age’ includes individuals who are in employment, unemployed and economically inactive. 13 A Strategy for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2003, DTI

http://www.theukrc.org/resources/ukrc-statistics-guide-2010

a professional delivery organisation. Strategy for women in SET from 2003 on 5.5 Between 2004 and 2011, the UKRC fully met its contractual commitments arising from the government’s 2003 strategy. The extent to which all the other key elements of the strategy not directly within the purview of the UKRC were achieved or otherwise should also have been assessed and reviewed. This has not been done. The decision not to renew funding to the UKRC is not evidenced by proper arguments for the notion of an alternative approach to the representation of women in SET. 5.6 The UKRC has used the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology approved by the Cabinet Office to undertake an analysis of its core work with organisations and individual women. This shows a return of over 5:1 for every £1 invested, which means that the £2.8 million invested in these UKRC activities over 18 months from April 2008 – September 2009 generated £14.8 million in return.

5.7 The most significant findings from the SROI were the value generated for three key stakeholder groups: organisations and employers, unemployed women and those not working in SET, and their family and community. The positive impact on families and peer groups was an important added benefit of the UKRC work with individuals. 5.8 Combining a cut in resources with the mainstreaming approach will considerably limit what can be achieved. There seems to be little understanding of the time involved in creating change. 6. Mainstreaming, Equalities and Diversity – theory and practice Mainstreaming 6.1 The government has withdrawn its funding to the UKRC and is planning to allocate the lead responsibility on diversity, not, as before, “women’s participation in SET”, to two or more sector organisations. While the UKRC fully supports the idea of the professions owning the problem, the funding announcement makes enormous assumptions about the appropriate theory of change: the methods by which awareness is raised, and the processes to achieve more equal outcomes. The concept of mainstreaming is problematic in the field of gender and equality. The government has not articulated what is meant formally or informally. The term embedding is sometimes used interchangeably. 6.2 There is a considerable body of thinking in policy and academic fields in the UK, Europe and the USA, which explores the take up, effectiveness and differences between diversity, equality and gender mainstreaming policies, and approaches to change in organisations and businesses. 6.3 “Gender Mainstreaming” as a concept and an approach to inequality has been used

informally and formally for more than 20 years.14 Its success in relation to women’s equality is still debated. It was originally conceived to have education and awareness, analysis and data, and consultation and participation activities or tools as components. One commentator said: “Mainstreaming is a deceptively simple concept that is likely to be extremely difficult to operationalise.”15 Others have aptly put it that: “If gender is everybody’s responsibility in general, then it’s nobody’s responsibility in particular.”16 This is exemplified by studies in other EU countries, which have shown for instance how long gender mainstreaming practice takes to develop. In addition, mainstreaming is widely recognised as only one of several elements necessary to create change in relation to equality in institutions and in society. The elements can be summarised as being: a framework (e.g. legislation, equality objectives and policy); positive action; and gender mainstreaming. “Diversity mainstreaming” is an even newer concept and aspiration, with far less history, or theory and practice to inform its implementation organisationally. 6.4 More equality (in terms of opportunity, treatment and outcome) in organisations, institutions and society depend on a number of factors including wider social change, business drivers, workforce relations, government policy and legislation. Most practitioners and experts agree that a number of elements generally assist change; these include political will, champions and leadership, resources, expertise, and monitoring. 6.5 Change management in this arena of equality between men and women is debated and complex17. At the very least, the debate itself signals an area of public policy and practice in industry that has established bodies of knowledge and theories of change. These seem to have been set aside in the funding decision about the UKRC. Furthermore, there is no clarity in the announcement, or the discussions since, about how direction, incentives, good practice, best value and effectiveness will be defined,

14 Walby, S. �Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society ‐ Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2005, pp. 321‐343 Ben‐Galim, Dalia and Campbell, Mary and Lewis, Jane (2007) Equality and diversity: a new approach to gender equality policy in the UK. International journal of law in context, 3 (1). pp. 19‐33 Eveline, J. and Bacchi, C. (2005) What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender? International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7,4, 496‐512 Walby, S. (2005) Comparative gender mainstreaming in a global era. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7,4, 453‐70. Rees, T. (2005) Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7,4, 555‐74. 15 Mazey. S. Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Principles and Practice 2001 16 Pollack, M.A. and Hafner‐Burton, E (2000) Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union. P.452 17 Stocktaking 10 years of “Women in Science” policy by the European Commission 1999‐2009 2010 EU

determined or assessed within the new approach. 6.6 The decision by BIS to embed and mainstream diversity is not backed by understanding or evidence. Even more critically, if there are no base lines or clear goals then it will not be possible to measure “better value” or “wider reach and greater impact”.18 Equality ‐ the Coalition Government strategy on equality – Building a Fairer Britain (2010)19 6.7 Building a Fairer Britain does not include a signal or commitment to a diversity or mainstreaming framework. The strategy prioritises two elements of equality ‐ equal treatment and equal opportunity. Its focus is on barriers to individuals, equality is “for all”, but also recognises specific problems in particular domains, for particular sub sections of our society. 6.8 It highlights several issues experienced by women (as a group) in particularly mentioning “occupational segregation and traditional approaches to job design” (p7) And, as the UKRC has also pointed out 20, this strategy spells out how much is lost to the economy by the waste of women’s talents. It rejects a labour market that “writes people off” because of “outdated perceptions”. It casts government’s role as leader, catalyst and advocate for change, working across society, recognising good practice and drawing on “deep insight”. The government wants to shine the “light of transparency on organizations” (p5). 6.9 With respect to the labour market it wants to work with business on fair access, flexibility and inclusivity and equal pay and opportunities. Notably, they say, “ We need to address outright discrimination in the workplace and tackle persistent cultural attitudes that place barriers to individuals entering and progressing in the workplace because of outdated and misplaced assumptions and practices… Behavioural insights could help us address cultural attitudes. For example we know that some people have intrinsic biases about male and female capabilities, which impacts negatively on women’s career advancement”. 6.10 The UKRC is particularly well placed to continue promoting good practice and identifying where equality of opportunity is lacking, assisting the government with deep insight of causes and solutions, and helping with transparency.

18 Department for Business Innovation and Skills: The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2104/15 (December 2010) 19 The Equality Strategy ‐ Building a Fairer Britain 2010 www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx 20 Women Mean Business, The UKRC 2010 www.theukrc.org/files/useruploads/files/organisations/1997_gpg_womenmeanbusiness_v6.pdf

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx

http://www.theukrc.org/files/useruploads/files/organisations/1997_gpg_womenmeanbusiness_v6.pdf

6.11 The strategy also draws attention to the new arrangements it intends to make for consultation with women. The UKRC’s Connect initiative, which encompasses over 100 groups and organisations, reaching over 25 thousand women in SET – a network of networks of women in SET is at risk. There is a danger that the key stakeholders of women and other under‐represented groups, as the customers, participants and final beneficiaries of the strategy on women in SET, will not be given effective voice and involvement. Women in SET may be fragmented again and less able to participate in the new arrangements for engaging with women and women’s organisations which are being advocated by the Home Office as part of the consultation in Spring 2011 on Strengthening Women’s Voices in Government.21 6.12 It is not coherent or strategic when specific issues and approaches identified in one equality strategy are ill matched by the BIS Science budget allocations. Diversity 6.13 With respect to the policy decision to focus on diversity rather than gender alone, the UKRC agrees that it is right that stakeholders address all relevant equality issues to achieve a greater ‘diversity’ across the board. In fact it does so itself very effectively22. 6.14 But it is not clear why this should be done a the expense of an effective initiative designed to address the most significant question of inequality in SET, that of women’s severe under representation, and not even invite the UKRC to set up similar responses to the specific needs of other under‐represented groups.23 Change management and leadership methods 6.15 What is in contention here are the methods by which awareness is raised and more equal outcomes achieved. 6.16 The UKRC has supported and witnessed a much deeper acceptance in the UK that women ought to be participating in greater numbers and at higher levels in SET than prior to the publication of the SET Fair report in 2002. Leading organisations and business increasingly recognise the value and competitive advantage women bring to STEM education, research and industry in terms of excellence, innovation and as a source of supply to meet skills shortages

21 www.equalities.gov.uk/what_we_do/womens_engagement.aspx 22 Through outreach, targeted promotion and networking , the UKRC has, for example, achieved participation rates of 20‐25% from black and minority ethnic communities. 23 Which equality groups need particular attention was not specified by government. The UKRC Statistics Guide analyses gender and other equality characteristics. Available in pdf at: http://www.theukrc.org/resources/ukrc‐statistics‐guide‐2010 A full baseline assessment for all equality strands should be established to underpin the new equality mainstreaming strategy.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/what_we_do/womens_engagement.aspx

http://www.theukrc.org/resources/ukrc-statistics-guide-2010

6.17 However, it is still widely the case that key senior people in SET are not fully sensitive to the issues that face under represented groups. Parts of the sector are held back by out‐dated attitudes regarding women’s roles and position in the SET workforce. Moreover, they often struggle to know how to address the problems. They have turned particularly to the UKRC for advice and support for the range of recruitment, retention and progression issues they face. 6.18 The UKRC’s model of change has emphasised the need to embed and mainstream. It encourages systemic change within organisations, businesses and wider service provision. The UKRC has been outcome oriented, working with, not against, organisational direction and priorities, encouraging and enabling and helping share good practice through a number of products, techniques and programmes. A great proportion of the UKRC’s work has been within major businesses and institutions. The approach builds ownership and capacity in order to create sustainable change. 6.19 Furthermore, the UKRC’s work with businesses benefited from its services to individual women, because the latter informs policy and practice advice to the former. The UKRC has also applied findings from both fields to make representations and give advice on how existing services might be strategically aligned and improved (careers advice, skills policy, teacher training, and apprenticeship practice). 6.20 Positive action (activities to level the playing field often but not solely targeted at women and permitted in law) is a necessarily complement, not in conflict or contradiction with mainstream action. 6.21 The UKRC believes that a piecemeal approach to the question of gender equality in SET and in particular women's increased participation is a backward step. The UKRC’s range of services and products has been designed to optimise potential for change in a systemic and systematic way. The UKRC recognises the interplay of societal expectations and stereotypes, tradition and role models, cultural resistance, unconscious bias and the continuum of opportunities for progression or attrition from school, through career and into leadership. 6.22 Change management requires a catalysing approach, creating opportunities and individuals able to operate at the “convergence of different domains and levels of activity. Their role involves connecting and leveraging knowledge, ongoing strategic relationships and collaborations, and forms of accountability across systems.” 24 6.23 The UKRC has not and does not propose itself as a body that should or could take all the necessary action. In the new circumstances it will seek to ensure that businesses,

24 Sturm, S Gender Equity As Institutional Transformation: The Pivotal Role of “Organizational Catalysts” in Learning from ADVANCE Stewart, A., Malley, J. and Lavaque‐Manty, D. (eds) 2007 University of Michigan Press

http://changecenter.org/research-publications/sturm-publications/gender-equity-as-institutional-transformation.pdf

http://changecenter.org/research-publications/sturm-publications/gender-equity-as-institutional-transformation.pdf

organisations and individual women can access an appropriate range of services that it has been providing. But just as importantly, the UKRC proposes itself as a body that takes a strategic overview, identifies issues and gaps and then can assist with catalyzing and aligning change. It is not clear that the new arrangements can offer the approach and expertise to maintain continuous improvement in an appropriate and sustained fashion. 6.24 Recommendations

6.24.1 A framework and strategy for Diversity in the STEM workforce should be produced which clearly articulates how “embedding good practice”, the “right incentives and direction”, “better value” and “wider reach and greater impact”25 will be defined, assessed and progress measured. 6.24.2 The Government should ensure that the costs and benefits of the decision not to renew funding for the UKRC can be assessed in the context of BIS’ strategy and the Government’s overall equality objectives, and put in place the appropriate mechanisms for accountability and scrutiny of diversity and equality initiatives. 6.24.3 The Government should ensure that relevant expertise for mainstreaming and delivering equality is held by those funded to deliver programmes. 6.24.4 A new strategy on women in SET should be fully articulated and formalised. It should be positioned within a diversity framework, which has explicit, resourced and measurable objectives, and supported by an independent expert organisation acting as a driver and catalyst, backed by a realistic level of funding and appropriate timescales.

