spending review 2010 › pa › cm201012 › cm... · the science and technology committee the...

Published on 8 November 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Science and Technology Committee

Spending Review 2010

Volume II

Additional written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be published 24 November 2010, 19 January 2011, and 14 September 2011

The Science and Technology Committee

The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies.

Current membership

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central) Gregg McClymont (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Jonathan Reynolds (Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridge and Hyde) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volume(s). Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are: Mrs Elizabeth Flood (Clerk); Dr Stephen McGinness (Second Clerk); Dr Farrah Bhatti (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik (Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); and Becky Jones (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected].

List of additional written evidence

(Published on the Committee website www.parliament.uk/science)

1 Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society (SR 01) Ev w1

2 Helen Smith (SR 03) Ev w1

3 Professor Neil Spooner (SR 04) Ev w2

4 De Montfort University (SR 05) Ev w2

5 Prospect (SR 06) Ev w4

6 University and College Union (SR 07) Ev w8

7 Members of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience (SR 08) Ev w12

8 Research Councils UK (SR 09) Ev w13

9 Office of the Vice-Provost (Research), University College London (SR 10) Ev w20

10 Rolls-Royce plc (SR 11) Ev w24

11 Professor George Lees (SR 12) Ev w27

12 The Royal Society (SR 13) Ev w29

13 Royal Society of Chemistry (SR 14) Ev w32

14 Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) (SR 15) Ev w36

15 Royal Astronomical Society (SR 16) Ev w38

16 Council for the Mathematical Sciences (SR 17) Ev w39

17 GuildHE (SR 18) Ev w43

18 Higher Education Funding Council for England (SR 19) Ev w52

19 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) Ev w55

20 The UKRC (SR 21) Ev w58

21 The Academy of Medical Sciences (SR 22) Ev w67

22 Royal Statistical Society (SR 23) Ev w68

23 Society of Biology (SR 24) Ev w68

24 Cancer Research UK (SR 25) Ev w70

25 Institute of Physics (SR 26) Ev w73

26 Science is Vital Campaign (SR 27) Ev w78

27 Campaign for Science & Engineering (SR 28) Ev w79

28 University Alliance (SR 29) Ev w83

29 ADS (SR 30) Ev w85

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [02-11-2011 15:51] Job: 011652 Unit: PG01

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society (SR 01)

I’m writing to you on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society to express our thanks for raising astronomyat the inquiry session yesterday morning. We’ve already been in touch with Andrew Miller (and more recentlyGareth Thomas and Chi Onwurah) on several occasions about the different issues for our science and it’s beenhelpful that the Committee has considered them.

Watching the session, I had some concerns over Keith Mason’s replies in particular (although of course we’llwant 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 hardto agree with the assertion that the decision to shut down UK optical astronomy in Hawaii and La Palma wasmade on scientific grounds. What can be said is that astronomers took part in a prioritisation exercise to decidehow to use reducing available funds—but it isn’t the case that this was based on a decade-long strategy. Onthe contrary a well planned transformation of the facilities available to UK astronomers was envisaged as aresult of joining the European Southern Observatory in 2002, but the current intention to withdraw from allnorthern 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 ‘overinvestment’ in astronomy in recent times with an anticipated decline to a normal level thereafter. This iscertainly something I’ve never seen in a printed strategy document and it would be interesting to see if anofficial 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 itwould be useful for us to meet you to brief you further at some point.

20 January 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 thequality 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 fromteachers attending the training.

Overwhelmingly the feedback is very positive. Teachers, and in particular trainee teachers, have found thatthe approach to teaching practicals featured in this programme is inspiring. We aim to reach 2,000 teachers atthe end of the project.

The programme is scheduled to come to an end this month, however, as the academic year does not mirrorthe 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.

March 2011

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [02-11-2011 15:51] Job: 011652 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

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 acombination of reduced funding, an anti “big society” top-down over management, and detrimental changes tothe 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 particularharm that is being done and that will impact on the UK’s wealth generating capacity in the future. These arepersonal comments, but I believe widely held, obviously biased to my particular experience in Universityexperimental physics.

(1) experimental physics is a hard, technology-creating and mathematics-based endeavour that underpinsbig 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 grantsover 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 yearresearch project work that was possible even three years ago. There is simply no longer the number ofpost-doctoral or PhD students funded on research around to provide the essential day-to-day expertisenecessary, nor the levels of stat-of the-art equipment. So whilst the research capacity itself is clearlyreduced by lower funding, it is in fact the knock-on effect in our capacity to provide world-classtraining 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 thisis an over-zealous trend to concentrate research, particular R&D, in national laboratories or gatewaycentres. This is also pulling research resources away from University departments where such workcan often be done more economically but more importantly where it can simultaneously be used totrain youngsters at the cutting edge; and

(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 thatthe body has the remit both to distribute science funding to Universities but also to itself. There arecountless examples now where funding better spent in Universities, again with their added trainingcapabilities and expertise, finds its way instead to STFC outfits without proper transparency of peerreview. One can argue that Universities should have the first call on research funds because, ashistorically evidenced, they provide the most dynamic and economic environment, but again it isarguably more important not to forget the positive impact on training that research funding toUniversities brings. For the sake of transparency for the tax payer and value for money, the dual roleof STFC acting as both an awarder of tax funds for research and a receiver in competition withUniversity departments must be ended.

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 theRAE 2008, more than 50% of our research was rated as “internationally excellent” or “world-leading” and weview research as central to our mission. Research underpins all our teaching and enables engagement withbusiness, public and the third sectors. As a consequence of effective business engagement, more than 170 ofDMU’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 isresearch rich rather than research intensive. However, the importance of research to the character and qualityof 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 throughthe 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 researchersto advise and mentor our scholars. We therefore feel we are well placed to reflect on some of the specificissues raised by the science and research budget allocation, and welcome this opportunity to comment on theseareas in the following paragraphs.

3. The flat settlement to the science and research budget represents a real terms cut, and will have farreaching consequences for the HEI sector as a whole. We believe that there will still be opportunities for ourresearchers to excel in the current funding landscape and in these terms we believe that the science and researchbudget allocation has achieved its aim of maintaining the relative protection of science and research. Thereiteration of the Haldane principle and the dual support system alleviated many of the concerns around thesector about seismic shocks to the funding landscape, and the continuation of HEIF funding was welcomed by

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [02-11-2011 15:51] Job: 011652 Unit: PG01


many institutions. However, three re-calculations of the QR formula within a 12 month period, changedparameters for the allocation of HEIF funds and the abolition of small grants under the expectation that HEIswill fund small projects from their QR allocation have major financial implications for HEIs, and the speedwith 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 undertakenat DMU, and the effects will not necessarily be felt evenly across the institution. Within DMU the majority ofour QR allocation is devolved to the faculties in proportion to their RAE scores and faculties have control overhow most of this income is spent to support the research environment. Much of this spend is already committedfor this academic year. If we look at DMU’s external research income by faculty over the 2009–10 academicyear and define a small grant as £7,500 (the upper cut-off for the British Academy Small Grants scheme), thenacross 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 theInstitute of Creative Technologies).

Whilst we understand that small grants are expensive to administer and place large burdens on the peerreview system, the speed of these changes makes it difficult for us as an institution to respond in a pro-activeand timely manner. We have already launched internal project seed-corn funding and research sabbaticalschemes partially to address these changes, but a move to a more formal internal small grants provision willtake time for us to implement and we are anticipating a substantial funding gap in the short term, which wehave to hope will not impact too dramatically on our research capability. We find this particularly disappointinggiven the large concentration of internationally excellent and world leading researchers* housed in ourHumanities faculty, for whom small grants have been the predominant source of funding. (* For example, inRAE 2008, 40% of our English Language and Literature submission was rated as world leading, giving DMU’sEnglish department the same ranking as that of Cambridge University).

5. The likely withdrawal of QR funding from internationally recognised research (2*) is a concern. Whilstthis will affect DMU less than many other institutions, we believe that some level of funding should bemaintained in an increasingly difficult funding landscape. The removal of QR support for internationallyrecognised (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 arestrong academically. Many aspects of improvements in science and research are incremental rather thanrevolutionary 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 researchis built. The imposed divide seems very artificial and counterintuitive. Successive RAEs have also demonstratedthe widely diffused nature of research excellence in the UK university system. This means that the apparentmoves 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 needto maintain the principle of research excellence being funded wherever it is found is fundamental to the futureintegrity of the research base. The withdrawal of QR funding from internationally recognised (2*) departmentswould have a disproportionate impact upon these small pockets of excellence. In some subjects there is aphysical infrastructure argument for concentration of funding; however, we believe that the recommendationin 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 cohortof researchers, and the UK’s future as a world leader in research. Again, the logic in terms of administrativeand peer review burdens seems obvious. However, very few researchers will be trusted to manage a large grantif they have no track record of independent project management. Historically, early career researchers tendedto gain these skills through a mix of collaborative projects and independent small grants. Whilst the institutionalprovision of small grants will go some way to restore this balance, it may be at the expense of creativity asHEIs are most likely to fund those projects that fit best with their current research strategies, at the expense ofthe risky and radical research ideas that tend, in the long term, to be the basis of true innovation and economicimpact. The funding landscape post the science and research budget allocation seems to make the alreadydifficult life of an early career researcher even more challenging. The increased number of early careerfellowships 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. PhDstudentships have a different project structure and scale of ambition, and often provide the perfect opportunityto extend a project into a new and interesting area, or to build the solid foundations for future, more riskyresearch. RCUK funded projects, which have gone through rigorous peer review, offer some the best researchprojects 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 counterproductive. This disconnection may also have a negative impact on completion rates—historically we haveseen much better completion rates from grant holding students than from self-funded students. In light of themoves by several research councils towards the Doctoral Training Centre format, the opportunity for the smallerresearch centres to be awarded research council studentships becomes even more limited. Consequently thosecentres of excellence which were recognised in RAE2008 will become less able to pass on their researchqualities to the next generation of researchers.

8. Knowledge transfer partnerships (KTPs) are a fundamental part of DMU’s research strategy, being anessential component of our belief in both research informed teaching and user informed research. In 2009–10DMU was running 18 KTPs. Whilst we understand that the major structural changes experienced by the TSBwill take time to resolve, and the need to present a full and complete strategic plan only once it has beenagreed, the delays in processing submitted KTP applications and uncertainty over the precise nature of theprogramme going forward have been disquieting for some of our commercial partners, and may have had anegative impact on our abilities to engage with these businesses in future. Greater clarity about the future ofKTPs 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 theiroverheads by a set efficiency savings rather than reducing the overall intervention rate of the individual researchcouncils) is a fair way to help ensure the financial sustainability of HEIs. The implementation plan recentlyreleased by RCUK seems to have considered the significant issues facing HEIs and to be striving to be as fairas possible to the research community. However, once again the speed of implementation is breathtaking—thelevel of cuts was announced on 31/3/11 and will be implemented on 1/7/11. Whilst we put in place plans forvarious scenarios following the announcement of the adoption of the Wakeham review recommendations inthe comprehensive spending review, the reality (in the face of all the other cuts to the sector) may be morecomplex than we anticipated.

10. When the Wakeham efficiency savings are combined with the mandatory quality assurance processes anddemand management strategies that the research councils plan to impose, the costs of preparing submissions forfunding applications will increase significantly for HEIs. This will necessitate a reduction in the number ofapplications individual HEIs can support but will drive up the quality of those applications submitted. Whilstthe driving force behind the imposition of demand management and mandatory quality assurance is to reducethe number of applications, a consequence of improving quality at the point of submission will be that a greaterproportion of high quality applications will not receive funding. This in itself becomes an issue if the fundingbodies 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 fundingstrategies by the various funding agencies) represent both a challenge and an opportunity to the knowledgebase. When the science and research budget allocation was announced the HEI sector rapidly acknowledgedthat, in the current period of financial austerity, a flat settlement was generous and reflected the important rolethat HEIs play in creating new knowledge, maintaining the UK’s international standing and reputation, andcreating wealth. However, given the need to invest in innovation to drive economic growth there is a strongargument to be made that this budget should be one of the first to be re-assessed once the national andinternational 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 asubstantial impact on our ability to create and transfer knowledge.