7. Strategies for Equality in SET 7.1 Current and previous governments argue for the importance of science and innovation, and have also identified a shortage of appropriate skills as an issue. They have also recognised the critical role of women in SET where women’s talents are clearly being wasted. 7.2 The UKRC has consistently proposed a more integrated and comprehensive approach to policy and services on gender and occupational segregation – for instance in its 2010 policy proposals; its advice to BIS; submissions to policy consultations; advice on improvements to the careers service, the adult advancement service and next step, apprenticeships in non traditional areas etc.26 However, its service base and strategic

25 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world‐class science and research, BIS, December 2010 26 http://www.theukrc.org/influencing‐policy/policy‐submissions

http://www.theukrc.org/influencing-policy/policy-submissions

overview have not yet been fully exploited, limiting progress. 7.3 There are some very specific concerns about the new regime which follow. 7.4 Actions may revert to focus on a “deficit model” of fixing women to fit the existing workplace and sector culture. Fragmented projects to assist individual women or other under‐represented groups will have little effect if the difficult but essential issue of organisational culture change is ignored. Organisational culture change is a strength and key feature of the UKRC services.

7.5 Statements made in the formal announcement and in correspondence with the UKRC are revealing. Despite potential for the professions to lead a lifetime demand strategy, our experience of the state of development and awareness in the community, suggests that their priority still tends to focus on early supply and the start of the pipeline. After all the work done by women in SET over 30 or 40 years this remains concerning. A focus only on initial supply ignores attrition: the unacceptable fall out of women from SET over a career lifetime. This is exacerbated by the disportionately low numbers of women in senior positions in SET. Unless girls can see that women populate SET workplaces because their cultures are welcoming and conducive, with no unconscious bias or discrimination by manager or workmates, then efforts targeted at that level alone will be undermined.

7.6 The ongoing Science and Society and related STEM programmes are likely to concentrate on youth, education and early career choice, and fail to address the persistent problems of later attrition and barriers to career advancement. Women trying to return after a career break and adults wanting to re‐skill to enter STEM are unlikely to be a priority for the Science and Society programmes. UKRC has worked extensively with these groups. 7.7 Removing the central and comprehensive overview on gender equality and diversity across the breadth of STEM at the same time as making other dramatic policy shifts and funding cuts, such as in HE fees and funding, is likely to have significant longer term negative effects on women’s participation in STEM. 7.8 The withdrawal of core funding to the UKRC creates vulnerabilities for the future of the SWAN Charter Scheme, funded and run jointly by the UKRC and the Equality Challenge Unit. More than 50 higher education institutions are members of the scheme, and membership represents almost 40% of all eligible HE bodies, with 37 silver departmental awards. 7.9 The UKRC provides a unique service role in collating and analysing gender statistics and research evidence and integrating gender and SET in wider policy debate and

formation. Without such information to inform policy and practice, there is a risk of policy being mis‐directed and ineffective. 7.10 Particularly in the current economic climate, SMEs, public sector bodies and others are likely to struggle to make any financial commitment to organisational change with regard to gender equality. Larger private sector bodies are unlikely to invest in broader sector‐wide programmes, and will limit their efforts to short term direct services for their own workforce. 7.11 The UKRC aims to continue its work through funded projects and charged for services to industry and other clients. However, government drivers and core investment are key to securing all employer sectors’ engagement with the equalities agenda even with a strong business case. 7.12 Many of the issues in the UK are replicated globally, especially in the US and the EU, where the UKRC is recognized as a model of good practice and where EU strategy for women in science now focuses on structural change in science and research organizations. BIS could work more closely with the UKRC as an expert body for international reputation. 7.13 Government core funding to support the expertise and vantage point of the UKRC at the heart of change on science would preserve the UK’s leading edge. It would achieve a continuity of strategy and resourcing, coupled with systematic and systemic action on many fronts ‐ from school to top leadership and throughout the lifetime of an individual’s career. 7.14 Recommendations

7.14.1 The Government should recognise that mainstreaming and the provision of an expert resource and catalyst are not in conflict, and that mainstreaming will not be effective without an expert resource and driver. They therefore should resource a longer “transition” period to measure and assess the effectiveness of implementation of the new strategy.

7.14.2 The Government should continue to allocate core funding to the UKRC beyond 2011‐12. This will sustain an efficient expert centre that can: develop necessary equality resources and tools for the STEM community; provide an overview to address gaps in action, avoid reinvention and duplication; ensure co‐ordination of effort. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for all relevant stakeholders enabled to strategically align by an expert centre.

7.14.3 The Government should resource the UKRC to broaden its formal remit to deliver on a wider diversity agenda, to align with the Equality Act 2011.

7.14.4 The Government should ensure that the leadership on Equality and Diversity from mainstream bodies does not result in piecemeal and fragmented coverage. Equality analysis and capability for action should cover the breadth of the STEM sectors, the full range of professional and vocational occupations and career paths, and the barriers and progression issues across the career lifetime, and not only initial education and supply. 7.14.5 The Government should be challenged to ensure that the level of investment in equality and diversity actions during the 2011/12 to 2014/15 period is maintained at equivalent to previous levels and is transparent within the mainstreaming approach.

8. Conclusion – “transfer of good practice” versus a systems, process approach 8.1 In conclusion, the recent budget allocation leaves the UKRC with the equivalent of 20% of its previous funding, but only for one year, and has the following implications:

• A loss of momentum built over 7 years • Neither enough resources nor long enough time to undertake an adequate

transition to a new strategy 8.2 It is right that key organisations in the SET community, businesses and universities ‘take a lead’ in making the necessary changes. But change on gender equality cannot be bottled and shipped, even with acknowledged business incentives: There is more than a knowledge base to build. Leadership from key institutions and an expert centre are not mutually exclusive strategies, they are complementary. Just as technology centres have a role in incubating and driving innovation, so equality centres catalyse and challenge. A “lead body” on gender equality is still needed to complement the work of the ‘mainstream’ players, all working in partnership.27 8.3 A lead expert organisation for gender equality offers a strategic overview, able to address the systemic nature of the participation of women and girls in SET, and advise on changes across the system – in the vocations and the professions of technology, engineering and science. The UKRC 27 April 2011

27 Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage, 2005, Routledge

Written evidence submitted by The Academy of Medical Sciences (SR 22)

Overview

The Academy of Medical Sciences welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry on the 2010 Spending Review. The positive relationship between world class medical science and national gains in health and wealth is well established.1 The UK’s superior medical research base, our co-coordinated landscape of private, public and charity funders, and the research potential of the NHS give us an unparalleled global competitive advantage. Retaining and harnessing these strengths is reliant on the Government’s continued commitment to the publicly funded science base that in turn leverages substantial additional support from industry and charities. We welcome the fact that, in this period of substantial public sector cuts, the Chancellor recognised the fundamental role science will play in economic recovery and provided an unexpectedly good settlement for science and research. Protecting spending on health research and science (via favourable settlements to both the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research) means that the UK can continue to make extraordinary contributions to the translational science agenda. Furthermore, since many of the immediate challenges facing society today, such as ageing or obesity, require expertise from across the full range of medical, natural science, engineering, humanities and social science disciplines, a good settlement across the research base was important in order to safeguard the valuable advances that will benefit patients and society. We were pleased to see the funding for UKCMRI and Diamond confirmed in the Spending Review Settlement, and the recent additional commitment to capital in the 2011 Budget. It is important now to focus on the funds that will be available in the coming years and to ensure that these are spent effectively, for example by promoting co-ordination amongst funders. We welcome the Government’s commitment in its ‘Plan for Growth’ to implement the recommendations of the Academy’s recent report on the regulation and governance of health research and to reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy that is wasting valuable funding.2,3 While the decision to protect the science budget in cash terms is most welcome, this should be considered in the context of the substantial investments in science being made by our international competitors such as China, India, Brazil, Germany, France and the USA. We must therefore maintain the ability to regenerate key research areas when more funding becomes available. This will allow the UK to remain a competitive part of the international research endeavour and to exploit opportunities for support from industry and charities both in the UK and overseas.

1 Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust (2008). Medical research: what’s it worth? http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99puid137.html 2 HM Treasury & BIS (2011). The Plan for Growth http://cdn.hm‐treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf 3 Academy of Medical Sciences (2011) A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=47&prid=88

1

http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99puid137.html

http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=47&prid=88

Monitoring the long-term impacts

If it is the Government’s intention to build the economy via knowledge-based industries then any perverse impacts of the spending review and other changes must be identified and addressed. The long-term impacts of a flat-cash settlement across much of the science base and efficiency savings that have been required across the Research Councils are not yet clear. In terms of ensuring a sustainable pipeline of researchers, we have yet to see whether the increase in university tuition fees from 2012 will lead to a reduction in medical students undertaking intercalated degrees (medical degrees that include an additional year that often allows students to undertake a research project) and the number of students (both clinical and non-clinical) applying for PhD studentships. The raising of the retirement age will lead to less turnover in staff and there may be a need for ‘new blood schemes’ to attract the next generation. In the medical sphere, the £21bn efficiency savings in the NHS could adversely impact on research budgets, and the scope for clinicians to conduct research. More generally, this will put pressure on the partnerships between universities, medical schools and healthcare providers that underpin success in academic medicine.4 Proposed changes to the way that the medical workforce is trained could further undermine these relationships.5 Finally, while a lack of general capital investment is sustainable for 1-2 years, after that it will become problematic; we cannot rely on charitable foundations to fund the necessary infrastructure and equipment in the long term. It will therefore be important that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has the resources to monitor the ongoing impact of the settlement and related changes that impact on researchers, and to seek input from the research community as it did to inform the 2010 Spending Review bid. In addition to identifying threats, BIS and the scientific community will need to exploit opportunities presented by the economic recovery and be ready with proposals for initiatives for investment that can further stimulate the growth. We regard the translational research area as a priority for future investment. The National Academies play an important role in monitoring the health and sustainability of their respective scientific communities. The Academy of Medical Sciences does not unfortunately receive a Grant from BIS, but we welcome the fact that its support to the other three National Academies was maintained in the 2010 settlement. We hope that the Committee will support us in forging future opportunities for the Academy to join the other National Academies in receiving funding as part of the science settlement. The process

We were grateful to be one of the bodies formally consulted by Sir Adrian Smith FRS about the spending review. This allowed us to be a focal point for the views of the biomedical research community across universities, hospitals, research councils, industry and charity funders. We were able to provide evidence of the health and wealth benefits of biomedical research and the vital role

4 For examples of these partnerships please see: www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/nocripublications.aspx 5 Academy submission to the Department of Health's 'Developing the healthcare workforce' consultation (March 2011) http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=100&puid=214

2

http://www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/nocripublications.aspx

3

played by the public science budget in leveraging funding from private and philanthropic sources. Our efforts were also focused on influencing decisions about funding for research made in the Department of Health (DH). The feedback that we have received suggests that these efforts helped to secure a positive settlement in both BIS and DH, which has been beneficial for the whole science base. The effective communication between BIS and the Academy throughout the process helped us to ensure that the Academy’s input and our joint activities with other stakeholders in our community had maximum impact. We are grateful to Sir Adrian and his staff for ensuring this open dialogue before and after the settlement, which also helped to our discussions with Treasury and key influencers.

The Academy of Medical Sciences The Academy of Medical Sciences promotes advances in medical science and campaigns to ensure these are converted into healthcare benefits for society. Our Fellows are the UK’s leading medical scientists from hospitals and general practice, academia, industry and the public service. The Academy of Medical Sciences 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Statistical Society (SR 23)

1. The Royal Statistical Society welcomes the inquiry by the Science and Technology

Committee on the Spending Review 2010. 2. The Council for Mathematical Sciences, of which the Society is a founder member, has

made a substantive submission to the inquiry in which it sets out that: “EPSRC funding in mathematical science has decreased significantly in real terms over the past decade, to the point where current funding levels threaten the health and continued excellence of the discipline.”

3. This short additional note aims to amplify that submission by highlighting concerns that

have been particularly identified for statistics, arising from the International Reviews of Mathematical Sciences of 2004 and 2010.

4. The International Review of Mathematical Sciences (IRMS) in 20041 identified, among

other issues: “a serious concern that now the UK is not producing a sufficient number of Ph.D. graduates in statistics to satisfy the demand from industry and at the same time to maintain the level of excellence in universities.”

5. The IRMS of 20102 found:

“once again that the UK statistics research enterprise is in a fragile and weakened condition, despite all its areas of excellence and the welcome measures taken during the intervening years to strengthen it.”

6. Statistics is a vital tool not only of scientific research but also of business and industry

(among many other sectors). Advances in statistical methodologies and their applications extend across disciplines. The threats to the UK’s statistical capability are issues, the Royal Statistical Society hopes, will be of concern to the Science and Technology Committee.

Royal Statistical Society 27 April 2011

1 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/reports/irmaths2003.pdf 2 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/intrevs/2010maths

Written evidence submitted by the Society of Biology (SR 24) Summary There continue to be multiple uncertainties over the future funding landscape, especially in universities, leading to confusion and an inability to plan effectively. This is undermining the Government’s position in statements around the value of science accompanying the comprehensive spending review settlement. It is essential that the impact of the spending review is re-visited in 2012. Main text The Society of Biology is a single unified voice for biology: advising Government and influencing policy; advancing education and professional development; supporting our members, and engaging and encouraging public interest in the life sciences. The Society represents a diverse membership of over 80,000 - including practising scientists, students and interested non-professionals - as individuals, or through the learned societies and other organisations listed below. The Society welcomes the Committee’s intention to review the complex evolution of the science funding environment since the Spending Review. Many forces are acting upon this sector at present including the Research Council settlements; the reduced departmental budgets available for direct commissioning of research, particularly by Defra; the abolition of the RDAs; the funding position and policies of the higher education Funding Councils, and the changes in student support arrangements arising from recommendations in the Browne Review, among others. Relatively few areas of science are immune from the impact of these multiple changes and it will be some time before the combined results are evident. For this reason we feel it appropriate to submit a short letter rather than to attempt extensive evidence-gathering at this time. 1. The Society has welcomed the support for science signalled in many Departmental

statements, and encourages the underlying government position that science is a potential growth engine for the economy and an endeavour essential for national wellbeing. However, we reiterate our concern that the settlement presented science with significant and growing financial challenges.

2. We are concerned that pressure from reduced funding or reduced public and private sector

investment may have negative impacts on national capacity in terms of skills and innovation. In addition we foresee significant dangers in the greatly reduced Research Council capital budgets and the increasing erosion of the value of the science settlement due to inflation. Moreover, as other countries continue to invest in science, the UK risks losing international standing. All of this comes at a time when financial and other pressures are bringing about significant changes in the advice and scrutiny function provided by arms’ length bodies, commissions and independent authorities etc. There is concern that the independent and long-range vision of many of these bodies cannot be easily recreated within the systems retained.

3. We wish to comment specifically on university science departments. Whilst some time has

elapsed since the Spending Review and the Browne Review, we are concerned that terms such as ‘chaos’ and ‘turmoil’ continue to appear in descriptions of their funding landscape. Several reasons for this have been highlighted to us. Most Bioscience Departments can expect a reduction in their research grant and contract income from charities and government Departments and are aware that funding from Research Councils will become considerably more competitive, making it prudent to expect a reduction from this source also. University income from teaching is also highly uncertain at the moment. Submissions to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) will shortly be complete for this year, but longer-term fee structures will continue to be influenced by the forthcoming White Paper and the

process of OFFA reviews. In addition the trends in student enrolment remain unknown and may be a significant determinant of the medium-term financial stability of many institutions.

4. While continued reinvigoration and improvement of the environment for science learning

and advanced skill development at university and higher level colleges is to be embraced, the sense of future instability in the skills pipeline currently being reported to us is a matter of great concern. This level of uncertainty may generate indecision or overreaction, neither of which would be a welcome outcome. Many areas of science learning are intrinsically expensive to deliver, without necessarily guaranteeing higher level earnings for their graduates. Choices on the fees applied to individual courses are likely to be influenced locally but may have implications for the overall viability of departments and the national coverage of learning centres for specific skills. In addition, the different funding and charging arrangements in Scotland, in particular, are likely to have an effect and there is valid concern about the appearance of funding gaps.

5. There will likely be pressure to increase the fees applied to taught MSc courses, many of which are funded through the T component of the HEFCE budget and extra support for which from Research Councils and industry is likely to be reduced. In these circumstances, UK graduates seeking to become Masters Students may well regard these fees as a significant barrier as they do not currently have easy access to student loans and fee support and indeed will not be covered by current OFFA agreements. MSc graduates are valued by many employers across science industries and regulatory agencies and, in addition, many universities now require a master’s degree for PhD registration in line with the Bologna process. It is essential that arrangements do not present talented and ambitious UK students with a barrier to advancement at this level.

6. We would like to reiterate our position that there is a national need for high-quality

bioscience graduates and bioscience research and that the challenge of maintaining quality degree programmes and research performance in a developing ‘market’ will require the careful attention, collaboration and strategic oversight of government’s supportive agencies as well as academics. Moreover, small-scale laboratories may find it difficult to survive in an environment where high competition for grants and a change to focus on proven excellence will make it difficult to protect and nurture emerging excellence and creativity. We would encourage the Committee to re-evaluate developments in this area when there has been more time for the impact of the funding changes to bring about change, and certainly by late 2012 when there has been a full-fee student intake.

Member Organisations represented by the Society of Biology Anatomical Society Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour Association of Applied Biologists Biochemical Society Breakspear Hospital British Andrology Society British Association for Lung Research British Association for Psychopharmacology British Bariatric Medical Society British Biophysical Society British Crop Production Council British Ecological Society British Lichen Society British Microcirculation Society British Mycological Society British Neuroscience Association British Pharmacological Society British Phycological Society British Society for Ecological Medicine British Society for Immunology British Society for Matrix Biology British Society for Medical Mycology British Society for Neuroendocrinology British Society for Plant Pathology British Society for Proteome Research British Society for Research on Ageing British Society for Soil Science British Society of Animal Science British Toxicology Society Experimental Psychology Society Fisheries Society of the British Isles Genetics Society Heads of University Biological Sciences Heads of University Centres of Biomedical Science Institute of Animal Technology International Biometric Society Laboratory Animal Science Association Linnean Society

Marine Biological Association Nutrition Society RNID Royal Entomological Society Royal Microscopical Society Royal Society of Chemistry Science and Plants for Schools Scottish Association for Marine Science Society for Applied Microbiology Society for Endocrinology Society for Experimental Biology Society for General Microbiology Society for Reproduction and Fertility Society for the Study of Human Biology SCI Horticulture Group The Physiological Society UK Environmental Mutagen Society University Bioscience Managers' Association Zoological Society of London Supporting Member Organisations Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) Association of Medical Research Charities AstraZeneca BioScientifica Ltd Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) GlaxoSmithKline Huntingdon Life Sciences Institute of Physics Lifescan (Johnson and Johnson) Scotland Ltd Medical Research Council (MRC) Pfizer UK Royal Society for Public Health Syngenta The British Library Wellcome Trust Wiley Blackwell

Society of Biology 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Cancer Research UK (SR 25)

Summary Cancer Research UK is leading the world in finding new ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. We are the largest independent funder of cancer research in Europe. Over half of all cancer research in the UK is carried out by our doctors and scientists, who have made significant contributions to half of the top 30 drugs used to treat cancer patients worldwide today. Cancer Research UK’s work is entirely funded by the public and in 2009/10 we spent £334 million on research, supporting the work of more than 4,000 scientists, doctors and nurses. We receive no government funding for our research and each year, we fund an extensive programme of cancer research in hospitals, institutes and universities. Our groundbreaking work has saved millions of lives. A world class science base in the UK is vital to maintaining and enhancing the health and prosperity of the nation now and in the future. To date, one of the strengths of the UK research base has been its ability to leverage funding from sources outside the public purse. Industry, charities and the government have different but complementary roles as research funders. The synergistic nature of these relationships, and how they link with the unique resource provided by the NHS and universities, is a vital asset to UK biomedical research. Cancer Research UK welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. The following are our key points:

• We feel that it is currently too early to detect impacts on the research environment based on the outcome of the 2010 spending review.

• The life sciences sector now needs stability, predictability and security through sensible regulation and prolonged investment to allow it to grow. For these reasons, Cancer Research UK would like to see a long-term strategy for investment and growth in science beyond 2014/2015, to include commitments to jointly funded Institutes.

• Cancer Research UK, along with the other major medical research charities in the UK, is calling for a long-term government commitment to the charity support element of QR funding allocated to universities (known as the Charity Research Support Fund).

• We look forward to further detail from government outlining how they will take forward the announcements in the Plan for Growth.

• Continuing government commitment to science remains vital for the future of the medical research landscape in the UK.

Protecting the unique relationship between government and charity funding for research The UK is unique in that charity funded research is such a major contributor to the strength and impact of the UK science base, especially in medical sectors. Members of the Association of Medical Research Charities funded £1.1 billion of research in the UK in 2010-11 alone. The results of the Research Assessment Exercise announced in December 2008 demonstrated the contribution that charities were making to the quality of research conducted in UK universities. In all the scientific and medical-related subjects, cancer

studies received the top rating, with around 80% of the studies being funded by charities, the majority from Cancer Research UK. Medical research charities have been able to fully integrate their work with universities, and the collaborative environment that this has created has realised significant benefits for science in the UK. Medical research charities have consistently been a strong partner in funding medical research, and have continually invested in research in universities. Cancer Research UK alone spent £163 million in 2009/10 in UK universities. Charities choose to fund research in UK universities because of the world-class research environments that they provide. The Quality Research block grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England builds strong, autonomous universities by giving them the stability, flexibility and freedom to make strategic decisions about their own research activities. The charity support element of QR funding (also known as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF)) is a vital element of this as it enables Government funding to leverage additional partnership funding from the charity sector, with approximately 15% of research income at UK universities coming from UK-based charities. While the level of CRSF has been maintained for the current year, we were disappointed that the government did not take the opportunity to give this a longer term grounding in the budget allocations to 2014/2015. Cancer Research UK, along with the other major medical research charities in the UK, is calling for a long-term government commitment to the CRSF. The continued existence of the CRSF and equivalents affects the entire medical research landscape in the UK. Universities and charities need to be able to plan their future funding and research strategies with the secure knowledge that the charity support element of Quality Related (QR) funding will continue. If a commitment is only made on a yearly basis (as is currently happening) this could lead to attrition of the research base, and could disproportionately affect progress in medical research in universities, where the majority of charitable funding is focused. A long-term commitment to this partnership will enable innovative research to continue to be funded by charities in universities and ensure university infrastructure is sustainable over time. Continued support for jointly funded institutes Although funding allocations up until 2014/2015 have been indicated as part of the spending review it is important to highlight the long-term commitments in major jointly funded institutes, that will require commitment beyond 2014/2015. Cancer Research UK is partnering with the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, University College London, Imperial College London and King’s College London to build the UKCMRI. The vision for the UKCMRI is to create a world class research centre that will tackle some of the biggest medical challenges society faces. This will be the largest biomedical research centre in Europe. The project aims to find new ways to treat diseases such as cancer, and will bring together the best scientists, doctors and researchers. Bringing together the leading research organisations will allow scientists to collaborate widely as well as share cutting-edge resources and knowledge. Continuing to support the creation of this ground-breaking Institute is a clear demonstration of the Government’s long-term commitment to investment in science. However the UKCMRI is not the only example of a jointly funded research enterprise that requires a long-term commitment and strategy to enable security and stability. For example, Cancer Research UK and the MRC jointly fund the Gray Institute for Radiation, Oncology and Biology in Oxford (GI-ROB). GI-ROB is leading the way in re-establishing the UK as a world leader in radiotherapy and radiobiology research.