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 theCivil Service and related bodies and major companies. Our members are professionals, managers and specialistsacross a diverse range of areas, including agriculture, defence, energy, environment, heritage, justice andtransport. 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 thanexperienced in many parts of the public sector and was well received, as shown by the oral evidence to theCommittee from the Heads of Research Councils. However, as discussed below, no such safeguards wereprovided 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 causefor 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 Reviewincluded major decisions affecting the future of public sector science without central knowledge orunderstanding by Government of the range and value of work undertaken by its own scientists. The reality isthat Government could not function effectively without this experience and expertise, but much of this essentialwork 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 oralevidence to the Committee’s separate inquiry into the winding down of the Forensic Science Service, so wewill not elaborate here. However, we do wish to briefly highlight the implications of the Spending Review fortwo other areas of research—in forestry and defence—as well as the impact of the so-called Quango cull onscientific advice.

Forest Research

6. Forest Research faces a budget cut of 25% in nominal terms over the Spending Review period, withincome due to fall in cash terms from £10,128,000 in 2010–11 to £7,776,000 by 2015–16. In real terms, ofcourse, the cuts will be even more severe. At an inflation rate of 3.5%, the real terms budget in 2015–16 wouldbe 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 wholeprogrammes of research will end, resulting in a concentration on fewer research needs. The budget for researchinto climate, environmental change and plant health will actually increase by 10%, but there will be a 50% cutin an already small budget for library services and a 60% reduction in research into sustainable managementand benefits to society.

8. Forest Research currently generates around 30% of its income externally but, with fewer staff and theircontinuing need to maintain core research, it is expected that the capacity to undertake externally fundedresearch 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 undertakenin-house by Defra, and the wider review of the Forestry Commission in England and GB-wide functions, forwhich the Government has established a review panel (without employee input). It is completely unclear howthese two review processes are expected to interact with each other. Further, the Spending Review cuts toForestry 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 boldand 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 oncorporate scientific and engineering capability. It also adds another dimension to concerns about regional SETcapability. The Ministry of Defence is working to reduce numbers of civilian staff by 25,000, but a largenumber of job losses have also been announced by industry anticipating the outcome of the Strategic Defenceand Security Review (SDSR).

12. For example, cuts in MOD’s research budget impact directly on jobs at companies such as QinetiQ. TheSDSR the decision to scrap the Defence Technology Review (DTR) led to a further 50 redundancies and theloss 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 aresult of these job losses in research and development, but there can be little doubt that scientific expertise hasbeen lost which cannot be easily replaced or regenerated at a future date. BAE announced job losses at MilitaryAir Solutions both before and after the SDSR as part of a restructuring exercise to align with MOD contractsand 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 periodof uncertainty surrounding the future of Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) means that attempts to mapout an engineering strategy are being hampered. The demand for nuclear skills has been rising for a numberof years and, with the prospect of competition from the civil nuclear sector if the planned new build goesahead, there will be a shortfall of 8,000 nuclear specialists across all skilled roles by 2025.1

1 “Nuclear Skills: a review” June 2009



Quangos and scientific advice

14. Science advisory committees account for nearly half of all arms length bodies, but most do not havetheir own budgets: they simply offer a way of bringing expert advice to policy makers at a lower cost thanthrough consultancy contracts. For example, two key pesticide advisory bodies (the Advisory Committee onPesticides and the Pesticides Residues Committee) received just £66,000 of government funding in 2008–09.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 havehelped 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 usualconsultancy rates, to attend meetings and carry out a considerable amount of work between meetings at nocost to government. Without this support the cost of obtaining expert scientific advice on air quality will risesignificantly. It is also likely that the nature of the advice will change as government departments under severefinancial pressure will pay for specific pieces of advice, rather than being able to call on it on a continuingbasis. Undoubtedly this will reduce flexibility and agility of response, as contractual arrangements will need tobe put in place and advisers will not be obliged to respond beyond the terms of their contract. Prospect thereforedoes not share the confidence expressed by the Minister and Director General of Science and Research in theirevidence 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 MedicalResearch Council has fared better than others and cash cuts in core programmes are front-loaded for BBSRCand STFC. Nonetheless, there will be a real adverse impact. Inflation is persisting at a higher level thanexpected 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 theUK’s greatest scientific advances stem from research with no obvious commercial application”, theGovernment’s current approach is to focus only on internationally excellent research and protecting fundingleveraged from external sources. In doing so, it is out of step with the approach taken in comparable EUcountries. 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”.…

17. There is a 15.8% cut in the Science and Society programme with effect from the start of the 2011–12financial year. Part of this saving arises from a retrograde decision to cease funding for the UK ResourceCentre for Women in SET. As a union we are acutely aware of the under-representation of women in SETfunctions and industries, and of the valuable role played by UKRC in encouraging young women to take upSET careers as well as in supporting women returners. The Government’s own analysis shows that these skillsare key to delivering high-quality growth and to stimulate and sustain the green economy. Yet, despite thedemand for such skills, there is no evidence to show that the SET labour market is yet able to address thechallenges 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 isnot 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 broaderspending by government departments. The 2009 Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics show thatwhilst Science Budget expenditure has grown significantly over the last 10 years, SET expenditure by civildepartments has fared much worse. For example, Defra’s expenditure fell by 17.5% over the 10 years 1997–98to 2007–08 and very sharply—by 51.2%—between 2006–07 and 2007–08. A 28% overall cut in MOD SETexpenditure 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 between1997–98 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, departmentalSET expenditure will not be prioritised and, unlike the Science and Research Budget, departmental allocationsare not ring-fenced. Sustained pressure in this area could have a significant impact both on departments’ ownresearch and on co-funded and commissioned programmes, which will also affect research council institutesand the wider science base.

20. For example, the Government has indicated that it gives priority to “maintaining national capability tosupport other government departments that deal with crises such as foot and mouth disease and extreme weatherevents”. However, whilst this aim is to be welcomed, it is not clear how it will be realised through the Science2 Dominic Dyer, Chief Executive Crop Protection Association



and Research Budget allocations since the two examples given are responsibility of departments whose SETexpenditure is not covered by this funding stream. Unfortunately, early indications based on Defra’s spendingallocations to its arms length bodies provide no reassurance at all. By the end of the Spending Review periodin 2014–15, Defra parented bodies with a strong science component to their work face cuts in the order of20–30% compared with their current funding level—including the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission,Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Management Organisation, Natural England and the RoyalBotanic Gardens.

21. So, whilst it is all very well for the Minister to agree that “this is an understandable concern”, what isactually needed is action at the highest level to ensure that this concern does not become a reality. We areaware that the Select Committee has already raised this matter with the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviserand 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 WakehamReview3 “across the spectrum of research funding, as the core driver for efficiency savings in SR10”. It isexpected that, together with pay restraint, this will deliver £324 million of efficiency savings in 2014–15.According to the Government “Research councils will bear down on the indirect and estate costs of theirinstitutes and achieve savings from the public sector pay restraint that will apply to researchers working intheir institutes”. In reality, the evidence to the Select Committee from the Heads of Research Councils showsthat they have found it difficult to deliver savings in the anticipated timescales from initiatives such as theShared Services Centre. It is both unfair and counter-productive to assume that investment in science shouldbe 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 alsoknow from previous experience that faced with a combination of squeezed living standards and lack of careerprogression opportunities, scientists will choose to take their talents elsewhere and that, once lost, this expertiseis 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 the2010–11 baseline by 2014–15, 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 capitalbudget of 44.72% in the next financial year, and a cut of 35.23% in STFC’s core programme in 2013. Theexception to this picture is MRC which, although facing an exceptionally severe cut in capital spending fundedby BIS, will receive £220 million from the Department of Health for the new UK Centre for Medical ResearchInnovation (UKCMRI).

24. As commentators have pointed out, some of this capital spending is actually required for maintenanceand other long-term commitments, which can’t simply be stopped—so the money will have to come from othersources instead. This appears to be confirmed by the evidence from the Heads of Research Councils, whichdoes not rule out using resource budgets to meet gaps. Professor Thorpe noted that “Our biggest challengeover the next four years will be to minimise the detrimental effects of that reduction” (in capital). As Sir PaulNurse, President of the Royal Society, has pointed out this is a sticking plaster approach, not a sustainable wayforward: “ … the axe has fallen in the ‘capital’ side of the budget. Allowing some of our labs and otherfacilities to go without further investment is only a short-term solution and cannot be considered as a sensiblelong term strategy”.

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

26. Similarly the £10 million 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 underreview within the Accelerator Science and Technology Centre (ASTeC). The R&D phase for the New LightSource (NLS) alone was supposed to carry £25 million of capital over five years. It also needs to be viewedagainst the background of a 50% cut in ASTeC’s capital allocation in 2010–11 and an expectation of similarcuts for the remainder of the Spending Review period.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



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

— Create a business case to draw down the £10 million allocated from BIS.

— Work on designs for the equipment to be purchased with that money, proving their efficacy throughtheoretical models.

— Place orders in line with the EU competitive tendering process, which itself takes three monthsto 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. Arguablyit would have been more sensible to stage the £10 million allocation over several years, focusing in the firstyear 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 fromresearch councils’ capital budgets in 2011–12 (though with the benefit from this restricted to the four researchcentres selected in the South East) and it is just a fraction of the £1.4 billion cut planned by 2014–15. ResearchCouncils UK has admitted5 that cuts to capital budgets will “present significant challenges”.

29. It would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of the allocation criteria. If the investment areas havebeen selected on the basis of a judgement that they are most likely to develop commercial benefits, thereshould be a transparent assessment process and also a clear understanding of what commercial benefits areexpected. Similarly, commitments made by anchor tenants should be transparent and open to scrutiny. Thiswould be consistent with Prospect’s wider support for all decisions to cut or reprioritise expenditure to besubject 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 theUK’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 Reviewperiod. We do not yet have a complete picture, for example on departmental SET expenditure, but we do knowthat government funded research makes a significant (and, until 2009, growing) contribution to the UK’s overallR&D expenditure.6 It is also evident that the cuts heralded by the Spending Review are in contrast to theapproach in other key countries, including China, Germany, France, Australia and the USA, all of which areincreasing 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 caneither be privatised or in some way transferred to “Big Society” volunteers. There is no evidence to suggestthat either of these approaches will work. Though Ministers may not be aware of it, and the Minister’s oralevidence was ambiguous in this regard, in practice government does depend on the specialist expertise of thestaff it employs and relies upon for advice. They are also a crucial part of the investment pipeline, and failureto recognise this will exact a heavy and long-term price.

15 April 2011

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 foracademics, lecturers, trainers, researchers and academic-related staff working in further and higher educationthroughout the UK. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry intothe 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 researchand science, including the potential impact of the new tuition fee regime. It also addresses the increasedconcentration of research funding, growing government interference in the research policy process and thereduction 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 Committeeincludes provision by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) of a consistent like-for-like5 “Efficiency 2011–15”—March 20116 www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gerd0311.pdf



comparison of final outcome funding for the 2007 Science Budget in 2010–11, with the 2010–11 baseline dataused in the 2010 Science Budget.

4. UCU is opposed to the further concentration of research funding and we call on both the funding andresearch 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” havebeen 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 resourcesto ensure all approaches to academic research are given equal treatment.

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

UCU Submission

Science budget

9. Following the 2010 spending review, BIS announced “The allocation of science and research funding2011–12 to 2014–15” in December 2010. In summary, recurrent funding—including QR recurrent researchfunding for HE—is being held constant in cash terms, while capital funding—including for HEIs—is beingcut significantly.

Recurrent spending

10. Recurrent (resource) spending in the Science Budget (covering Research Councils, recurrent HE researchfunding in England, national academies and other programmes) for the UK to 2014–15 is being held constantin cash terms at 2010–11 baseline levels of £4.575 billion (which means a real terms cut of 10.1% over theperiod, 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 realterms, over the period to 2014–15. The Medical Research Council will receive a 5.3% cash increase over theperiod, or a −4.8% real terms cut; the Arts and Humanities RC will receive a 2.3% cash cut (−12.4% in realterms); 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 InternationalSubscriptions, will increase by 34% and 78% respectively in cash terms over the period.