One further example is the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres network, a joint initiative between Cancer Research UK and the departments of health for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who together are investing £35 million in infrastructure support over five years. They bring together laboratory and clinical patient-based research to drive the development of biomarkers and new anti-cancer treatments. When considering the long term science environment within the UK it is vital that funding streams supporting joint initiatives such as those listed above are taken into consideration, as decisions on these will be taken throughout the spending review period. Life sciences as area of growth Despite a relatively small budget and population compared with our competitors overseas, the UK has traditionally been a world leader in research to understand and treat disease. Our scientific publications produce over 12% of the world’s citations in both the clinical and health sciences and we have created nearly a quarter of the world’s top 100 medicines.1,2 The life sciences sector is vitally important in driving the economic recovery. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to research by ring-fencing the science budget within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and increasing investment though the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The sector now needs stability, predictability and security through sensible regulation and prolonged investment to allow it to grow. For these reasons, Cancer Research UK would like to see a long-term strategy for investment in science. The publication of the Government’s Plan for Growth contained a number of proposals to drive growth in the area of life sciences. In particular, Cancer Research UK welcomed the emphasis within the Budget and associated Plan for Growth to remove barriers to setting up clinical research studies in the UK. We feel it is absolutely critical that these barriers are removed in order that the UK is an attractive place to conduct health research and, most importantly, so that patients can benefit. We believe that as many patients as possible should have the opportunity to take part in timely research. The announcements contained with the Plan for Growth represent a step forward in implementing the recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences review3, which Cancer Research UK supports. We look forward to hearing more from Government as to how these announcements will be taken forward, and will seek to work closely with them to ensure they are implemented effectively. However, these announcements in themselves do not replace the need for the development of a comprehensive long term strategy for science, which looks not only at the funding environment required but also other key elements such as ensuring we have the right people and infrastructure in place in the UK. Interdependency between Public and Charitable Medical Research

1 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2009). International comparative performance of the UK research base http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/i/icpruk09v1_4.pd

2 Academy of Medical Sciences (2010). Reaping the rewards: a vision for UK medical science http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=99&puid=172

3 Academy of Medical Sciences (2011). A new pathway for the regulation and governance of medical research.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/i/icpruk09v1_4.pd

http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=99&puid=172

To understand more about how charities’ investment in medical research can contribute to stimulating economic growth, Cancer Research UK has commissioned the Office of Health Economics to look at the interdependency of different medical research funders in supporting the research base. Drawing from the experience of public, charity and private funders and leading academics, the recently published report4 highlights the value that the combination of public sector and charity funding brings to medical research. The key findings of the report are that Government funding for medical research has an impact on:

• GDP through stimulating additional investment in private sector R&D; • charities by helping them to operate more efficiently through economies of scale; • the ability of charities to raise funds; • charitable contributions to research; • UK patients’ healthcare

The report identifies specific financial and qualitative benefits from the UK’s partnership approach to funding medical research. By sharing the costs and risks associated with research, UK funders contribute to a stable flow of financial support for research.

The strong base provided by public sector infrastructure support allows profit and non-profit funders to focus their efforts on direct funding for specific projects. This model not only creates economies of scale but also greater opportunities for co-funding of large-scale research. Experience and expertise shared amongst funders, and the creation of a competitive research environment, also drives up research quality across the board. This report also shows an additional benefit for charities of continued government investment in the science base. Giving priority to science funding acts as a signal of quality, and value, for this research, and thus stimulates further private investment in the charities sector.

This report adds weight to the Government’s Spending Review commitments to invest in science. It also provides an important new perspective on the impact that future cuts could have on the delicate balance between the dedicated funding streams of UK research. Cancer Research UK 27 April 2011

4 Exploring the Interdependency between Public and Charitable Medical Research, Martina Garau, Arik Mordoh, Jon Sussex, OHE Consulting, April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Physics (SR 26) The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society promoting physics and bringing physicists together for the benefit of all. It has a worldwide membership of around 40,000 comprising physicists from all sectors, as well as those with an interest in physics. It works to advance physics research, application and education; and engages with policy makers and the public to develop awareness and understanding of physics. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in professional scientific communications. The Institute welcomes the opportunity to respond to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the Spending Review 2010. Detailed comments are provided in the attached document, which follow on from our response to the Committee’s inquiry into the impact of reduced capital funding on astronomy and particle physics research. If you need any further information on the points raised, please do not hesitate to contact me. Professor Peter Main Director, Education and Science Introduction 1. The Institute, along with the rest of the science and engineering community, breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced last October that the Science Budget for the 2011/12-2014/15 period would be maintained at a flat cash level and was to be ring-fenced in the context of the Coalition government’s fiscal austerity measures. Of course, there were, and still are, considerable concerns about the impact of inflation and the efficiency savings coupled with the significant reduction of the BIS capital budget, but that was all, to an extent, tempered at the time as science had escaped the mooted cash cuts expected to range from anything between and, potentially, beyond 10-25%. 2. Now that the research councils have been allocated their budgets, have published both their delivery and implementation plans, and are implementing policy decisions, this inquiry provides an opportunity for the Institute to raise issues of concern that may impact on the ability of UK physicists to undertake leading-edge research and promote the application of research in a commercial context. Reduced capital funding 3. The Institute’s response to the Committee’s inquiry into particle physics and astronomy (coupled with the oral evidence session and the supplementary memorandum) dealt with the impact of reduced capital funding for those two research areas along with astroparticle physics research; the following paragraphs summarise the key points that were made. 4. The reduction in capital funding, as we understand it, refers not only to expenditure in relation to the construction of large facilities and upgrades to existing facilities, but

also includes maintenance costs associated with existing facilities, and the funding available for university-based laboratory equipment. This is effectively a loss of flexibility in the use of capital across all areas of science supported by RCUK. In particular, this will disproportionately affect ongoing STFC funded research in particle physics, astroparticle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics, which involves long timescales and careful planning. 5. For instance, reduced capital funding is likely to have a significant impact upon the UK’s ability to take a leading role in the European Extremely Large Telescope; will have a strongly negative impact on the development of astroparticle physics research (e.g. dark matter, high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, etc.) within the UK at a time when in continental Europe, in particular, capital (and other) investment is at an all time high; will threaten the continuance of the UK’s high performance computing facilities (i.e. STFC's DiRAC facility for theoretical particle physics and astronomy, and EPSRC's HeCToR facility); and will limit UK involvement in the upgrades to many particle physics experiments resulting in a very narrow focus, which will stifle new ideas and initiatives. 6. A consequence of the reduction of capital funding for equipment has presumably led STFC to propose in its Delivery Plan for 2011/12-2014/151 a significant reduction in support for university technology R&D and, instead, to focus STFC’s in-house researchers on technology, instrumentation and detector development, with the implication that academics should be left to concentrate on scientific research. Such a policy would be based on a misconception of how cutting-edge science and its associated innovative technology are related. We were pleased, therefore, to learn from the STFC chief executive, when he addressed the Committee on 16 March 2011, that no such policy of concentrating instrumentation development within STFC laboratories to the substantial exclusion of university groups is in fact being proposed by STFC. 7. In addition, Appendix D of the STFC Delivery Plan shows an increase of approximately £15m over the period 2011/12-2014/15, which has been interpreted by some as an indication that the particle physics budget has been protected. In fact, the increase in particle physics ‘resource’ is a displacement from shortfalls in the allocation of ‘capital’; in terms of both human capital and R&D, the particle physics resource has declined sharply in the past five years. This apparent increase in the particle physics ‘resource’ goes almost exclusively towards the CERN subscription. 8. Similar concerns exist about the impact of a reduction in capital funding on nuclear physics research, and the major national facilities (particularly ISIS), which are addressed in the following paragraphs. i) Nuclear physics 9. Since 1993, when the last UK nuclear physics research facility was closed, there has been essentially no funding for nuclear physics facilities. Previously, major capital equipment was provided as a contribution in kind to facilitate access to international laboratories, where all nuclear physics research is now carried out. The new reductions in capital funding following the Spending Review 2010 settlement will have a major detrimental effect on the ability of UK nuclear physics researchers to contribute essential equipment to the laboratories where they work. This is more significant for nuclear physics than for other science areas which are supported by central facilities or international subscriptions. 1 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/dp2011-15.pdf

10. This field has been especially hard hit and has already considerably contracted. The ~£10m per annum devoted to nuclear physics in 1993 has declined even in cash terms to a projected £6m per annum for the coming years, prior to any further cut following the Spending Review 2010 settlement. In terms of projects, prior to the settlement, nuclear physics had been reduced to one project to build a limited range of equipment for the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) and a small part of the European Advanced Gamma Tracking Array (AGATA). UK nuclear physicists have little or no influence on the future of a research area that relies on large facilities, where planning, building, commissioning and exploitation can take decades. 11. At the same time nuclear physics is advancing rapidly elsewhere; major new facilities are being constructed such as FAIR (GSI, Germany), ISOLDE (CERN), SPIRAL2 (GANIL, France), and the Jefferson Lab (US). These facilities are important to UK nuclear physicists as they are where future advances in the field are most likely to be made; for instance, providing the beams of radioactive ions or high energy electrons needed to understand the structure of the nucleon, the wide variation in the properties of nuclei and the nuclear reactions fuelling stars and stellar explosions as well as the creation of the heavy elements. Unless the UK plays a major part in the development and operation of these facilities our nuclear physicists will be left out and will rapidly lose the leadership roles they currently possess. These facilities still require capital funding to complete some buildings and the equipment they house; if the UK were able to contribute capital funding in the region of £20-25m to these projects spread over a five year period, the UK’s standing and influence would be transformed. ii) UK central facilities 12. The Spending Review 2010 settlement for STFC introduced the ‘Drayson partition’, with ring-fenced funding for international subscriptions, grants for the STFC-funded scientific communities, and operational funding for the three national facilities: the Diamond Light Source, the ISIS neutron and muon facility, and the Central Laser Facility (CLF). 13. The initial plan had been that a new funding model for the facilities would be in place before the settlement, including the requirements of the research councils, which would have determined the allocation for each facility. As the development of the new funding model had been delayed, the research councils, via the RCUK Large Facilities working group, made the collective decision that the overall funding for all the facilities should remain at the level of 5.6% of total research council expenditure. Within these boundaries, it was agreed that Diamond would operate at full capacity for 250 days per annum (including the operation of all existing beamlines and those which will become operational during the Spending Review 2010 period), ISIS would have its operation reduced to 120 days per annum at both target stations (a significant reduction compared with the historic facility operation of 180 days per annum), and CLF operation would be reduced. 14. The research councils made these decisions apparently unaware to what extent the facilities were supporting their current programmes; the research councils’ requirements for access to the facilities for the Spending Review 2010 period had not been established. It is regrettable that they have not consulted the science community more widely, or adopted a more transparent approach to the allocation of funds. STFC was widely criticised for its failure to engage with the community in deciding programme cuts in 2007/08, and has since greatly improved its approach. We recommend that RCUK should adopt a similar process.

15. While we appreciate the budgetary constraints under which STFC is operating, ISIS should operate for a higher number of days to maximise its scientific output and the return on the UK’s capital investment. 16. For the last few years, since the formation of STFC, ISIS has only operated typically five 30 day cycles delivering 150 days to the science programme2, with a marginal cost of £1.7m corresponding to around 5% of the overall operational budget. In a 30 day cycle and with 28 operational instruments, ISIS delivers typically some 200 experiments, resulting on average in over 100 scientific papers; 60% of the science programme at ISIS maps onto the grand challenges: energy, environment, health, security; the remaining 40% covers a broad range of world class science with significant impact. 17. Through agreements with international partners, ISIS attracts each year cash contributions to the operating costs at a level of £2.2m. This income depends on the UK’s ability to deliver beamtime to their communities and is at risk, which has the potential further to aggravate the financial situation. 18. The CLF science programme advances fundamental science aligned to national grand challenges. The high powered laser and plasma physics programmes are world leading. STFC budgetary constraints threaten the high impact, internationally recognised projects. These projects include the Vulcan 10 petawatt project, the advanced laser technologies needed for the European Extreme Laser Infrastructure project, and the fusion energy concept, HiPER. 19. Moreover, the new funding model puts at risk the CLF’s pioneering facilities at the life science/physical science interface, housed in the new Research Complex at Harwell adjacent to Diamond. This potentially stalls the economic benefit that arises from their research output. 20. STFC has taken the decision to reduce the UK’s contribution to the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) and reduce the UK’s involvement in Free Electron Laser (FEL) research to zero. This reduction is mainly in response to STFC providing full support to Diamond (i.e. operation and upgrades). At the ESRF, exploitation will be reduced from 14% to 10%, probably leading to a hard cap to UK access. EPSRC project studentships policy 21. EPSRC has implemented a policy to discontinue the provision of project studentships on its research grants and fellowships from 31 January 20113. As well as the impact this policy will have on UK PhD students, there is considerable concern that the recruitment of high-quality European students will be severely disadvantaged, as project studentships were, and are still to a great extent, the principal means of funding such students. The average fraction of departmental PhD students from project studentships is around 20% and, of those, around 60% are hired from Europe and/or other overseas nations.

2 Historically, ISIS has operated for 180 days per annum and is geared up for this level of operation. Recommendations by the National Audit Office are for 220 days in order to optimise the return from the Science Budget investment. In comparison, the ILL research reactor operates for 200 days per annum; the US spallation neutron source – SNS – operates for 220 days per annum. 3 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2011/Pages/projectstudentships.aspx

22. There seems no sign that the loss will be made up elsewhere in the EPSRC system, so this is a serious cut in the support for research by EPSRC, particularly as the non-UK students recruited have been of a very high standard, and they have made a very positive contribution to the research environment to the benefit of the whole cohort of EPSRC-funded students. Discontinuation of project studentships, at a time of reduced Doctoral Training Account (DTA) awards, is a major threat, particularly, as we understand that DTA studentships are not costed on an fEC basis, which creates uncertainty relating to supporting students if they are using equipment and facilities that have significant costs; project studentships allowed for the true costs of doing PhD level research to be recognised and properly supported. The EPSRC policy will impact on research within the UK, its global reach (via those PhD students going abroad to do postdoctoral research), and on employers. 23. We understand that EPSRC will permit 10% of the DTA funded studentships to be used for EU and/or other overseas students, but this is a rather small number. Furthermore, it is not yet clear if the 10% figure is 10% of students or 10% of the DTA cash; 10% of the DTA cash would be more flexible. 24. It would also be beneficial to allow some EU and/or other overseas students to support work in STFC research areas through its doctoral training grants. Research concentration 25. It was of concern to note the BIS Allocation of Science and Research Funding for 2011/12 to 2014/15 document4 state that: “The science and research funding allocations will support the very best research, by further concentrating resources on research centres of proven excellence and with the critical mass and multi-disciplinary capacity.” This statement was echoed in the research council delivery plans. 26. As far as physics is concerned, research in the UK is already highly concentrated and dominated by a few, fairly large physics departments. However, the RAE2008 physics sub-panel revealed that ‘excellence’ is spread across the physics base, and is not just the domain of the big departments. 27. The RAE2008 physics sub-panel was emphatic on this point, stating in its report5 that: “Many of the world-leading research outputs observed in submissions originated from small responsive mode grants. The sub-panel believes that continuing availability of such grants is absolutely vital to encouraging and sustaining groundbreaking research activity. Both national and European funding agencies are concentrating heavily on large collaborative programmes which, though worthwhile in themselves, if pursued to the exclusion of smaller scale grants, may place the nation in a weak position in the future…The physics and science community cannot know where future developments will come from, and attempts to focus funding too narrowly into priority research areas (or priority departments) will limit rather than enhance the prospects of breakthroughs at the highest level.” 28. In light of this, we do appreciate that the research councils do not have enough resource to fund all this excellence, and are under pressure to prioritise the research they sponsor, but the UK is in danger of putting all of its eggs in fewer baskets, unless it supports a more diverse range of research, both basic and applied, and all

4 http://www.bis.gov.uk 5 http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov

groups that have demonstrated excellence, irrespective of size. To reinforce this message, there are the cases of landmark discoveries, such as C60, which were the result of the efforts of small, less fashionable research groups. Such invaluable contributions as these in the future could be threatened by a policy to focus funds on proposed centres of critical mass. 29. We urge the research councils to liaise closely with the funding councils to formulate a strategy to ensure that these funding reductions, which at face value are being implemented in an arbitrary and unplanned manner, do not lead to the closure of any physics departments. The UK’s physics departments produce well over 2500 physics graduates each year, who are highly valued for their mathematical and technical skills by both the public and private sector. The number of UK university physics departments has already been reduced from around 70 to 46 over the past dozen or so years. Any attempt to concentrate research in priority areas or departments, leading to potentially further closures, will have severe consequences for the teaching of physics at the undergraduate level. Project work in the final years is nowadays routinely carried out in physics department research laboratories – only here can training and instruction using state of the art equipment be provided to future physics graduates, who will help rebuild the UK’s economy using their invaluable skills. Potential brain drain 30. Many of the UK’s competitor nations, even those that face comparable economic challenges, continue to invest heavily in their science and innovation bases. If investment in UK science and innovation continues to stagnate, or even decrease in future settlements, the best UK-based scientists will consider moving overseas to undertake research in well-funded and equipped laboratories. The UK has recently reversed the brain drain and it will be most unfortunate to lose this talent. In addition, there is the distinct possibility that overseas students and researchers will no longer view the UK as a leading nation in terms of scientific endeavour and discovery. As a result, UK universities may lose out on the fees income from overseas undergraduates and postgraduates, and on the pool of world-class researchers and technicians who may decide to seek employment in the UK’s leading competitor nations. Mathematical physics funding 31. Theoretical physics is an area of research in which the UK excels and is world-leading. However, it is now under severe threat. Funding cuts are to be expected in the present climate, but there is a disproportionately large cut falling on theoretical physics, particularly when some aspects of the research area are becoming more reliant on costly high-performance computing facilities. 32. Research has been funded by both STFC and by the EPSRC mathematics programme, with STFC typically funding the areas with direct application to particle physics, nuclear physics and cosmology and EPSRC funding the more mathematical areas. The cuts to STFC as a whole have led to a 33% cut in funding for theoretical physics from 2005 to 2010. The funding for 2011/12-2014/15 is to be announced shortly, but could lead to further reductions. Now it appears that EPSRC is drastically cutting its funding for mathematical physics. 33. Until now, mathematical physics has accounted for around 10% of the research

budget of the EPSRC mathematics programme. From the projects currently funded by EPSRC around £7m is spent directly on theoretical physics research6. 34. Mathematical physics used to be an independent sub-theme supported by EPSRC, but has now disappeared from the new remit recently published on the EPSRC website7. This change will exclude most of the areas of mathematical physics that EPSRC has supported in the past. This includes, but is not restricted to, the ending of support for areas that might also fall under the remit of STFC. This change in remit is in stark contrast to EPSRC's landscape document where mathematical physics8 is the only listed sub-theme to get the top rating for international profile/standing. 35. The new remit and the exclusion of STFC-related areas could, if applied consistently, mean that almost all of the currently funded research would not be funded under the new rules. There is no extra funding from STFC to compensate for this, so the result seems likely to be a very substantial further cut in the funding of theoretical physics. There was no general announcement, explanation or community consultation regarding this change of policy. 36. This picture is borne out by the experience of a number of applicants for EPSRC fellowships, with a considerable number being rejected on the grounds of being deemed to be outside its remit, which is contrary to what was explicitly mentioned on the EPSRC website at the time of application. Many were in areas in which fellowships had been awarded in recent years. It is understood that these rejections are made by non-scientists without the benefit of peer-review. 37. It is unacceptable for an important research area to have its funding removed simply because it falls between the remit of two research councils. We recommend that EPSRC should urgently reconsider its policy towards mathematical physics. NERC funding for Masters courses 38. NERC currently funds 285 studentships on 62 courses through its Masters Training Grants (MTG), which are due to end in September 2011. However, NERC Council has recently decided not to extend support beyond this. Support for current Masters courses will therefore cease at the end of the 2010-11 academic year. Many physics graduates choose to move into the quantitative environmental sciences after their first degree. NERC's decision to withdraw from supporting taught masters courses will inevitably restrict the training opportunities for such young scientists, at a time when fields such as climate modelling need to attract the best physics graduates. Innovation support for businesses 39. The removal of the innovation support and strategy functions of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) has left a sizable gap in such programmes in England.

6 http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ChooseTTS.aspx?Mode=TOPIC&ItemDesc=Mathematical+Physics 7 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/progs/maths/Pages/remit.aspx 8 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/other/LandscapeMaths.pdf

http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ChooseTTS.aspx?Mode=TOPIC&ItemDesc=Mathematical+Physics

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/progs/maths/Pages/remit.aspx

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/other/LandscapeMaths.pdf

40. A recent investigation by the Manchester Institute for Innovation Research9 has suggested that there is demand from businesses for a renewed, locally-delivered programme of sector specific innovation support. It is not clear that the Spending Review 2010 settlement will allow this to happen. In addition, the role of the Local Enterprise Partnerships in this area remains unclear, and the Regional Growth Fund, while a welcome development in the context of cuts, has a fraction of the budget previously associated with such activity. The Technology Strategy Board 41. The Technology Strategy Board (TSB) has yet publicly to reveal details of its funding settlement from the Spending Review 2010; it is expected that its tasking framework letter and strategy will be released over the next few weeks. 42. It is clear that with the removal of the RDAs from the English innovation scene, the TSB will have an expanded role to play in what is expected to be roughly the same overall budget as previous years. In addition, the TSB will be the majority funder, at least in the first instance, of the new Technology and Innovation Centres (TICs)10. The £200m over four years allocated to the TICs is welcome, but it will need to be carefully managed to ensure that the new centres achieve their potential as drivers of new, high-technology industries. There is a danger that the relatively small pot of money may be spread too thinly amongst several centres, putting pressure on their viability. 43. It has been a feature of the TSB’s short history that it has been allocated new programmes and initiatives in a seemingly ad hoc manner by the government. In the 2011/12-2014/15 settlement it is clear that the TSB is again being asked to do more with less. 44. Through prudent planning in the period leading up to the Spending Review 2010, for example, by reducing the number of its longer knowledge transfer partnerships, the TSB increased its ‘headroom’ in the new settlement. While this was a wise course of action it does reveal the strain that the TSB’s core budget will come under from the addition of new initiatives and programmes.