12. Recurrent funding for research, ie QR funding, (allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE) but included here in the Science Budget) will have a −3% cash cut (or −13.1% real termscut) over the period to 2014–15, falling from £1.62 billion in 2010–11 to £1.57 billion in 2014–15.

13. Recurrent funding for the national academies will be cut slightly in cash terms to £86.5 million by2014–15. Recurrent funding for other programmes (including Science and Society, and Foresight) is to be cutby almost half in all to £24 million by 2014–15, with the majority of the reduction falling in the Evidence andEvaluation programme.

Depreciation and impairment

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

Capital spending

15. Total Science Budget capital spending will fall from £873 million in 2010–11 to £517 million in 2014–15,a 41% cash cut; the additional £100 million 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 oncapital funding for higher education and the research councils, or whether it would be entirely “stand-alone”in relation to the four research centres the £100 million is supporting.

16. It should be noted that MRC capital funding is unusually high for 2010–11, but all RCs will see theircapital funding cut significantly to 2014–15, and the AHRC will not get any capital funding. STFC fundingwill fall from £85.2 million to £64.8 million. Research capital for HEIs in the UK is also being severelyreduced. Funding for the UK Space Agency will remain constant in cash terms. The Large Facilities CapitalFund 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 inpositive terms for science, with spending largely protected over the period to 2014–15, that appears to be anoverly rosy view of the outcome.

19. First, recurrent or resource funding in the Science Budget is being held steady in cash terms, whichmeans a real terms cut. Funding for the Research Councils as a whole will rise in cash terms but fall in realterms, because of the forecast impact of inflation. QR Research funding will be cut in cash terms. Only fundingfor 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. Andwhile UCU welcomes the announcement in the Budget for an additional £100 million for four sciencefacilities,7 there will still be a 29% cut in capital funding. Just in one year, the cut in capital funding forhigher education in England for 2011–12 has been announced by the Higher Education Funding Council as58%. 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. Itis 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 betweenthe December 2007 Science Budget, covering 2008–09 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 thebaseline 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.8

22. In addition, the funding for 2010–11 may have been amended after the initial announcement in December2007 because of subsequent funding cuts. It is possible that the changes in the level of funding for the 2010–11baseline year may conceal further reductions in the new Science Budget. For example, the 2007 SB indicatedan allocation of £412 million for resource funding for the BBSRC for 2010–11; the 2010 SB baseline yeardata for 2010–11 indicates resource funding of only £362 million for the BBSRC, suggesting a reduction inthe 2010 baseline of £50 million somewhere in the intervening period. This would indicate a much biggerreduction 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 Committeeincludes provision by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills of a consistent like-for-likecomparison of final outcome funding for the 2007 Science Budget in 2010–11, with the 2010–11 baseline dataused in the 2010 Science Budget.

24. Fourth, the 2010 SB says that efficiency savings following the 2010 Wakeham review of researchfinancial sustainability, should deliver £324 million of savings in 2014–15, through implementing FullEconomic Costing for RC funding in universities. Whether that level of saving can be delivered, let alonemake good the cuts in the Science Budget remains to be seen. The cash cut in the 2010 SB in capital fundingbetween 2010–11 and 2014–15 is £355 million, which is more than the Wakeham efficiency gain (or £255million including the additional funding announced in the 2011 Budget). Once the impact of inflation is takeninto 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 inhigher 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 forteaching arts and humanities courses will be almost entirely dependent on the ability of these courses to attractfee-paying students.

26. The massive increase in tuition fees, combined with the government’s decision to cut teaching fundingby 80% over the next three years, places the future of our universities at serious risk. It is a grossly irresponsiblegamble 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 thematching pattern of social class participation; and

— threaten the idea of the university as a community of scholars based on academic freedom andcollegiality.

7 The 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.

8 As expressed in Table 2.1 in the 2008–09 to 2010–11 SB, and the allocations tables on pp17–19 of the 2011–12 to 2014–15SB.



27. UCU is also concerned about the detrimental impact of the new funding regime on UK research capacity.First, there is the possibility of further cuts to the HEFCE research budget. David Willetts, for example, hassuggested that “if the average of charges comes out higher than the £7,500..., we will have to consider theoption of meeting that increased cost to the student finance budget by making offsetting reductions in theremaining HEFCE grant.”

28. Second, the Browne review and the new teaching funding regime reflect a highly ideological view ofhigher 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 ofinstitutions competing in a market driven by variable price and quality. UCU believes that a consumerist agendawill have a detrimental impact on quality and standards in higher education, but also for research capacity inour universities and colleges. It is clear that higher tuition fees will produce greater student demands onlecturers’ time and therefore reduce the amount of time available to produce high-quality research. Given theincreased workloads of staff as well and reductions in the numbers of academic posts, we fear that theopportunities to produce innovative research will be considerably reduced.

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

Concentration of research funding

30. The Government’s allocation of research and science funding in the CSR period should be analysedalongside its major policy objectives. One of the most significant is to concentrate research funding in a smallnumber of universities. For example, in the recent HEFCE allocations to higher education institutions, researchwhich received a 2* (quality that is recognised internationally) in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise ishaving 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 HEFCEimplements the government’s desire for greater research funding concentration. It is likely that this reductionwill mean that 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. Furtherconcentration of core research funding would carry with it the risk of reduced research capacity for someregions, greater difference in experiences for students and a reduction in the diversity of the UK's researchbase. For example, the policy of ‘more concentration’ will disrupt the developing research agenda in post-1992higher education institutions.

32. Similar policies are being enacted by the UK Research Councils. For example, the Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC) has restricted doctoral training support to pre-1992 institutions. The exclusion of allpost-1992 universities from the new ESRC Framework underestimates the research capacity of these institutionsand 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 andresearch 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 researchcouncils. Of course, the idea that research councils are free to set their own priorities ceased to be true inpractice some years ago. However, the current administration appears to be going further than previous onesin using its control of the finances to ensure compliance with a political agenda. For example, we are alarmedat recent allegations that the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have been pressured into makingthe “Big Society” a priority within its communities and civic values “strategic research area”. We call on theselect committee to investigate the process by which the “key national priorities” have been determined by theresearch 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 academicsto 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 questions aboutwho might benefit from the research and how an economic return could be secured. Recent research councilstrategy 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 fundingbodies 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 concernedthat the “impact” proposals will undermine support for basic research across all disciplines as well asdisproportionately disadvantaging research in the arts and humanities. The new proposals will also add greatlyto 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 ofresearch outputs. UCU is concerned about the over-reliance on commercial databases such as the Web ofScience, which necessarily privilege certain types of journals and therefore approaches. We call for independentpublic scrutiny of the selection process of Web of Science and similar resources to ensure all approaches toacademic 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 biggestconcerns relate to the 80% reduction in the teaching grant and the near trebling of tuition fees, and thedisproportionate 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 theUK Resource Centre (UKRC) for Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET). The UKRC is thekey body offering advice, services and policy regarding the under-representation of women in SET. Theorganisation has a good track record in working with employers, unions, educational institutions, and womenscientists to improve the gender balance in SET workplaces. UCU believes that the abolition of its fundingwill have a negative impact on the UK’s SET sector and for gender equality. We call on BIS to restore corefunding to the UKRC.

Conclusion

40. Universities and research centres are a vital part of our economic infrastructure, and generate extensiveemployment, output and GDP. Globalisation, competition with the emerging economies such as China andIndia (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 ourview, the BIS document (“The allocation of science and research funding 2011–12 to 2014–15”) fails to meetthese challenges.

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 forstudying mental processes in the human brain. We are directly concerned about cuts to the UK’s science andresearch budget announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (10% in real terms from 2011–12 to2014–15) that have already started to have a detrimental impact in our area of research, one in which the UKcurrently excels.

(1) Many funding bodies have already announced cuts in their funding for cognitive neuroscienceresearch:

(a) The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has announced large cuts (minimum20%, 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 (forresearch costing £50,000–£100,000);

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

(2) These cuts will disproportionately affect early career investigators (<10 years’ postdoctoralexperience), who often depend on the smaller grant schemes that have been cut while building upexperience to apply for larger grants. Often a small amount of initial funding allows collection ofvaluable 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 oninvestment in science and research. These cuts have the potential to result in a loss of talent incognitive neuroscience from the UK, as researchers realise that research funding is easier to obtain incountries that are investing in science. This loss may be particularly exacerbated amongst independentinvestigators 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 nolonger progress to more senior positions.

(4) The reduction in overall grant funding available means that the number of postdoctoral training postsand PhD studentships available in the UK will fall. As a consequence, it is not just more establishedinvestigators that are likely to move abroad, but individuals at the very start of their career. Theseindividuals 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 tosecure 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 developtheir careers.

These factors leave the future of cognitive neuroscience in the UK in a parlous state. Losing young talent inthis field threatens the UK’s deserved world-class reputation in cognitive neuroscience.

Dr Jonathan Roiser

Signed on behalf of:

Prof Sarah-Jayne BlakemoreProf Paul BurgessDr Joern DiedrichsenProf Jon DriverProf Emrah DuzelProf Patrick HaggardProf Masud HusainProf Nilli LavieDr Leun OttenProf Geraint ReesProf Sophie ScottProf Vincent Walsh

The signatories declare that they have no competing financial interests.

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 UKResearch Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectivelyto enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributingto the delivery of the Government’s objectives for science and innovation. Further details are available atwww.rcuk.ac.uk.

2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not include, ornecessarily 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 orenvironmental sciences, is at the heart of the UK’s growth, prosperity and wider wellbeing. Public investmentin research is an investment in the nation’s future, ensuring that the UK has a productive economy, healthysociety and contributes to a sustainable world.

4. The allocation of the Science and Research Budget is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovationand Skills. This submission provides an overview of the Research Councils’ delivery plans and strategicapproach over the next spending review period.

5. The Science and Research budget, announced on 20 October 2010, will enable the UK research base tocontribute positively to the future prosperity and wellbeing of the UK. It will nonetheless present challengesto the research community. RCUK welcomes support for scientific capital projects such as UK Centre forMedical 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 cutin capital funding will present significant challenges to research and we will work with BIS to minimise theimpact on affected disciplines.

6. The Research Councils received their individual allocations on 20 December 2010. The total budgetallocation across RCUK for the 2011–12 to 2014–15 spending review period is around £11.2 billion.

7. To coincide with the announcement of the budgets each Research Council published its delivery plan forthe period. These delivery plans set out the priorities and commitments that Research Councils will meet inorder to achieve their forward strategies. Summaries of individual Research Council delivery plans and linksto related documents can be found at Annex A.



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

Annex A

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

Strategic Direction

Over the next spending period the AHRC will focus its resources to generate excellent research and trainingand stimulate partnerships across disciplines, providers, agencies and countries. The AHRC Delivery Plan hasthree major aims:

— To support arts and humanities research of the very highest quality and to ensure that strategiccapability 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 thisachievement 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 consortiaarrangements 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 Futureand Science in Culture, as well as the Connected Communities programme delivered in collaboration withother Research Councils—will receive enhanced support to stimulate discipline-crossing research and respondto changing methodologies and opportunities.

We will continue to invest in postgraduate research and training to maintain disciplinary capability. We willfocus on proven centres of excellence as well as high-quality institutional consortia which will ensure supportfor important areas where current provision is dispersed.

The AHRC will deepen its contribution to cross-Council programmes, prioritising Digital Economy andLiving with Environmental Change alongside Connected Communities. We are also aware of the importanceof 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 complexcultures 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 focuson the creative economy which is of growing importance both socially and economically. We will createCreative Economy “hubs” to develop research in partnership with the creative and cultural sectors includingboth commercial and public partners. We will also work alongside key government departments to assist indeveloping 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 biologicalsystems upon which all life depends. BBSRC research makes a significant contribution to the quality of life inthe 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 safefood in a rapidly changing world.



— Bioenergy and industrial biotechnology—Energy and industrial materials from novel biologicalsources, reducing dependency on petrochemicals and helping the UK to become a low carboneconomy.

— Basic bioscience underpinning health—Driving advances in fundamental bioscience for betterhealth 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 andthe Scottish Government.

— Increase the UK’s economic resilience to livestock diseases such as foot and mouth, bluetongueand 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 toincrease yields and adapt to climate change.

— Drive innovation, growth and jobs through Industrial Biotechnology including advances inenzymology, biocatalysis and the design of biological systems for more efficient bioenergy, newbiopharmaceuticals and renewable “green” industrial feedstocks.

— Prepare for an ageing population and to maintain wellbeing through improved understanding ofthe basic biological mechanisms underlying healthy physiology.

— Support the development of the next generation of cutting-edge tools and technologies to acceleratethe 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 andchemicals in the new global knowledge based bio-economy.

— In addition to investing for growth in the new bio-based businesses of tomorrow, BBSRC willfocus on extracting economic benefit from existing research though its Follow-on Fund, strengthenpathways to the application of research, implement BBSRC’s Campus strategy—with particularemphasis on the Babraham Research Campus and Norwich Research Park—and work with theTSB, 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 boostbusiness 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 sciencesresearch 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, andshows how we will more proactively partner with the research community to generate the fundamentalknowledge, 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 ourportfolio of research.

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

3. Shaping Capability: We will ensure we support the right people, with the right resources, in the rightplaces to deliver the highest quality long-term research in areas where the UK leads internationallyand 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 developingleaders 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 sponsorof research, where our investments act as a national resource focused on outcomes for the UKgood and where we more proactively partner with the researchers we support.



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

— Provide our researchers with the space, support and opportunities to foster creativity and toempower 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 sustainablehigh-value manufacturing, low-carbon energy, healthcare technologies and the digital economy.

— Further embed impact, including public engagement, so that universities deliver it as normalbusiness.

— Emphasise the role of research leaders.

— Give priority to PhD quality.

— Drive efficiency and effectiveness.

Our annual programme spend decreases in real terms by 2014–15. To meet our commitments, we must makedifficult choices, including:

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

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

— Stopping support for our own dedicated public engagement activity earlier than intended. It willbe embedded through our research and training investments, enabling us to build a high-qualityportfolio 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 andaddresses key social and economic challenges through: funding of training and skill development; generatinga highly skilled workforce for the wider economy; investment in the national social science researchinfrastructure; 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 strategicinvestment around three newly defined strategic priorities which are critical to the UK and wider internationaleconomy 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 studentstowards key strategic areas.

— Protect its essential investments in national data infrastructure, though it will make efficiencysavings across its portfolio of data resources. ESRC will give continued priority to the developmentof key longitudinal datasets which provide a critical underpinning for high-quality social scienceresearch and policy analysis.

— Continue to prioritise the generation of economic and societal impact from its investments throughfurther embedding impact as an integral part of funding schemes.

— Expand collaborative activities with the private sector to complement the existing strongpartnerships with the public and voluntary sectors and civil society, to generate research whichwill impact directly on business.

— Continue to encourage and promote international collaboration through embedding internationalperspectives 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, whichmeasures success through five objectives. ESRC will deliver impact through: world-class research; skilledpeople; infrastructure; partnerships and international leadership. Creating, assessing and communicating impactis not a separate strand of ESRC’s strategy; rather it provides the linchpin around which its activities areorganised.

ESRC will achieve impact by means of:

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

— A commitment to innovative approaches and efficiency. As the ESRC continues to extend itscollaborations with policy, business and civil society it will innovative its funding mechanisms forknowledge exchange and impact.

— The assessment and communication of impact. ESRC will continue to evaluate ESRC investmentsthrough its expert Evaluation Committee, extending its methodologies and programme of impactevaluations, including the impact of people and data investments, so that the results are widelydisseminated.

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 MRCwill develop and sustain leading edge research programmes that will accelerate the transition of fundamentalresearch 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 speedup the exploitation of the best ideas in medical science, to deliver new preventive and therapeutic interventionsand 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 four years.The MRC delivery plan highlights some major examples of activity that will rapidly deliver gains in healthand wellbeing, together with increased economic impact. Understanding more about the mechanisms ofresilience, 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 thechances of living a longer, healthier and productive life.

New or developing programmes include:

— £60 million new commitments in Stratified Medicine;

— spend in the region of £130 million in regenerative medicine;

— £10 million to support new initiatives in addiction research;

— £150 million across a range of activities in neurodegeneration; and

— increased spending on experimental and translational medicine, likely to reach £250 million overthe CSR period.

MRC will continue to develop the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) as a keyelement 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 helpdeliver on this commitment, as well as the Coalition Government pledge to reduce animal usage, MRC willcontinue 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£5.6 million pa by 2014–15).

Economic Impact

Worldwide the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors have been less affected by the global recessionand are forecast to continue to grow. Richer nations spend more on health, so that future growth will beaccompanied by a corresponding expansion in demand for healthcare, presenting enormous potential marketsfor 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 bothso 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 CSRperiod is to secure competitive advantage for the UK in the race to a global green economy, and to help makethe 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 itsbenefits; 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 societalbenefit; attract and retain top talent for the UK; transform delivery of national capability; and shift resourcesinto frontline science.

Research Priorities

NERC will direct a growing share of its funding though seven strategic science themes to ensure the mostcritical issues in environmental science are tackled: climate system; biodiversity; sustainable use of naturalresources; 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-Councilprogrammes: Living With Environmental Change (LWEC); Energy; Global Food Security; GlobalUncertainties. It will invest £344 million 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 andsocietal outcomes with greater impact and cost-efficiency.

Economic Impact

NERC research and innovation enables a successful greener economy by providing UK competitiveadvantage, 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 thosesectors where research has the strongest potential to boost economic growth.

By engaging with business, Government policymakers, local authorities and society—most notably throughthe LWEC business and partners’ boards—NERC is able to identify and prioritise the environmental sectorsand new markets with most potential research to unlock for green economic growth. It will also develop andsustain 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, solutionsand skilled people. We achieve these by delivering three distinct but interrelated functions:

— sponsoring university-based research, innovation and skills in particle physics, astronomy andnuclear physics;

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

— leading the development of the UK’s Science and Innovation Campuses at Harwell and Daresburyto promote academic and industry collaboration.

The STFC carried out a thorough prioritisation of its programme in 2009 which focused support on itshighest 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-classresearch 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 apremium 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 asingle 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’sin-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 vulnerableareas 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 5,500employees to grow to 20,000 within a decade;

— Increased commercial use of STFC’s UK large facilities, doubling since 2006–07, that, forexample, 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, £282 millioninternational investment and £180 million from national sources to UK high tech firms over thelast three years;

— Increase innovation output by translating technical and science ideas into new spin outs, technologypatents and proof of concept projects each year—in 2008–09 six spinouts, 23 technology prospectsand 31 proof of concept projects were delivered; and

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

AHRC

Future Directions Consultation: Emerging themeshttp://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Pages/FutureDirections.aspxDelivery plan:http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/DeliveryPlan2011.pdf

BBSRC

The Age of Bioscience Strategic Plan 2010–15http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/strategic_plan_2010–2015.pdfDelivery plan:http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/delivery_plan_2011_2015.pdf

EPSRC

EPSRC Strategic Plan 2010http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRC_strategic_plan_2010.pdfDelivery plan:http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCDeliveryPlan2011–15.pdf

ESRC

ESRC Strategic Plan 2009–14: delivering impact through social sciencehttp://www.esrc.ac.uk/Image/Strategic_Plan_FINAL_tcm11–13164.pdfDelivery plan:http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/ESRC%20Delivery%20Plan%202011–15_tcm8–13455.pdf

MRC

Research Changes Lives—MRC Strategic Plan 2009–14http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC006090Delivery plan:http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC007642

NERC

Next Generation Science for Planet Earth: NERC Strategy 2007–2012, refreshed 2010http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/strategicplan/documents/strategy07.pdfDelivery plan:http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/perform/documents/deliveryplan201012.pdf

STFC

STFC Corporate Strategy 2010–20http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/STFCCS2010.pdf



Delivery plan:http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/dp2011–15.pdf

19 April 2011

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. Ourcomments below are confined to the impact of the Science and Research Budget allocations, as determined bythe 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 predictedcut in research funding of around 10% over four years in real terms. The allocation undoubtedly represents atight funding settlement—particularly as regards the reduction in capital spending—and poses challenges foruniversities and for the wider research base. (For universities, the settlement must also be seen in the contextof significant reform of public funding for teaching.)

2. However, we recognise that given the heavy reductions in public spending elsewhere, the science andresearch budget does represent a comparatively positive settlement, and reflects the Government’sacknowledgement of the importance of investing in research. We also welcome the ring-fencing of the HEFCEresearch funding stream within the overall science and research budget as an important protection in principlefor research funding.

3. That being said, we emphasise that this reduction in funding should be a temporary measure as part of awider fiscal constraint. Once the UK economy starts to recover, investment in science and research should beincreased. Continued and sustainable investment in research remains essential for the future, both to underpineconomic 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-leadingposition,910 in the face of fierce and growing international competition. It will be important that this is notundermined by a lack of future investment that would risk negating the benefits of sustained investment inrecent years. This point is particularly acute with regards to capital funding—where costly remedial investmentthrough CIF and its predecessor funds, as well as the introduction of fEC, was made necessary by years ofunder-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 pressurefrom reductions in both Funding Council and Research Council funding. As research in these areas is heavilydependent on QR,1112 it is particularly vulnerable to cuts in the block grant, especially so in the context ofHEFCE’s reaffirmed commitment to protecting STEM subjects within mainstream QR13. We emphasise theimportance of the block grant to universities both to support arts, humanities and social sciences research andto 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 theSpending Review, the allocation of the funding within the research base will be important. A priority for theUK must be to sustain its world-leading universities—which provide concentrations of research excellence andworld-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 ofexcellence and on those institutions that offer research excellence across a breadth of disciplines. We discuss9 The UK is second only to the US in terms of research output: with 1% of the world’s population, the UK produces 8% of world

publications and account for 12% of citations—second only to the US (our share of global citations has continued to rise eventhough our share of papers has slightly fallen since 1999); and 14.4% of the top 1% of most highly cited papers—ahead of theUS. (Evidence Ltd / Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, International comparative performance of the UK researchbase, September 2009.)

10 The UK is number one in the G8 of advanced industrial nations for research publication productivity (Ibid.)11 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 thetotal allocation 2010–11 to 2014–15, whilst representing around 50% of the research population in the UK. (Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills. The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2010–11 to 2014–15. December 2010.)

12 The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills has noted that support for these subjects currently amounts to arounda 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)

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



how multi-faculty research-intensive institutions can generate added value in paragraphs 20–21 below. We alsomake 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 theUK’s research performance. The ability of universities to respond flexibly, taking into account their ownresearch 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 SpendingReview allocations for the science and research budget:

— we will use funding as flexibly as possible to ensure we can sustain our commitment to recruitingand retaining the most talented researchers;

— we will ensure that the “surplus” generated at the end of the financial year (which is re-investedin the university) is targeted to capital funding and infrastructure in particular, to alleviate reducedpublic 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 impossiblewithout the block grant); and

— we will continue efforts to diversity our research funding sources, including from business andfrom European sources (UCL performs particularly well in ERC grants and will seek to build uponthis success) as well as continue to work with UK funding bodies to ensure the most effectivedistribution 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 greaterefficiencies and alternative funding sources, although the UK must prepare for some downturn in activity andoutput. The more serious potential consequences, however, are to the long-term health and future of the researchbase and to the UK’s international competitiveness as an economic and research power.

10. The Royal Society’s recent report The Scientific Century14 emphasised that science and innovation mustbe at the heart of the UK’s long-term strategy for economic growth; and that the UK must recognise the intensecompetition 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 theeconomic stimulus packages developed by many of our established and emerging competitors which haveprovided significant new investment in research15 (in recognition of its importance in supporting economicgrowth).16

Intensifying international competition

11. The reduction in research funding must also be seen in the context of the UK’s position consistentlylagging behind other G7 nations and comparator OECD nations in terms of investment in R&D as a share ofGDP.17 This means that the UK is not reducing funding from a position of strength, but rather from a positionof having already been out-paced.