9 http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/page_50369.html 10 http://www.innovateuk.org/deliveringinnovation/technology-and-innovation-centres.ashx

http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/page_50369.html

http://www.innovateuk.org/deliveringinnovation/technology-and-innovation-centres.ashx

http://www.innovateuk.org/deliveringinnovation/technology-and-innovation-centres.ashx

The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society promoting physics and bringing physicists together for the benefit of all. It has a worldwide membership of around 40,000 comprising physicists from all sectors, as well as those with an interest in physics. It works to advance physics research, application and education; and engages with policy makers and the public to develop awareness and understanding of physics. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in professional scientific communications. Institute of Physics 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by Science is Vital Campaign (SR 27)

Spending Review 2010 call for written evidence Attached please find a memorandum from the Science is Vital Campaign, which is our response to the call by the Science and Technology Committee for evidence of the impact on the science and research budget allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15.

This submission is made in a personal capacity by the members of the Executive Committee of the Science is Vital Campaign and does not represent the views of their employing organisations.

Summary

1. Science is Vital has sought to encourage ordinary scientists, at all stages of their careers, to respond to the Select Committee’s enquiry on the impacts of the CSR on science spending. Several instances of direct negative effects of the ‘freeze’ on recurrent spending and cuts to the capital budgets are reported below. Crucially, however, it is too early for the full impact of the CSR to be known in proper detail and we believe this evidence gathering exercise should be repeated by the Science and Technology Committee in 12-18 months time.

Background

2. The Science is Vital campaign is a grass-roots organisation of scientists and supporters of science that was launched in September 2010 to counter the threat of deep cuts in Government's science spending. Science is Vital has now formally constituted itself in order to continue to stimulate scientific interest in the political process and provide an effective conduit of the views of working scientists to policy-makers and parliamentarians.

3. The campaign used its public profile to support the call for evidence by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Via our website (scienceisvital.org.uk), we encouraged and facilitated submissions to the Committee from working scientists.

4. In addition, we created a web-based form that allowed us to gather additional information. The form was completed in confidence by over forty individuals from institutions and companies from around the UK. This memorandum provides a brief summary of the evidence reported, as well as information gathered from members of the Science is Vital executive who are themselves working scientists (Dr Jennifer Rohn, Professor Stephen Curry, Dr Tom Hartley, Dr Lewis Dartnell, Dr Prateek Buch, Ms Della Thomas).

Detailed Information and Recommendations

5. The submissions to the Science is Vital website were from institutions in England, Scotland and Wales. Most were from universities or research institutes (including some

of the most prestigious institutions in the UK); a small number were from teaching hospitals or technology companies.

6. The extent of quantitative detail provided in the submissions was rather variable. This probably reflects the fact that they have been made by people who are not in senior positions with access to primary information on university or company budgets.

7. Twenty of the forty-four submissions stated that their institution had already implemented redundancies or a freeze on hiring. Redundancies have taken place among academic and support staff (e.g. research or workshop technicians).

8. Others noted that the squeeze on spending has led to a reduction in capacity (e.g. the UK's state-of-the-art neutron source, ISIS, is now operating at two-thirds of its full operational capacity). Elsewhere ageing equipment is not being serviced or renewed in order to save cash.

9. One submission reported that the National Environmental Research Council's decision to no longer fund Masters level university courses has created a difficult situation for students of Earth and Environmental Sciences. The situation is exacerbated by the large increases in fees for Masters level courses that are likely to accompany the changes in the funding of undergraduate tuition in 2012 (the reduction in Government funding of Universities through the HEFCE teaching budget).

10. Although it is too early for the effects to have reached most scientists, there is widespread pessimism about the effect of the cash-limited budget on the success rates of grant applications to the Research Councils, which are already extremely low even for high-quality graded applications due to the mismatch between grant applications and funds available. Young scientists in particular are dependent for their job security on the success of grant applications they make or which are made by others on their behalf.

11. Three-quarters of respondents are thinking of leaving the UK or leaving research altogether or know someone who is considering the same.

12. Our survey is not extensive or controlled but it does give an impression that chimes with what we have learned in discussions with our own colleagues. There is widespread pessimism about the direction of science funding in the UK over the next several years. This appears to be due particularly to redundancies among colleagues or the involvement of staff in review exercises designed to assess their performance with a view to implementing job cuts. The squeeze on spending also means that more and more scientists will have to spend a greater portion of their time in applying for a diminishing pot of research funds.

13. The tight budgetary situation in universities caused by the CSR (and the impact of cuts made by the previous administration) is being exacerbated by the continued uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Government's reform of the university funding and tuition fee systems. Though still difficult to quantify, this is

reported anecdotally as having a negative effect on the recruitment of new staff. In previous years, university departments would have invested in new, young faculty in anticipation that they would be successful at winning grant income but that appears no longer to be true. As a consequence opportunities for the current generation of young scientists are diminished.

14. There is a risk that a science base demoralised by the impact of the spending review will fall behind competitor countries such as Germany, China, South Korea and Japan [Macilwain, C. (2011) Cell, 144, 167-169], who have continued to increase their investment in science. We appreciate that the economic situation remains grim but it will only exacerbate the problem of morale if the Government continues to pretend that a cash-freeze is not in fact a cut in real terms.

15. A clear commitment to restore funding beyond 2014 would provide an encouraging signal. It would also help to repair the damage caused to our international reputation by the spending freeze and the protracted discussion on limiting immigration (although we recognise the worth of the particular provisions that the Government has proposed for PhD-trained scientists).

16. Finally, we would like to suggest that it is too early to properly assess the impact of the CSR on the UK science base because the time for spending decisions to work their way to ground level is likely in many instances to be much longer than 6 months. For example, the process of submitting, reviewing and deciding on grant proposals can easily take 9 months. We would therefore encourage the Science and Technology Committee to re-visit this question in 12-18 months time.

17. The signatories declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Dr Jennifer Rohn (Chair)

Professor Stephen Curry (Vice-Chair)

Dr Evan Harris (Vice-Chair)

Mr Shane McCracken (Treasurer)

Dr Richard Grant (Secretary)

Ms Della Thomas (Membership)

Dr Lewis Dartnell

Dr Prateek Buch

Dr Tom Hartley

Science is Vital Campaign 27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign for Science & Engineering (SR 28)

1. The Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE) is a membership organisation aiming to improve the scientific and engineering health of the UK. CaSE works to ensure that science and engineering are high on the political and media agenda, and that the UK has world‐leading research and education, skilled and responsible scientists and engineers, and successful innovative business. It is funded by around 750 individual members and 100 organisations including industries, universities, learned and professional organisations, and research charities. Summary 2. The 2010 Spending Review was initially perceived as a better‐than‐expected result for science and engineering, with the sector having escaped the worst of the cuts to public spending necessitated by the 2010 Emergency Budget. However, in the months since the spending review it has become clear that the sector is coming under considerable strain from a variety of angles. We argue that these strains could significantly damage the UK's ability to be a world‐leading scientific and engineering nation in both the short‐ and long‐term. The Science Budget 3. On October 20th 2010 it was announced that the Science Budget was to be £4.6bn for every year of the spending review period until 2014‐15 – in effect, a ‘cash freeze’. 4. This freeze was highlighted in the Executive Summary of the Spending Review as a step to improve economic growth and rebalance the economy. It was also leaked to the media (specifically The Times and the BBC) on the evening of the 19th October, such that it featured prominently in the media that evening and the following morning, alongside speculation around the cuts that were being made elsewhere in public spending. 5. The cash freeze was widely referred to as translating into an approximately 10% cut by 2014‐15 in the Science Budget. However, taking the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation estimates, the Science Budget will actually be 14.4% lower in 2014‐15 than in 2010‐111 – and the settlement could be further eroded by increases in inflation.

6. There is also a question over whether inflation in science and engineering is higher than standard Consumer Price Index. For instance, the US experienced growth in the Gross Domestic Product price index (a broad measure of inflation) of 0.8% in 2010, while the US Government’s own estimate of growth in the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) was over three times as high, at 2.8%2. Few reliable data exist on a similar phenomenon in the UK, but if costs in science and engineering do inflate more rapidly than costs elsewhere, the overall impact on the UK’s research base by 2014‐2015 could be real terms cuts still greater than the 14.4% estimate.

7. The continuation of the ‘ring‐fence’ around the £4.6bn Science Budget was also announced as part of the Spending Review settlement. This was extremely welcome, as it protects the Science Budget from being raided for other public spending concerns, and also ensures that any savings within the Science Budget can be reinvested in it.

Capital Expenditure 1Inflation erodes UK Science Budget, New Scientist: The S Word. Accessed 29/03/11: http://bit.ly/ecg9yN 2Biomedical Research and Development Price Index, Fiscal Year 2010 Update and Projections for FY 2011-FY 2016, US Department of Health and Human Services. 2011

8. The budget for capital expenditure on science and engineering facilities was not announced as part of the spending review. It was later declared that capital expenditure on research would fall by nearly 46% (£1.9bn) over the four years of the spending review; this capital funding is delivered through the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and other streams to Higher Education Institutions across the UK. The 46% cut compares to a 43% overall reduction in capital expenditure of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), so research capital is taking more than its fair share of reductions within the department3. 9. This cut is ameliorated slightly by £220m of funding for UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation now coming from the Department for Health (DH), rather than the Medical Research Council4. However, it is not clear whether this is in addition to, or subtracted from, what the DH would have otherwise received for its research budget.

10. The impact of nearly halving the capital available for research may be more than initially apparent. Much capital spending is accounted for by expenditure that is not typically perceived of as capital – including staff and equipment costs for maintaining and upgrading equipment – and much that cannot be realistically cut back without significant cost. Equipment costing relatively small amounts of money and essential for general lab work can be categorised as capital spending, depending on which Research Council is the funder. The proportion of research money available for new equipment and facilities is therefore much less than 100% (and will vary between different Research Councils). Therefore the impact of the capital cuts will be to reduce the UK’s capacity to invest in cutting‐edge science and engineering projects by more than 50% (as well as seriously affecting ongoing research).

11. It should be noted that a shortage of funding also means that past capital investment is not being fully taken advantage of. For instance, both the ISIS light source and Central Laser Facility are currently running below optimum capacity5, even though the marginal cost of extra operating days at these facilities is very low compared to the cost of the facility itself.

12. On 23rd March 2011, Chancellor Osborne announced £100m of new capital investment in science facilities around the UK6. This was extremely welcome, especially at a time of austerity, and will help certain facilities attain world‐leading status in their fields. However, the extra capital did nothing to remedy the enormous cut in standard operational capital budgets created by the spending review. To put it in perspective, it was also matched the sum of money (£100m) set aside on the same day for repairing the nation’s potholes7. 13. One aspect of the Science Budget allocations which is not yet clear is whether Research Councils will have the flexibility to transfer funds from their resource allocation into capital, in order to purchase replacement equipment or pay for maintenance. This should be clarified.

Old Science Budget vs New Science Budget

14. Prior to the Spending Review 2010, the ‘Science Budget’ consisted primarily of the resource allocation and the capital allocation for the seven Research Councils, but excluded money distributed via HEFCE. The coalition government has now redefined the term by

3Capital spending – a closer look, CaSE blog. Accessed 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2606 4Ibid. 5Post CSR – The level of use of national facilities, The Biochemical Society Science Policy Talking Post. 2011: http://bit.ly/eJTUer 6Extra science spending in the Budget – details, CaSE blog. Accessed 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=4254 7HM Treasury Budget 2011, London: The Stationery Office. 2011

http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2606

http://bit.ly/eJTUer


excluding all capital expenditure, but including the resource allocation for HEFCE and all spending on the new UK Space Agency. 15. It is clear that if the government had used the established definition of the ‘Science Budget’, they would not have been able to claim they had ‘frozen’ it on the morning of the 20th October. The true impact of the cuts was not clear until the Science Budget Allocations in late December 2010. The new definition also means that capital spending on research is no longer protected by the ring‐fence around the Science Budget, making the meagre allocation even more precarious.