12. Meanwhile, a wealth of evidence shows the scale of investment by established and emerging competitornations, which pose a serious challenge to the UK’s position.18 There is a serious risk that the UK will loseground to our international competitors to the extent that it will not be possible to make it up. The EUCommissioner’s comments on the importance of investment in research in advance of a recent visit to the UKwere telling.19

13. We therefore reiterate that, as the public finances recover, investment in research must be increased atthe earliest possible opportunity. We note the example of the Canadian Government’s response to economicdownturn in the 1990s: initial austerity measures gave way to re-investment in research once as the economystarted to recover. The UK Government should continue to work towards the target of investing 2.5% of GDPin R&D, as set out in the Science and Innovation Framework 2004–2014.14 The Royal Society. The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity. March 2010.15 The Scientific Century, pp.31–32.16 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.)17 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.

18 The Scientific Century, pp.28–34.19 “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 Franceand 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



14. It remains an urgent priority for the UK to respond to growing international competition, in terms ofboth other nations’ investment in research and research performance (as measured by outputs, citations, andability to recruit), and safeguarding past investment to ensure a sustainable research base in the future. Thestrong research performance of recent years will not be sufficient to sustain the UK’s internationalcompetitiveness and excellence without sustainable funding, particularly at a time where we must increaseinvestment simply to maintain our standing. Without continued investment, the UK will start to lose groundand 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 thenecessity of maintaining international competitiveness; this requires a long-term commitment to sustainableinvestment in science and research. We strongly endorse the recommendation of the Royal Society that theGovernment should outline spending plans over a fifteen year period to provide stability and a commitment tomaintaining sustainable investment for the research base.

16. The consequences of under-investment are extremely serious. The current settlement already promptssignificant concerns about universities’ ability to recruit and retain the most talented staff, maintain breadth ofdisciplines, and invest in equipment and infrastructure. These are all vital in order to sustain the UK’s abilityto undertake globally competitive research. In particular, we do not yet know the extent of the impact ofconstrained funding on the next generation of researchers, many of whom are now going abroad or leavingresearch. Without adequate support for younger researchers, the UK research base will crumble. There is aserious risk that the years of investment in the UK research base will be undone if spending on researchremains reduced for too long.

17. We recognise that the Research Councils and other funding bodies have committed to investment inresearch capital—including infrastructure, people and skills—despite the reduction in overall spending, andthis is welcome. However, such investment remains challenged and the potential deleterious consequences ofthe 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 acrossa breadth of disciplines—a major strength of the UK research base. Over-specialisation or neglect of particulardisciplines risks seriously damaging the UK’s research base and our long-term capacity for globally competitiveresearch and international collaboration.

19. Research is increasingly a cross-disciplinary and global endeavour which makes sustaining breadth evenmore important. For example, research in the social sciences and the arts and humanities underpins many areasof research in scientific disciplines20 as well as generating important insights in its own right and providingthe foundation for our understanding of the world, and many technological innovations cannot be fullyunderstood 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 globalresearch and “absorb the fruits of the best research, wherever it may have taken place”.21

20. Ensuring the UK retains the capacity for specialisation across a board spectrum of disciplines also ensuresour ability to undertake cross-disciplinary research, which is essential to address major global challenges. TheUCL Grand Challenges22 thus seek to harness research and expertise from disciplines across the university totackle complex global problems, stimulating cross-disciplinary research collaboration to address aspects ofchallenges facing humanity in each of our Grand Challenges: Global Health; Sustainable Cities; InterculturalInteraction; and Human Wellbeing.

21. Cross-disciplinary research enables the consideration of problems and their possible solution frommultiple perspectives. We argue that such cross-disciplinary collaboration can only occur fully in multi-facultyresearch-intensive institutions that are able to bring a range of expertise to bear on complex problems. Thisprovides novel and unique insights beyond what any individual discipline could generate: more significantoutcomes can result when experts from different disciplines act in concert, enabling the synthesising andcontrasting of knowledge, perspectives and methodologies of different disciplines—and ultimately, thejudicious application of knowledge.

Research collaboration

22. Limited resources for higher education and research funding require serious consideration of how fundingcan 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 in20 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); likewisethe Wellcome Trust provides significant funding for research into the medical humanities and public engagement in recognitionof their importance for promoting understanding of medical history and ethics and public engagement with science.

21 The Royal Society. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration n the 21st century. March 2010. p.10522 www.ucl.ac.uk/grand-challenges



research-intensive institutions that offer critical mass. We would suggest that increased collaboration betweeninstitutions will be necessary both to rise to the challenge of limited funds, and to exploit the full strengths ofthe 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 alsoallows the opportunity to share expensive facilities and equipment, develop joint grant applications, make jointresearch 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 thereare 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 concentrationsof excellence whilst ensuring the dynamism of the research base and making the most of all the UK’s researchtalent. 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’sresearch infrastructure. It would also enable institutions to work collectively to share complementary strengthswhilst pursuing distinct missions.

25. UCL has taken a strategic decision to actively pursue research collaborations with other institutions, bothwith research-intensive peers and with smaller institutions in the south-east region, as well as collaboration inequipment and postgraduate training. Further details of our strategy and activity regarding collaboration isavailable on request.

26. We would urge funders to consider how they can best incentivise and facilitate collaboration betweeninstitutions, including a model of investing in regional research “hubs” with an imperative to collaborate withother institutions; or establishing a competitive research collaboration funding stream for universities. Wewould 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 thecurrent spending review period. Funding should be awarded on a competitive basis to pairs of institutions thatdemonstrate complementary research strengths, a vision for developing research collaboration aimed atgenerating shared programmes, facilities and training, and a willingness to both initiate and sustain it at astrategic 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 growthin publications from emerging economies and internationalisation of research activities23 coupled withincreasing co-authorship of scientific articles.24,25 The Royal Society has noted “the emergence of anincreasingly multi-polar, networked system of global science and innovation” which places an increasingimperative on the UK to maintain its research capacity in order to remain a partner of choice for internationalcollaboration, as well as to maintain absorptive capacity. Collaboration across international borders isincreasingly necessary to address major global challenges and participation in such collaboration is vital toensure 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, whichaims 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 workingalone. By involving both the universities and their partner hospitals, the alliance providesopportunities to exchange best practice, analyse clinical research and clinical care, and explorehealthcare delivery in diverse settings.

— The UCL School of Energy & Resources in Adelaide, established by UCL in partnership withthe Government of South Australia. The school offers a two-year MSc in Energy & Resources, aswell as a portfolio of executive education programmes, and is developing research activity.

— Establishing a UCL campus in Doha, to provide research programmes and masters degrees inarchaeology, conservation and museum studies as well as a wide range of bespoke training coursesfor museum and heritage professionals; teaching at Qatar University; outreach programmesinvolving cultural heritage teaching for school children; and research of relevance to the Gulf andto the Arab world more broadly.

23 The OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009 shows an increasing number of inventions made abroad.24 OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009. Around 22% of scientific articles had international co-authorship in

2007—three times greater than in 1985.25 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 UKaverage (itself 1.5 times the global average. Evidence Ltd (2009). International Comparative Performance of the UK ResearchBase. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK.



— A partnership with the Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan to deliver a foundationyear 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 furtherstrengthen links between the two institutions. This will enable UCL to work in partnership with aleading research organisation, fostering international collaboration and combining our significantexpertise to deliver leading-edge research.

Research funding mechanisms

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

30. Looking to the future, we would suggest that the Research Councils should take more responsibility forjoined-up strategic planning across the research base as a whole at the national level, in terms of capacity andinfrastructure, whilst universities should have greater flexibility through an enhanced block grant to makestrategic decisions and investments, recognising that researchers themselves are best placed to identify thefuture direction of research.

Conclusion

31. The outcome for the science and research budget following the Spending Review was not as bad as hadbeen feared. However, the reduction in funding still presents major challenges for the UK research base andfor universities. The longer-term consequences, as well as the short-term impact, of the spending review mustbe considered. Sustaining the UK’s research base must remain a priority for Government, particularly in thecontext of fierce international competition and the increasingly global nature of research. Increasingcollaboration between institutions is likely to play an increasingly important role in sustaining the UK researchbase and helping to alleviate some of the reduction in funding; maintaining international competitiveness; andaddressing global challenges.

32. We therefore recommend:

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

— The Government should set out a long-term strategic framework for research for at least the next10 to 15 years.

— A specific funding initiative to support collaboration in the UK between research-intensive hubsand groups in smaller institutions.

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 theair. The Group has a balanced business portfolio with leading market positions, developing products that addvalue for our customers, improve efficiency and reduce environmental impact. In 2010 Rolls-Royce invested£923 million in R&D,26 approximately two-thirds of this in the UK. The Company is widely and consistentlyrecognised as a leading practitioner of truly collaborative industry-academic research.27,28

2. Rolls-Royce primarily operates two highly successful models for academic collaboration: its world-widenetwork of University Technology Centres (UTCs), and its partnerships in Advanced Manufacturing ResearchCentres (AxRCs). These partnerships have consistently delivered advanced technologies that can be tracedthrough to many of today’s world leading products. The majority of the Company’s fundamental research iscarried 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 researchcentres 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 contactwith world-class academic institutions, provided stability for the researchers, and given the Company and the26 Rolls-Royce Group plc Annual Report 201027 Ingenious Britain, a report by Sir James Dyson, March 201028 Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report, HM Treasury, December 2003



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 allparties in planning for future challenges, and encouraged the development of skills and exceptional talentthrough a challenging and stimulating environment.

4. Successful, leading concentrations of research such as these provide the UK with an ideal platform forplaying 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 theDecember 2010 report,29 particularly in respect of the focus on Engineering and related skills through theEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Learned Societies. The cross-cuttingnature of Science & Engineering has the added benefit of underpinning and facilitating development in otheressential 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 infrastructureif it is to maintain its position as an attractive place for business to carry out research. This investment shouldbe targeted on those areas of technology where the country has a world-leading position and on thoseinstitutions with a proven track record of excellence and delivering impact, or on emerging technologies wherethe UK has the business infrastructure and skill-base to become world leading.

7. Public funding for research and support for pull-through of research output promotes private investmentand growth, and stimulates additional inward investment by foreign companies. It is clear that many of the otherworld economies are protecting or increasing their investment in research for just such reasons. Businesses haveto date invested in UK research because it is recognised as amongst the best in the world. However, othercountries are becoming increasingly competitive and UK industry now has more choice than ever before. ManyGovernments, for example Singapore and Germany, are investing heavily to develop their research capabilityand providing attractive incentives for Companies to move their R&D efforts. It should be noted that much ofthis 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 workclosely 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 andfundamental research. Therefore, both the TSB and the Research Councils have an equally important part toplay in ensuring that the UK remains competitive in the long term. We believe that there is a clear case thatfunding to TSB should be significantly increased, but it is not suggested that this funding is simply divertedfrom other elements of the research base.

9. It must be noted that simultaneously with these settlements the English RDAs are being disbanded. TheRDAs did much to support access to the science base by SMEs and to provide the capital support for largercollaborative research activities in conjunction with the TSB. There seem to be no plans to provide additionalbudget 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 tobe outside of the ring-fence, is an understandable consequence of fiscal restraint. In the short term it isreasonable 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 eventuallyerode not only the ability to carry out leading edge research but also the ability to attract and develop newtalent. It is recommended that the Research Councils and other public sector stakeholders be given appropriateflexibility in their funding settlements such that, in the medium term, they are in a position to take actionbefore the problem becomes acute.

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

12. There is no question that the quality of research must remain internationally competitive. It also has tobe recognised that the traditional “outcomes” of a research project are not the only measure of success, andindeed for business they can be argued as secondary to whether the research has real impact. Research Councilsand the Learned Societies have an important role in promoting the topics deemed to be strategically importantto the UK.29 “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.



13. The dual funding system in the UK is recognised as a strength, but an increase in the proportion allocatedto the Business QR stream should be strongly considered. This would allow due recognition of thoseuniversities 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 notsomehow less important, or less academically challenging. Apparent misunderstanding of the ResearchExcellence Framework (REF), intended to replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 2014, has nothelped to shift this perception, and we would encourage the public sector stakeholders to continue their effortsin conveying this message.

14. It is essential in any response to current financial constraints, that the numbers of PhDs in engineeringand 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, bothPhD and EngD, with over 350 Doctorate students supported by Rolls-Royce through its UTC network, themajority in the UK. This number has increased, not declined, over recent times. This reflects the importancewe place on this level of research, but it would not be possible without the surrounding infrastructure of theexisting UK science base. Many of these people go on to take up positions of significant influence, not just inthe 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 highereducation sector. The Company operates in a highly competitive market, and is acutely aware of the need toremain cost-competitive whilst simultaneously delivering leading technology. The introduction of FullEconomic Costing around 2005 allowed the Universities to better understand the cost of their researchactivities, 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 costof post-doctoral research in the UK is amongst the most expensive in the world,30 and this is likely to behaving an adverse effect on where industry focuses its research efforts. The quality of UK research may forsome time prevent any mass exodus; however, the increasing competition from overseas is not to beunderestimated, and we therefore generally support initiatives to reduce the overhead cost associated withresearch in a sustainable manner and increase value for money to industrial research funders. Savings fromsuch exercises should be reinvested into the higher education sector, with those Universities that demonstrateimprovements 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 highlycompetitive global markets. Successful models of academic-industry collaboration exist, and those pursued byRolls-Royce serve as examples; there are of course others. It is possible to deliver high-quality research thatsimultaneously has a direct impact on business performance, is recognised as world leading, and producesexceptionally talented people.

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

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

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

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

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

Professor R J Parker, FREngDirector of Research & Technology

21 April 2011

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



Written evidence submitted by Professor George Lees (SR 12)

1. Background and Context of my Evidence

1.1 No need for Spending cuts in Multi-Disciplinary research or in the Arts and Humanities. We have thebest healthcare system in the world but are about to engage in a free-market experiment akin to the one thebanking sector pursued recently based on flawed ideology (which cost the world an estimated $11,900 billionpounds up to 2009). The NHS costs approximately £102 billion pounds/annum but we (the world) had alreadyspent $3000 billion in armed responses in Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2009. In stark contrast, The totalWellcome trust commitment to charitable research funding for 2010 was around £0.68 billion and UKgovernment funding on R&D was around 12 billion Euros (at least back in 2007 before we entered the austerityenvirons): 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 theirnarrow field at a broader horizon and visit the web site of Professor Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/ (andhit the search terms war criminals) to impress upon our political leaders how they urgently need to objectivelylook, with an International and Historical perspective, at the costs and likely reputational outcomes of currentpolicy. With this easy to obtain perspective, I have no doubt that policy change will quickly emerge andBritain’s science, technology and medicine can once again lead the world with common goals of research-ledpeace, prosperity, good health and wellbeing. Scanning this horizon of perspective is fascinating and thewebsites 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(bylearning from Imperialist history since its inception in Greece) and the vital importance of providing educationand scholarly research to create a sustainable educated world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4wwith 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/b00wgq01) have the capacity to inspire career researchers at both ends ofthe 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 involvementin/ collaborations with industry have helped to develop new drugs and pesticides (which are important intreating drug resistant epilepsy, neuropathic pain). In toxicology we need a flexible workforce in science whocan 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 teamslike this. To succeed the teams need specialists in all types of science from Clinical and Social to Cellular andMolecular. 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 multidisciplinaryscience, job creation and technological productivity. Taking ideas from lab bench to bedside is virtuallyimpossible without expert multi-disciplinary input (no point in getting excited about a new drug that works ina test tube unless it is formulated effectively and can get into target organs). So this type of joined up scientificthinking 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 beenrecognised to be damaging by HEFCE and the devolved research councils. It leads inevitably to ultra-expertsuperstars in relatively narrow fields....it is dangerous to broaden your horizons or take a risk in case one losesthat “superstar” mantle that makes you fundable and gets you noticed. So there are no real incentives to thinkoutside of the reductionist silo. Even the “one-stop” web site that I visited before drafting this was encouragingcontributors 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 futureas a policy maker, see 1.4) but these crucial topics have disappeared from the research map and any sort ofacademic or objective critique on the banking collapse in the published literature (around the Greenspanideology) is virtually non-existent. We have opted to give taxpayers money as “bail-outs” to strugglingEuropean economies and know that by charging 6% interest (without consulting the taxpayers) that this isgoing 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 (ieperpetuate the problem for global taxpayers that is being used to encourage banking leaders and their tinygroup of shareholders to think that they can respin this malicious web without resistance from our effete andcorrupt democratic system). Scientists need to remember their childhood dreams and mobilise outside thereductionist silos to fix our simple problems http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ . So forgive, forget oldgrievances and the perpetual need for a fast buck to drive every human enterprise and let us move back topeaceful 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 withsome joined up thinking between scientists and ministers we can change the prospect of making a biggerdifference for patients as well as UK & Global prosperity and welfare. It needs an injection of strategic thinkingfrom the politicians and the sciences across ALL of the boxes that we were not allowed to tick and I knowthat 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 areasbut 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 manyunemployed or underfunded researchers run the risk of incurring mental illness if they have been led into thesharp 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 thinkingparticularly on workforce development needs and new fee structures to encourage participation all the waythrough to completion of a higher degree. With a four year Honours degree costing £36,000 to complete, MScand PhD enrolments are almost certain to slump (but see 1.8) The “science is vital” map and the reductionisttrends suggest that there is no joined up thinking and that short term leadership and policy making (inUniversities 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 fundsin their silo and starve rival departments of funds. Other leadership teams close workshops, shed skilledtechnicians and make senior staff redundant before they can mentor young researchers, technicians oradministrators. This very quickly strangles technological innovation eg making prototypes or the repair ofessential research instrumentation. The concept that research kit and patented prototypes can come from acatalogue is a fundamental flaw. All of these concepts are also under threat because of the fear of litigation ifyour radical new prototype or invention causes personal injury (so we are increasingly led to the cataloguewhere 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 themgraphically what our science budget is compared on the billion dollarogram(http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/)........which graphically illustrates the disproportionate knee jerkspending on civil defence (all of which is taking place overseas, an expensive paradox) at great cost to thetreasury and to our children who are to inherit our overdraft (but have no pensions to look forward to). Thecynical deployment of these responses (despite electoral pledges) has left UK and US science in a sad state ofdecline (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 researchproductivity and our UK training base whilst continually extending the burden of Debt at the treasury and forour own students.

2.2 UK scientists need to find time to see that our crisis is just a paradoxical clash of priorities. The massiveamounts of taxpayers money which underpins interventionist foreign policy and armed aggression overseascan be democratically allocated to research and development (across the disciplines at home and abroad). TheUniversities have greedily enrolled children of dictators only to send them home in times of trouble...it wouldbe more enlightened, surely, to speak calmly and constructively to these alumni and their peers and try andshow them the benefits of peace, democracy and staying on for a self-funded higher degree (ie to implant bysocial networking and open peer-pressure our “developed” society into these troubled regions). The crossfaculty fiefdoms should also put their weapons back in the chest and work together to achieve an integratedand expert multi-disciplinary society driven by technological discovery and development. Insight into thefunding/budgetary statistics will show how trivial these issues are to reverse: assuming we retain democraticmeans of expressing our constructive wishes to our political leaders (we are in a similar position to the dictatorschildren in this respect...completely in the hands of those who promised a quality product and a lifetime ofhappiness and a long productive career). Britain’s war chest is admittedly much smaller than that in the USA(see Mccandless web site http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/) but both Nations have flexible economies thatcan switch to caring support in the developing countries and at home (where the pounds will be back in ourpockets 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 acrossthe world but I have an even more radical and difficult concept for you. In times of austerity all sectors ofsociety should consider working a four day week. In Universities the benefits are clear cut (20% reduction ofthe tertiary education payroll budget can be ploughed into research funding: particularly for young faculty andthose brave enough to stay in the career researcher pool) This will create time for scholarly activity (out withthose precious sabbaticals that only a few enlightened or prestigious Institutions can give to their staff), savejobs across all sectors and create the most important factor of all...TIME TO THINK, polish up your researchgrants, papers and give you time with the graduate students in the lab and by the sports field . Our selfishgeneration have imposed tuition fees and are now raising this burden for their own kids (VC’s should leadthis: they get bigger salaries than our political leaders and this will be an inspirational gesture in the eyes ofour young charges in teaching, research and career mentoring) Many will initially be shocked by this conceptthat we would take the pound from our pocket and throw it at the students and our own research activity butit is better than continuing to rip off our own children and grandchildren in the shameful way we have doneso since 1984!

2.4 I would be happy to come and speak at Westminster on any of these issues. I am currently unemployedand have no political, commercial, religious or academic affiliation. What I DO HAVE is time to think after30 frantic years in research and I thoroughly recommend the enlightenment that time (and a good life/workbalance) 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 leadinnovation and the restoration of a peaceful prosperous global society: ENJOY.

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 timelyinquiry into the health of the science and innovation system in the wake of last year’s Spending Review andthe March 2011 Budget announcements. The Society has argued consistently over the last year that, whatevershort-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 thatthey 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 research.31

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

3. There are a number of other current policy decisions which could have unpredictable impacts on the UKresearch system, in particular in relation to reforms to higher education. It is unclear how these reforms mightaffect 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 wellinto the Spending Review period. It will be important to identify how any adverse impacts might be addressedor 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 andTechnology, the CBI and the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee, invited to advise on investments in science.Our submissions drew on our report, The Scientific Century32 published in March 2010. This report arguedthat Government’s continued investment in science is vital for sustainable economic growth by underpinningcorporate 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 forscientific research and called for maintenance of the dual-support mechanism for research funding.

7. A second letter followed the June 2010 emergency budget,33 at which an average cut in public spendingof 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 toattract 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 ifnecessary, 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 offunding bodies and universities.

(d) The balance of the current system (eg 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 thefuture of UK science and economic growth.

8. The Spending Review announced flat cash for much of the existing science budget. David Willets, Ministerfor Universities and Science, appeared on radio on the afternoon of the spending review praising the scienceand research community for their role in this good result: “The scientific community has assembled verypowerful evidence, such as in that Royal Society report, The Scientific Century, about what the benefits are ofscientific 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 SpendingReview period. In the Society’s July 2010 Spending Review submission to Adrian Smith FRS (then DirectorGeneral, Science and Research, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) the Royal Society argued thatsuch a cut would be “painful but manageable”. The protected budget includes funding from the UK’s ResearchCouncils and funding for research allocated through higher education funding councils. It no longer includescapital expenditure, which has been subject to much deeper cuts, putting strain on the UK’s ability to maintaininternational subscriptions and large scale facilities. Structural changes to higher education funding for31 http://royalsociety.org/news/spending-review-2010-response/32 http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/33 http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/spending-review-submission/



teaching—in response to the Browne review—are also likely to impact on research. Following rapid anddisruptive changes to funding models, universities are entering a period of great uncertainty. Universityscientists 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 closeobservation in the coming months.

10. Following the Spending Review announcement in October 2010, we were subsequently asked tocomment on how this budget might be divided up. The Society declined to offer detailed advice on allocations.Our 11 November submission34 described our ongoing concerns with capital investment, university fundingand departmental research and reiterated our recommendation that the balance between Research Councils andHEFCE’s QR funding should remain the same. We did not feel that, given new and existing uncertaintieswithin the higher education sector and the apparent productivity of current arrangements, there was any reasonto alter the balance of funding between the two legs of the dual support system. To do so would riskdestabilising 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 studentnumbers, they can be just as damaging to the UK’s research base. We know from a similar trend in the 1980sthat cuts to labs and equipment can be expensive to reverse if left for too long. We therefore urged that capitalinvestment is prioritised as soon as the public finances improve.