Context – international and domestic 16. There is no doubt that the settlement for science and engineering in the UK is better than had been thought likely. The community had been fearing cuts of up to 20% or 30%, in part due to the contents of the Business Secretary’s speech at Queen Mary University of London in September 20108, which focused on doing ‘more with less’. In the end, science and engineering escaped the severe cuts which have affected other areas of public spending. 17. However, the UK science and engineering’s success is determined more by how competitive we are internationally, not by how BIS fares against other Whitehall departments. In the international context, the downsized Science Budget looks less healthy.

18. Germany, a nation similar to the UK in many ways, has been forced to institute its own austerity budget as a result of the banking crisis. Overall federal expenditure is being cut from €319.5bn last year to €307.4bn this year, yet funding at the Ministry of Education and Research is rising by 7.2%, which includes €327m for university research excellence, and support for research and development (R&D) at the Federal Economics Ministry is also increasing9. This is congruent with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s past argument that “the prosperity of a country such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must be sought through investment in research, education and science, and this to a disproportionate degree.”10

19. The Chinese equivalent of the UK Research Councils is the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC), which is that nation’s main agency for funding competitive, peer‐reviewed grants. China’s 2011 Budget announced that the NSFC will see a 17% increase this year, which will mean its budget will have doubled from 2009 to 201111.

20. It is clear that the nations with which the UK will need to collaborate with and compete against are using investment in R&D, and the knowledge economy, to stimulate their economy today and also to plan for the future. It could be argued that the higher priority Germany had previously given to research, development, and manufacturing in its economy is partly responsible for its greater resilience during the financial crash. In 2007 the proportion of the UK’s GDP spent on R&D (the ‘knowledge intensity’ of the economy) was 1.8%, whereas the comparable figure for Germany was 50% higher, at 2.5%12. This greater resilience has put Germany in a strong position to invest more in science and engineering, leaving the UK at an even greater competitive disadvantage as we retrench our own spending.

8The role of science, research and innovation in creating growth, Speech by Vince Cable. 2010 9German federal funding for science continues to rise, In Verba, The Royal Society. Accessed 26/04/2010: http://bit.ly/gjcUla 10Speech by Chancellor Angela Merkel on being awarded the King Charles II medal, Royal Society. 2010 11China bets big on small grants, large facilities, Richard Stone, Science. Accessed 26/04/2010: http://bit.ly/i7WYRA 12Research and development expenditure (% of GDP), The World Bank. Accessed 26/04/10: http://bit.ly/fYP999

21. The Science Budget is not the only source of funding for R&D in the UK. For instance, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) spent £440m supporting R&D throughout the UK in 2007/8. The RDAs have largely been abolished, the expertise of their staff lost, and their assets are being sold13, with their function replaced by the Regional Growth Fund (RGF). 22. The RGF consists of £1.4bn available from 2011‐201414, which corresponds to an average of £400m per year. Therefore, even in the unlikely event of 100% of the new RGF being used to support research and development, it would not adequately replace the RDAs. The new Technology Innovation Centres, while potentially being an important step forward for innovation in science and engineering, only provide approximately £50m per year. On a related note, it is not yet clear at what level the Technology Strategy Board will be funded on an ongoing basis. Diversity 23. One of the notable casualties of the Science Budget allocations following the Spending Review has been the cessation of funding for the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC for Women in SET)15. This is despite the continuing huge disparities between the genders in science and engineering – for instance, only 30% of women with degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) are employed in the STEM sector compared with 50% of men 16. This disparity represents a loss to the individuals involved, but there is also a huge economic cost, as significant resources have gone into training these individuals, who then do not get the opportunity to use their skills, at the same time that there is high demand for those skills among employers17. 24. BIS has said they do not want to neglect the diversity agenda, but to 'mainstream and embed equality and diversity in all [their] Science and Society programmes'18. CaSE would welcome a commitment to mainstreaming, as there are diversity problems in areas other than gender. For instance, disabled people make up only 3.8% of the STEM workforce, compared to 5.9% of the total workforce, and CaSE is working with partners in the sector to improve resources for disabled scientists and engineers19. Coming from certain ethnic minority or socioeconomic backgrounds also affects participation in STEM. For example, pupils from independent schools are considerably over‐represented in science and engineering A‐levels compared to their peers in comprehensive schools20. 25. However we are still awaiting a clear strategy from BIS showing how they plan to 'mainstream and embed' the diversity agenda in their work. We call for the Department to consider and publish a strategy which outlines the issues they believe are most important to tackle in the coming years, and how they intend to work with the community to do so. The need for this has become more pressing with the publication of the UK Research Council delivery plan over the next four years, during which it will cut back its spending on careers and diversity by 73% to £1m in 2014‐1521. Furthermore, the Government has put the

13BIS halts local takeover of science parks, Research Fortnight, 2011. 14Regional Growth Fund, Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Accessed 26/04/11: http://bit.ly/hRecfr 15UKRC responds to government funding announcement, UKRC for Women in SET. Accessed:

26/04/11: http://bit.ly/fB98ZY 16Women in science, engineering, and technology: the UK statistics guide 2010, UKRC. 2011 17Emerging stronger: the value of education and skills in turbulent times. CBI/Nord Anglia, 2009. 18The UKRC stays open for business, UKRC. Accessed:

26/0411 http://www.theukrc.org/news/2011/01/the-ukrc-stays-open-for-business 19Pale, stale, and male,CaSE Blog. Accessed: 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2443 20Full A-level results briefing, JCQ. 2010 21 RCUK Delivery Plan 2011/12-2014/15. Excellence, Impact and Efficiency

http://www.theukrc.org/news/2011/01/the-ukrc-stays-open-for-business


Equality Act 2010 up for review on its website that urges the public to fight back and cut red tape22. Education 26. As a result of the spending review, the Department for Education has informed the Training and Development Agency that it will no longer be funding 'golden hellos' for new science and maths teachers, based on a 'value for money' decision23. CaSE has asked for this 'value for money' analysis to be published24, but this request has been ignored. The nation already has a severe shortage of teachers with the relevant background in physics, chemistry and maths, with an estimated shortage of 4,000 physics teachers alone25. The situation may deteriorate further if funding is stopped for teacher training for graduates with less than a 2:2 degree, of which there are unusually high proportion in shortage subjects, as is proposed in the current Education Bill. If teacher shortages are exacerbated by decisions made by the Department for Education, it could have huge impacts on our national research, development, and innovation capabilities. Monitoring 27. Each year BIS publishes SET Statistics – science, engineering, and technology indicators. These provide a historical analysis of government and other spending in science and engineering in the UK, and are a vital tool in assessing and evaluating current activity and targets. The most recent indicators, for 2010 and published earlier this year, have been significantly scaled back in terms of their scope and detail. No reason for this change has been given. We would ask the Committee to consider why it has occurred and what the implications will be for monitoring past and future science, engineering and innovation performance, and for policy formulation. Conclusion 28. Socio‐economic and demographic change in the UK, Europe, and the rest of the world means that this country can no longer expect to be competitive in low‐ and medium‐skills sectors over the coming decades. We will not have the supply of cheap labour or natural resources to be successful in these areas. 29. This necessitates planning for the UK to be a more knowledge‐intensive economy, with a higher proportion of our output and employment deriving from high‐skills sectors. This is the model which competitor nations such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Finland are pursuing.

30. Other countries are pursuing this path because of the enormous benefits that research investment can bring. Benefits include the spinning out of new ideas into products that can be commercialised to build economic growth or directly benefit society, for example, through health gains26. Public investment in R&D also helps generate private investment from research charities and from industry 27 . Note that the UK receives an unusually high proportion of its R&D funds from foreign owned firms (17%) which may be more flexible in

22 Red Tape Challenge. Accessed 27/04/2011: http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalities/ 23Letter from Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP to Graham Holley, Chief Exec of the TDA, Department for

Education. 31st January 2011 24Letter from CaSE to Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, CaSE Blog. Accessed:

26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2829 25Mathematics and Science in Secondary Schools,Moor, Jones, et al. 2006 26 Securing Our Economic Future with Science and Engineering, June 2010, CaSE 27 Work on Innovation - A stocktaking of Existing Work, OECD, 2009.


the location of their spending than UK‐based companies (and therefore more responsive to international comparisons)28. 31. The UK spent hundreds of billions of pounds during the financial crisis to rescue the nation's finance industry, which was on the verge of collapsing. It has become clear that the UK's economy had become overly reliant on financial services, and that we need to 'rebalance' the economy. 32. We ask the Committee to consider whether the Spending Review 2010 showed significant signs of a commitment towards such rebalancing. Science and engineering are crucial to the UK's economic future – is the support that they are given comparable to the efforts that were made to maintain the economic status quo during the financial crisis? 33. We also note that decisions about investment in science and engineering (whether of a financial nature, or an investment of intellect and careers) are made with a view to returns over decades, not the four or five years typically used for political decision‐making. For the UK to be successful in science and engineering over the long‐term, it must make a long‐term commitment to the science and engineering.

Declaration of Interests The UKRC for Women in SET is a member of CaSE. Campaign for Science & Engineering 27 April 2011

28 SET Statistics, BIS, November, 2009.

Written evidence submitted by the University Alliance (SR 29)

1. University Alliance1 represents 23 major, business-focused universities that are driving economic growth through world-leading research, innovation and enterprise. Alliance universities educate over 25% of all UK students and achieve some of the highest graduate-level employment rates. Incorporating 5 of the UK’s 10 largest universities, Alliance universities offer a research-informed, academic learning environment and a culture of innovation and enterprise, empowering the next generation of graduates who will help deliver growth to the UK economy.

2. Alliance universities are central to the UK’s innovation-driven economy2, driving growth in new sectors and markets through their delivery of high-quality, graduates, science and research.3 Alliance universities maintain a revolving door with business to help ensure graduate employers get innovative and thoughtful, professionally accredited graduates with the right skills to help grow their businesses. They play a leading role in regional growth and regeneration, working with partners from local communities, the UK and internationally, to ensure that the benefits of higher education and more specifically their entrepreneurial approach have a direct economic impact.

3. Through evidence-based policy and research, University Alliance and our member

universities aim to improve policymaking in higher education to the benefit of the UK economy and society.

4. University Alliance recognises the difficult financial climate and is encouraged that

the Government does not plan to cut the science and research budget to the extent that it could damage the health of the UK research base. We therefore accept the budget allocations as an acceptable settlement that should maintain the UK’s status as a world-leader in research. However we have a number of concerns about the methods for which the remaining money4 is distributed as we set out below.

1 www.university-alliance.ac.uk 2 Shanmugalingam S et al, Nesta, Rebalancing Act, June 2010, http://www.nesta.org.uk/rebalancing_act 3 L Aston and L Shutt, 21st Century Universities: engines of an innovation driven economy, September 2010 http://tinyurl.com/5tv22js 4 Following the 9.5 per cent reduction of overall budget in real terms.

http://www.nesta.org.uk/rebalancing_act

http://www.nesta.org.uk/rebalancing_act

http://tinyurl.com/5tv22js

Making the best use of public resource – funding excellence wherever it exists

5. University Alliance believes that through this settlement and in these uncertain economic times, it has never been more important to ensure that our scarce resources are used to fund excellent research wherever it is found. We believe that funding research on this basis is the only method that will ensure the sustainability and health of the UK research base.

6. Maintaining the UK’s position as a world leader in research is crucial to the future health of the higher education sector and the economy. In this time of restricted funding it is equally crucial that the principles that have underpinned this success are not abandoned and that the evidence-base surrounding the funding of research is not ignored.

7. As such we welcome the Government’s direction to HEFCE that Quality Related

funding should be directed selectively on the basis of internationally excellent (3* and higher) research. This approach is based on clear evidence5 that this is the best way to maximise the impact of public investment.