12. We expressed our concern about the research expenditure of government departments. Although Sir JohnBeddington has improved BIS’s oversight of departmental R&D, the long-term trend of decline demandscareful observation. We welcome the ongoing review of departmental R&D budgets being undertaken jointlyby Sir John and Sir Nicholas Macpherson (HM Treasury) and look forward to its conclusions. Parts of theresearch base have built up strong links with particular departments. Cuts to budgets will put universitydepartments and possibly higher education institutions at risk while also reducing the UK’s strategic researchcapacity in key areas. Departmental R&D and the Public Sector Research Establishments have enormouspotential 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, whichwill put pressure on their existing programmes.

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 onGovernment priorities for science funding, including emphases on promoting the impact of research, supportingeconomic growth, concentration of resources in centres of excellence, developing cross-council researchprogrammes and delivering efficiency savings. Medical Research was given a boost with rising budgets for theMRC 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 beoptimistically viewed as delays to new infrastructure on some projects, in other areas this will affect themaintenance 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, publicengagement, international collaboration, and PhD studentships are all at disproportionately high risk of beingcut to preserve the “priority” core. Such changes, coupled with the drive for efficiency savings, would alter thelandscape of UK research quite markedly.

16. The Society welcomed the £100 million of new capital expenditure for science announced in the March2011 Budget alongside the Government’s Plan for Growth, and expressed a hope that it would be a first stepin 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 competitivemarket place.35 The global economic downturn saw a range of countries choosing to use stimulus packagesto invest in science and innovation. The USA made substantial extra research funds available, Germanyincreased the education and research budget by €12 billion by 2013, and France invested €35 billion in theknowledge and green economy.

18. Post stimulus policies are now being forged. The Royal Society has been made aware of the difficultsituations for scientific communities in certain countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) faced with significantcuts to their science budgets. However, the trend in those nations that are the UK’s closest competitors andcollaborators in research has been to maintain support. US science investments fared relatively well during the34 http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/follow-up-spending-review/35 See http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/knowledge-networks-nations/ for recent data and analysis



tense budgetary negotiations in April 2011, although the trajectory set by President Obama’s administration torapidly scale up spending now looks doubtful.

19. In the emerging “BRIC” nations, commitments to science and innovation investment remain strong andare increasing. China remains committed to increasing its spend on R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2020, at a timewhile GDP is still increasing at a swifter rate than most other parts of the world. President Medvedev haspromised increased investment for Russian science. President Rousseff’s “Blue Book” confirmed in January2011 Brazil’s target of reaching 2.5% of GDP spend on R&D by 2022 (although the 2011 science budget wasactually a reduction on the previous year). In India the 2011–12 science budget was increased by 14% on theprevious year.

20. The EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 2010 showed that in 2009 in Europe and the USA leadingcompanies’ investment in R&D decreased, while it increased by over 20% in India and 40% in China. Theemerging economies are increasingly viable competitors for industrial investment in R&D; certain countries,notably Singapore and South Korea, have specific policies to proactively attract researchers and R&Dinvestment to their shores.

21. While UK investment in science falls in real terms over the coming years, it will be important to ensurethat 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 anew brain drain. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee pointed to this issue in itsconsultation with the Vice-Chancellors of six leading UK research universities in 2010.36

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 innovatorsmove 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 visaregulations threaten to prevent the immigration of scientists such as Konstantin Novoselov who, with RoyalSociety funding, moved to the UK, to Manchester University, where his work with Andre Geim recently wonthe Nobel Prize for physics. The Royal Society is currently discussing with the UK Border Agency how newregulations 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 scientificresearch. But we are in no doubt that, as science and innovation budgets continue to rise in other parts of theworld, 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 publicfinances improve.

26. The announced closure of Pfizer’s large R&D facility in Sandwich reminds us that talent and investmentare increasingly mobile in the competitive global economy. Over the coming years, there will be a clear needfor close monitoring of the inevitable changes to UK science. In particular, Government must be alert tounintended consequences of policy and budgetary actions. Above all, changes must be reversible to ensure thatintellectual 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 andinnovation 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 innovationsystem. 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 broadand diverse research base. The 2010 Spending Review achieved a cross Party consensus on the importance ofresearch as a whole, rather than resorting to trade-offs between the STEM and arts and humanities, or basicversus applied research. The Royal Society applauds this, and hopes that this perspective can be maintainedthroughout this Parliament and beyond.

29. Although the impacts of the last Spending Review are yet to emerge, it is not too early to thinkstrategically 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. Aclear statement of intent will help the UK is to demonstrate and fulfil its ambitions to maintain scientificleadership and attract the best scientists, innovators and research-intensive companies.

25 April 2011

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



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 CommonsScience and Technology Select Committee’s consultation on the Science and Research Budget Allocations for2011–12 to 2014–15.

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and aninternational Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 47,000members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education andtraining, 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 independentadvisory capacity, and it is in this spirit that this submission is made.

RSC RESPONSE TO THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE CONSULTATIONON 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 aninternational Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 47,000members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education andtraining, 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 independentadvisory 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 six 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 along-term national strategy for the chemical sciences. The BIS strategy contrasts heavily with our globalcompetitors such as China, France, Germany and the USA, who even in times of austerity are increasinginvestment 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 becovered even with £9,000 tuition fees.

— Chemistry departments have already made significant efficiency savings. The demand for moreefficiency savings could potentially compromise the quality of departmental teaching and research:unless there is a coherent strategy to cluster activities around strategic need alongside developingcentres of excellence.

— Deficits in teaching and research activity in UK chemistry departments may increase from currentlevels. In 2007–08 UK Chemistry departments operated on average with a 10% teaching deficitand with a 35.8% research deficit.

— The focus on strategic priorities or grand challenges must not weaken support for fundamentalresearch.

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

— Reductions in operation time at central Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) facilitieswill have a detrimental effect on multidisciplinary research.

— For several years, chemistry has been awarded the highest number of Project Studentships—theremoval 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 createregions 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 capitalgrant will be detrimental to the quality of education and training provided in the chemical sciences.37 Thiscould lead to a decline in the number of students choosing to study the chemical sciences. Since 2004, therehave been sustained increases in both A-level entries and enrolments on university courses in Chemistry.38

2. The RSC has reported that the average deficit on teaching income in chemistry departments in Englandis 10%. Outside of England, the average UK deficit is even higher (50% of teaching income) reflecting theabsence of additional funding for resource intensive laboratory-based subjects.39 Reductions in funding couldworsen this situation, leaving chemistry departments accruing even larger deficits in teaching. An additional37 The allocation of science and research funding 2011–12 to 2014–15—BIS, December 201038 RSC response to the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010, October 201039 The Finances of Chemistry and Physics Departments in UK Universities—RSC Report, June 2010



concern is that the proposed changes in post-study work visas may put off visiting international students fromcoming to the UK. International student fees make up a vital and significant part of the university funding.

3. The RSC found that in 2007–08 the cost of teaching a chemistry student was on average £10,000 ayear.40 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) currently fund Band B subjects (such asthe chemical sciences) at £8,700 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE). David Willetts has suggested this governmentcontribution will decrease to £1,400 per FTE in 2012–13.41 Tuition fees of £7,500 (the proposed average) willleave a deficit of around 10% per FTE. Even the maximum fee of £9,000 is unlikely to cover the cost of achemical sciences course. Additionally, reductions in the capital budget could mean that outdated practicallaboratories and equipment cannot be replaced. We have a real concern that universities may respond to thesepressures in an ad hoc manner that has the potential to seriously undermine the national capability of thediscipline. There is a clear need for a national strategy to support disciplines like the chemical sciences whichmake an essential and significant contribution to economic growth. Incorporated Master’s courses and industrialplacements provide invaluable training and experience for the student of the chemical sciences, and are nowconsidered a necessary preparation for PhD and for CChem accreditation.42 The future economic growth inthe science industry relies on the sustained supply of high quality, and qualified individuals.

Research Priorities

4. The RSC believes that the allocation of funding for fundamental or applied research should be informedby the nature of challenges which society needs science to address. Accordingly the RSC broadly agrees withthe six priority areas highlighted by BIS. Chemistry is a key underpinning science in the multidisciplinaryapproach required to tackle these global issues. This is highlighted in the RSC roadmap for the chemicalsciences, Chemistry for Tomorrow’s World.43 It is vital that these priority areas build on the strengths of theUK 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 researchthat is needed to underpin solutions to these challenges. Research that contributes to capacity building but thatis not immediately aligned to grand challenges must still receive funding. Innovation can stem fromfundamental research as well as applied research as shown by the Nobel prize-winning graphene research atManchester University.44 An evaluation of economic impact at Russell Group institutions noted that 56% ofsuccessful spin-out companies and commercialisation ventures had stemmed from fundamental researchstudies.45

6. Scientific progress is supported by a wide range of chemical science subject areas (such as, but not limitedto analytical science, catalysis, chemical biology, computational chemistry, materials chemistry, supramolecularchemistry and synthesis). The 2009 International Review of Chemistry (IRC 2009) assessed the UK as world-leading in a number of these areas.46 The RSC does not wish excellence in these areas to be compromised byresearchers 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 £4.6 billion resourcefunding).47 UK chemistry departments have already made significant efficiency savings by increasingstudent:staff ratios and lowering departmental space per member of academic staff.40 Clustering of, and/orcollaboration between chemistry departments is a further step that could identify potential areas for sharingfacilities that maintains the breadth of science in the UK. This clustering is likely to require a national overviewthat identifies the key scientific, regional and economic requirements that must be supported.

HEFCE Funding and QR Allocations

8. The RSC has identified that in 2007–08, chemistry departments operated on average at 35.8% deficit inresearch income.40 The RSC is concerned about the decrease in QR funding from both overall cuts (3%without inflation over four years), and at specific institutions due to the redistribution from 2* rated research.In addition, “top-sliced” efficiency savings on existing grants applied from 1 June 2011 could removesignificant levels of funding that institutions had already ear-marked for other activities. Together, thesereductions in QR funding may have a number of consequences:

— Chemistry departments could seek to reduce running costs by stopping current activities fundedthrough 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 isavailable to retain early career researchers beyond the scope of funding for a specific project.

40 The Finances of Chemistry and Physics Departments in UK Universities—RSC Report, June 201041 David Willets speech at the British Academy, London. 1 March 201142 Requirements for CChem accreditation, RSC website—accessed 05/04/1143 Chemistry for Tomorrow’s World—RSC Report, July 200944 Graphene scoops the physics Nobel—Chemistry World, October 201045 The economic impact of research conducted in Russell Group universities—Russell Group Report, March 201046 The International Review of Chemistry—EPSRC and RSC, July 200947 The allocation of science and research funding 2011–12 to 2014–15—BIS, December 2010



— The numbers of support staff or technicians could be reduced resulting in a lack of flexibilityat 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, and is discontinuingfunding for 2* rated research. This has the potential to severely inhibit high-calibre research groups indepartments that have QR resource decreased.48

Funding Through RCUK

10. The RSC stresses that access to excellence in academic chemistry research is a fundamental enabler fora knowledge-based economy, and provides an important stimulus for continued inward investment. RCUKfunding must maintain breadth and excellence across scientific disciplines to maximise national capability. Afocus on national priorities, as defined by the RCUK Grand Challenges, must be carefully balanced withsupporting the research base of the UK. The RSC believes that scientists are best placed through peer reviewto approve funding, and that there needs be continued consultation between the research councils, the scientificcommunity and business to establish that the correct priorities are being set.

11. The majority of government funded chemistry research is funded through the EPSRC; however additionalfunding is also secured through cross-council funding.49 This is a reflection of the interdisciplinary nature ofresearch in the chemical sciences. The RSC is concerned that despite a mostly universal 3% reduction inresources, each research council will deliver this budgetary reduction through different approaches. This hasled to proposed budget cuts for research grants (excluding inflation) of up to 14% (EPSRC)50 and 9%(BBSRC)51 over the next four years. Including inflation increases the significance of these reductions. Withinthe next EPSRC delivery plans there is an increased emphasis on funding the Grand Challenge projects thiswill 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 adetrimental effect on multidisciplinary research. For example, approximately 50% of users of the ISIS facilityare researchers in the chemical sciences.52 By only operating the facility for 120 days per year (a significantdecrease from 180 days historically), and also restricting the number of concurrent experiments, scientificoutput will not be maximised. The benefits of the capital investment in this facility, including those recentlyannounced,53 will not be realised. The RSC has similar concerns for the Central Laser Facility (CLF) whichis scheduled to run under-capacity.