No evidential basis for funding based on critical mass outside some of the physical sciences

8. It is based on this same evidence that we raise concerns about moves to concentrate either research funding or PhD provision based on critical mass as hinted at in the BIS statement:

The Science and Research funding allocations will support the very best research, by further concentrating resources on research centres of proven excellence and with the critical mass and multi-disciplinary capacity to address national challenges and compete internationally.6

9. Whilst we support the selective funding of excellence, it is simply not the case that excellence always follows a critical mass. We accept that in some disciplines, particularly in science, that a critical mass is necessary to achieve world-leading research. But this is not the case across the majority of disciplines.

10. We know that there is a relationship between volume and excellence in some of the

physical sciences because of “scale and costly kit” where there are genuine affordability constraints.” Outside the physical sciences, however, the spread of

5 University Alliance, Concentration and diversity: understanding the relationship between excellence, concentration and critical mass in UK research, December 2009, http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/downloads/Publication_Research_Concentration_and_Diversity.pdf 6 BIS, The allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15

http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/downloads/Publication_Research_Concentration_and_Diversity.pdf

http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/downloads/Publication_Research_Concentration_and_Diversity.pdf

peaks of world-leading research excellence across the sector demonstrates that critical mass is not relevant.

11. Research undertaken for HEFCE as part of their ‘Fundamental Review of Research Policy and Funding’ proved, nearly a decade ago, that there is no relationship between volume and excellence outside some of the physical sciences – in the UK or internationally.7 The 2008 RAE results showed an even greater dispersal of excellence across the sector in some disciplines. The Final Report to HEFCE of the Higher Education Policy Unit, University of Leeds, in considering the ‘role of selectivity and the characteristics of excellence’ found that:

“The effect of size is significant in most science-based subjects, but for performance of international quality it is evidently not the only factor. For Mathematics, however, there is no proven relationship between the size of the research unit and the quality of its output: concepts of critical mass do not apply in this area.” “The scaling pattern does not hold in Mathematics, in the arts and humanities or for some areas in the social sciences. It is also clear that there are a number of small units performing at the very highest levels. Output is generally more concentrated in science than engineering, which may be due to historical growth patterns. This emphasises the need to understand both the research system, its components (peak and platform), and the discipline-specific context.”

12. We would welcome great clarity from the Government on their policy in relation to

this issue.

Maintaining the distinct purpose and effectiveness for HEIF funding

13. University Alliance welcomes the Government’s drive to create economic impact across all areas of the Science and Research budget. Our member institutions play a critical role on a regional and national level on supporting the economy and driving its growth.

14. The UK’s innovation ecosystem depends far less on the traditionally sought after technology transfer and far more upon innovation in management, business process improvement and better marketing; innovation that may owe less to traditional research and development than to new ways of building relationships between business and academia and of incubating new skills and knowledge. The

7 HEFCE Fundamental Review of Research Policy and Funding: Sub-group to consider the role of selectivity and the characteristics of excellence, Final report, 2000 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/review/

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/review/

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/review/

current mechanisms of measuring how universities contribute to innovation in the UK struggle to encapsulate the rapidly expanding role and impact of universities.

15. It is for that reason that we share concerns about focussing HEIF funding too closely on income generation as the only measure of effective KE performance.8 Whatever the final balance of metrics decided upon we must ensure that HEIF funding is able to support and reward a breadth of KE activities as distinct from those supported by QR funding.

Efficiency

16. University Alliance is broadly supportive of the drive to create future efficiencies in the research budget. We recognise that RCUK have had to make significant savings but we support the principles underpinning the Wakeham review. We believe that efficiencies made along these principles will result in savings without harming the health of UK research. University Alliance 27 April 2011

8 As highlighted in our response to HEFCE recent consultation on this issue: http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/Alliance%20response%20to%20HEFCE%20HEIF%20consultation.pdf

http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/Alliance%20response%20to%20HEFCE%20HEIF%20consultation.pdf

http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/Alliance%20response%20to%20HEFCE%20HEIF%20consultation.pdf

Written evidence submitted by ADS (SR 30)

Science & Research Budget Allocations 2011/12 – 2014/15 A|D|S is the trade association representing over 2,600 UK companies in the Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space industries. A|D|S has offices in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, France, the Middle East and India. The UK is a world leader in the supply of Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space capabilities and services. These high-tech wealth-creating industries make up 23 per cent of UK advanced manufacturing, have an annual turnover of £60 billion and employ over 500,000 people in businesses of all sizes throughout the UK. These high-value manufacturing and services depend on new technologies being pulled through to market from research, and on the supply of skilled and talented individuals, not only as graduates but also as collaborators in the research work that takes place between universities and business. The catalysts for this “innovation life-cycle” are large scale technology demonstration programmes that draw on research and technology, and integrate and demonstrate them at the systems level, as part of integrated, coherent and collaborative National Strategies such as the National Aerospace Technology Strategy (NATS) and National Space Technology Strategy (NSTS) A|D|S welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to make its input into the Science & Technology Select Committee’s call for evidence. 1. Impact of Science & Research

1.1. A|D|S welcomes Government’s commitment to ring-fence Science investment but is ultimately concerned about the impact on our industries of what constitutes a 5-6 per cent cut in real terms over the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period. This is in contrast to the United States where the Administration is seeking an annual budget for the National Science Foundation in 2012 that is 13.0 per cent higher in cash terms than the 2010 figure. This is a very different outlook when compared to the UK science budget which will be 6.7 per cent lower in cash terms in 2012-13 compared with 2010-11, this puts at risk important research programmes.

1.1.1. Investment in Science and Research today will ensure that the UK maintains

its cutting edge capabilities in Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space in the decades beyond.

1.1.2. Investment in Science and Research has made the UK the largest Aerospace

sector in Europe and the second largest in the world after the USA. The UK is a world leader in the manufacture of aircraft wings, and has a 35 per cent market share in the sale of engines. Similarly, investment has made the UK Defence industry the largest exporter of Defence and Security products to the United States and the largest global exporter amongst European Union Member States.

1.1.3. Science investment needs to be supported as part of the wider growth agenda

and to encourage an innovation climate, where research can be efficiently brought to exploitation. This is best done by aligning research with national strategies such as the National Aerospace Technology Strategy, which has been a successful partnership between Government, Industry and Academia, in defining research pathways that lead to the development of competitive products and exports that bring economic growth and sustain jobs in the UK.

1.1.4. The impact of Science can only be maximised if other components of the

innovation climate, such the Technology Strategy Board (including

Technology and Innovation Centres and R&D Tax Credits, are supported at the right levels. Anything less risks the timely and efficient maturation of science into innovation, new solutions and exports, affecting future growth prospects.

1.1.5. Cutting science spending and the lack of a Science funding growth plan

beyond the CSR period, risks unravelling this innovation lifecycle by cutting the pipeline that feeds these latter processes.

1.1.6. Investing in Science can lead to cost reductions greater than the immediate

savings. One simple example being that meteorological research saves money in the longer term if it helps to mitigate environmental damage. The point here is that research investment can not only create returns (as is the more obvious point) but can also save having to spend money unnecessarily.

1.2. A|D|S agrees that Research and Funding Councils should focus investment research

that supports the growth agenda. The most effective investment is in areas where a market opportunity is clearly defined and where the UK already has a successful base of expertise. Such an approach will prioritise programmes that can be shown to translate into jobs, exports and economic growth for the UK.

1.3. The most efficient starting point to ensure maximum value from research is for

Councils to align investment decisions on research with national strategies that are linked to business opportunities. One such example is the National Aerospace Technology Strategy, which defines the technologies that UK companies need to develop for future global programmes worth some $3.6 trillion.

1.4. A|D|S welcomes the commitment by the Government to retain investment in

university research clusters and to strengthen engagement between the research base and industry.

1.5. The sectors that A|D|S represents are primarily affected by the changes in the

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) budget.

1.6. To ensure the future competitiveness of ADS sectors, A|D|S believes that Science and Research investment has to increase in the long-term, otherwise, our market share is at risk.

1.7. Despite financial pressures, the long-term nature of research necessitates a growth

plan that spans multiple Parliaments. The current freeze is in effect a real-term cut at a time when Science spending plans of similarly developed countries is rising. A long-term outlook that shows growth will be attractive to international investors, particularly for the UK to attract new investment.

1.8. A|D|S is also concerned that the existing degree of uncertainty and real-term cuts,

that it will be difficult to attract students to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. This could play out as a vicious circle which erodes the science base – making the UK a much less attractive place to invest for global businesses.

2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

2.1. The EPSRC’s budget will be cut by 12 per cent in real terms over the CSR period. Its capital expenditure will drop by £25 million. This equates to around half its current budget in this area, with its research grant funding falling by £61 million through to 2015.

2.2. Engineering and laboratory intensive courses employ more university resources than courses in the arts and humanities. This taxes the capital expenditure budget of universities, particularly those that have chosen to maintain or grow their engineering and science offering. Combined, a falling intake and financial constraints would result in the pressures to close engineering facilities that are not economically viable.

2.3. Universities are already taking decisions to close labs and facilities. Most concerning

is they are taking them independently of one another. There is a risk of critical facilities being closed under this pattern that will damage UK competitiveness. Industry proposes that a “UK National Strategy for Engineering Infrastructure” is required to identify facilities vital to UK competitiveness, i.e., those that are needed to deliver national Strategies such as NATS and support large-scale technology demonstration activity, with a view to insulating them from further erosion.

2.4. EPSRC is conducting a review of facilities, but ADS recommends that a more

strategic approach is required, as is greater partnership with industry, so that nascent technologies that are necessary for future technologies are clearly identified.

2.5. Industry notes that as EPSRC creates ring-fenced funding for a particular issue,

many universities, understandably, chose to initiate their involvement to secure a slice of the available funding. This approach does however lead to duplication and waste. For example, there are 60 Nanotechnology Centres in the UK, it is questionable as to whether all are needed. Research councils must play a much greater role, with industry engagement to ensure best exploitation, in setting out a strategy for research in high priority areas.

2.6. A|D|S recommends that Government consider increased, stable funding for long-

term, large collaborative Centres. This would be an efficient way of using resources and ensure that the relevant parties best come together to collaborate. A good example is the Advanced Simulation Research Centre (ASRC) in the South West that brings together industry and academia around strategically important, exploitation driven, multidisciplinary research, that benefits multiple sectors (e.g. rail, marine, aerospace, wind energy in the case of ASRC).

2.7. ESPRC has indicated that over 2011-15, it intends to increase its engagement with

industry. A|D|S welcomes this, but would caution that the current success rate of grant proposal is around 1 in 6 and likely to be even lower with financial pressures. It is difficult for industry to sustain support (e.g. support to writing proposals, committing data/facilities/expertise). A|D|S proposes that mechanisms are put in place that would only allow quality proposals through and would be happy to propose models to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and ESPRC.

2.8. A|D|S believes strongly that getting value from research is not just about

Government investment levels, although this remains an important feature. One of the features of the advanced engineering sectors A|D|S represents is the very strong interaction between public and private investment. Industrial R&D is made possible and multiplied by public funding research and innovation. Cutting public funding for research lessens the private-sector’s confidence to invest, which will ultimately hurt UK economic growth, exports and jobs.

3. Haldane Principle

3.1. The Haldane Principle means that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers through peer review. The Government has indicated that it is in support of the Principle, and industry is too.

3.2. Industry supports the Haldane Principle which frequently leads to curiosity-driven research.

However, where research claims to be exploitation driven, it should be aligned to National

Strategies wherever possible. For example, Aeronautics research that claims to be market-driven, should be demonstrably align to the National Aerospace Technology Strategy, which is a joint strategy between industry and government.

3.3. While A|D|S is supportive, philosophically, of the Haldane principle, it is recommended that

it is applied transparently. One way to achieve this is for Government to publish its rationale for its allocations to the various Research Councils. For example, if Government is fully supportive of a manufacturing sector-led economic recovery and re-balancing – a sector that relies heavily on innovation in engineering – one might expect the EPSRC to be supported well as a result.

A|D|S May 2011

Date post:	11-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times