PhD Studentships

13. PhD students are the lifeblood of the chemical sciences, carrying out a sizable proportion of research inchemistry. In 2009–10, EPSRC “Project Studentships” supported 422 Chemistry PhD students through researchgrants (27% of total number of EPSRC Chemistry PhD students).54 Responding to academic and industrydemands, over the last four years the chemical sciences has been awarded the highest number of ProjectStudentships. The removal by the EPSRC of this funding mode from 1 April 2011 will immediately decreasethe number of PhD students in the chemical sciences, and also distort the distribution of these students acrossthe country. The chemistry community is very concerned that such a policy has been implemented withoutcareful consideration of the impact on (i) the skills pipeline of the discipline and (ii) the remaining centres fordoctoral training are the most appropriate from a discipline or regional standpoint. The long-term impact ofthis strategy could lead to fewer postgraduates to supply demand in industry and research who contribute tothe strength of the UK economy.

Supporting Early Career Researchers

14. The RSC is concerned that the focus on funding existing excellence could impact negatively onresearchers 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 nostrategy to develop such researchers into becoming internationally excellent. If ECRs are dependent onindividual institutions to nurture their career, more information and guidance must be available to ensure fairaccess and to guard against nepotism. The RSC encourages close working between RCUK and chemistrydepartments 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 RSC48 The RAE 2008 rated 37.2% of chemistry research at 2*49 The International Review of Chemistry—EPSRC and RSC, July 200950 EPSRC Delivery Plan 2011–1551 BBSRC Delivery Plan 2011–1552 ISIS Neutron and Muon Source Proposal System Data—Personal Correspondence53 Announcement of increased instrument funding at ISIS—ISIS website, March 201154 EPSRC Annual Report and Accounts 2009–10



indicates how gender imbalance is established from PhD studies onwards.55 The RSC is concerned that theremoval of funding for the United Kingdom Resource Centre (UKRC) may impact negatively on diversityinitiatives. In particular this programme worked to encourage women to continue in STEM careers, andalthough BIS proposes to “embed good practice on gender issues” through project management, at presentthere 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 2009.56 Inorder to stimulate investment, initiatives to foster knowledge transfer and collaboration are essential. The RSCbelieves that the Technology Strategy board (TSB) is vital to stimulate effective knowledge transfer and tocoordinate a UK-wide innovation network.57 In the chemical sciences, Chemistry Innovation KTN (CiKTN)provides a blueprint for coordinating initiatives across the UK. Examples include collaborative R&D projectsbetween universities and industry, and working with locally based enterprise (eg Scottish Enterprise) to furtheruniversity and business involvement. The investment of £200 million to create Technology Innovation Centres(TICs) is a welcome boost, although the RSC is concerned that the overall budget for the TSB has yet tobe 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 orclusters to support economic growth, consideration needs to be given to the location of any new centres. Byfocusing only on geographic areas of existing excellence, and without an overarching national strategy on TIClocation, the RSC is concerned that regions of the UK may not benefit from this investment.

Capital Reduction

18. The RSC believes that the proposed level of capital reduction (a 66% decrease in 2011–12)58,59

threatens the UK position as a world leader in the chemical sciences. Whilst capital funding may only represent2.6% of the overall HEFCE grant in 2011–12 (from a previous level of 5.2%), the UK Higher Educationsystem must be able to deliver science teaching and research facilities fit for the 21st Century. This includesthe provision of modern laboratories, excellent teaching facilities to engage students, and provisions to enableinternationally recognised research.

19. The IRC 2009 report highlighted the excellent state of equipment and infrastructure within UKuniversities.56 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 excellentinfrastructure.

20. As documented by the Royal Society, decades of reinvestment were required for the UK academicscientific community to recover from the previous decline in funding and underinvestment.60 Between 1981and 1987 the UK percentage of highly cited papers in Chemistry fell from 10.1% to 4.5%, indicative of thedecline in British Science.61 In contrast, from 1999–2008, and despite a 33% overall increase in globalpublications, the UK maintained a 7% share of publications.62 The benefits of reinvestment have also beenreported with market sector productivity benefitting significantly from the increase in public sector spendingon research and development.63

The Future of the Chemical Sciences

21. The RSC believes that the strong case for investment in science and technology necessitates a long-termnational strategy for the chemical sciences. This would protect the excellent infrastructure, identify areas ofstrength and realise opportunities for growth through collaboration. Economic growth is directly related tostrong investment in education and providing an attractive environment for industry. Provision for universitiesacross the UK, linked with KTNs and TICs will enable collaboration, innovation and will maximise the impactof research.

22. The current focus on excellence, without an underlying regional strategy has the potential to putindividual university departments at risk. This could lead to regions without provision of research and teachingin the chemical sciences at an appropriate level. The university system needs to be organised in a frameworkthat reflects the needs of the UK population, with provision across the UK enabling access to an education inthe chemical sciences for anyone with the ability and desire to study the subject. The ScotCHEM research55 RSC Diversity Reports—RSC website, accessed 05/04/1156 The International Review of Chemistry—EPSRC and RSC, July 200957 RSC Response to Technology Innovation Centres Inquiry—December 201058 Funding for universities and colleges for 2010–11 and 2011–12, HEFCE, February 2011/59 RSC Press Release: David Phillips Criticises The Government’s “Protection” of Science—accessed 20/04/1160 The Scientific Century report—Royal Society, March 201061 British Science in the 1980’s—has the Relative Decline Continued?; B.R.Martin; Scientometrics, 29, 1, (1994), p27–5662 Knowledge, Networks and Nations report—Royal Society, March 201163 Public Support For Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector; Haskell and Wallis,

February 2010



pooling initiative demonstrates how sector driven change can improve research quality, attracting more industryfunding and access to resources.64

23. The RSC believes that there must be a steady supply of high quality, and qualified individuals. This willensure the next generation is equipped with the scientists and engineers needed to tackle global challenges, aswell as a wider, more scientifically-literate general workforce. It is vital that the supply of high-qualitychemistry graduates is maintained to ensure the future recruitment of subject-specialist teachers. These are thepeople who will nurture the next generation of chemical scientists to maintain the chemical sciences’ majorcontribution to the UK economy.

26 April 2011

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 opportunityto comment on the inquiry into the science and research budget allocations for 2011–12 to 2014–15 andSpending Review 2010.

2. The Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) is the learned society andprofessional body for geography. Formed in 1830, our Royal Charter is for “the advancement of geographicalscience”. The Society is a charity that seeks to develop, promote and support the discipline of geography andits practitioners in the areas of research and higher education, teaching and fieldwork, policy and wider publicengagement. The Society has more than 15,000 Fellows and members, of whom a substantial number areacademics and other researchers whose work we support through a range of activities. These include holdingthe 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 whichis often ranked first), co-ordinating twenty seven specialist research groups, and providing small grants forresearchers at all career stages. We work very closely with all Higher Education (HE) geography departmentsin the UK.

3. Within BIS’s spending allocation,65 as highlighted in evidence given to the committee from the ScienceMinister, David Willetts MP, “the learned societies and the academies [are] getting £100 million”.66 The RoyalGeographical Society (with IBG), in common with most of the single subject-based learned societies, receivesno Government funding from this budget, and no other core Government funding from elsewhere, to supportany of our activities. Any changes in levels of funding within these budgets therefore have no direct impact orinfluence 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 balancebetween 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 andMathematics) subjects. Other disciplines across the social sciences, arts and humanities makesignificant contributions to both pure and applied research and these must not be marginalized. Interms of geography, it is time that HEFCE’s formal recognition in 2010 of its (50%) part-STEMstatus for teaching funding is followed with the appropriate allocation of 50% ring fenced QRfunds 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, whichis special in bridging the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities and unique in beingthe spatial discipline, illuminating differences “on the ground” at national, regional, local andcommunity-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 scientificprocesses, of human and behavioral (social science) perspectives, and of spatial differences andinterconnections. Geographical research lies at the heart of such work and is important thereforein terms of its contribution to government and Research Council priorities, as well as to the UKeconomy and business.

4.4 Research funding should not lose sight of the importance of funding high quality “blue skiesthinking” across all research areas, including STEM and the social sciences. There must be abalance between research tailored to assist with government policy priorities and the need for blueskies research.

64 RSC response to the Evaluation of the ScotCHEM pooling exercise—September, 201065 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 pp45–5466 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 providinga 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, thecommitment 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”.67 We see no benefits at all in placing all funding with theResearch Councils.

6. We welcome the government’s commitment to, and clarification of, the Haldane Principle that “decisionson individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review”.68

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 haveimportant and complementary roles to play. It is essential that this pluralism is properly recognized and fundedby government. The needs extend far beyond, for example, a simplistic view of public or policy engagementwith science; it reaches to the core of understanding, for example, peoples’ motivations, behaviours, valuesand identities, their engagement with the processes of governance, the work that they do, where and how theylive, 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 Geographymaintain scientific research laboratories, often highly sophisticated, with technician support in order to deliverdepartmental 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 researchfunding, and infrastructure grants, received by geographers.

9. These essential science infrastructure costs are further augmented by field equipment, costs of undertakingresearch “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 whenenvironmental issues of concern to physical geographers (for example, climate change, fluvial processes andflooding, 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 priorities.69

10. Early in 2010 the Society made the case successfully to the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (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-fencedallocation, that should rightly follow the designation, has not been met by a long way. They have committedto reviewing this in 2014.

11. The Society re-affirms that, as the Research Councils and HEFCE acknowledge, the part-STEM 50% ofgeography needs to be fully funded at STEM levels within future streams of QR funding, as well as inteaching allocations.

The Important Role of Geographical Research

12. There are many different ways in which research by geographers has economic and/or policy impactthrough its applications in the private and public sectors, and how geographical research can enhance qualityof life. In doing so, geographical research contributes to the priorities set out by both government and ResearchCouncils. Given that economic, social and environmental processes and their effects will continue to bedifferentiated spatially across the UK and the world, geography will undoubtedly continue to be essential topolicy, 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 andpractice 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 closely67 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 pp1368 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 44–4669 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



to the areas of research outlined by BISas priorities: the first on Maintaining the capability to respond toemergencies, including flooding; and the latter two linked to one of the cross Research Council priority areasLifelong 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 DavidMartin, 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 forpredicting ice on roads; better understanding of internal migration in the UK; and the creation ofnew methods of spatial analysis to help local authorities optimise the provision of services and toidentify areas of greatest financial need for assistance.The importance of geographical perspectives and research linked to other priority areas, forexample Living with Environmental Change and Energy; and Global food security were recentlyillustrated 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) inFebruary 2011. Geographers contributed research evidence from major research programmes onenergy, water and food security. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Rt HonChris Huhne MP, and the Director of the Living with Environmental Change programme bothspoke at the event.70

Funding “Blue Skies Thinking”

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

15. It is worth noting that in almost all of the geographical research impact case studies drawn together by theSociety, the research topic was pursued independently by the scholar and funded as “curiosity-driven” research.

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 evidenceto the previous inquiry that specifically concentrated on particle physics and astronomy, largely funded by theScience and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

2. The British Geophysical Association, a joint association of the RAS and the Geological Society, coversthe work of our Fellows who are employed in the area of geophysics. The BGA and Geological Society havesubmitted separate evidence relating to the Spending Review, including the issue of funding for MScstudentships 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 massejections) on the Sun is recognised as an area of direct importance to the wider economy, for example inunderstanding how to secure infrastructure such as power supplies and communications systems. A fulldescription 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 reductionin capital spending (amounting to 50% for NERC) by 2012–13. This decision is seen as a short-term measurethat allows the Research Councils to protect the UK skills base in scientific research by giving some protectionto their resource budgets, although nonetheless has serious consequences for some groups that for exampledepend on frequently updating high-performance computing facilities.

6. The Society wishes to highlight the future consequences of the decision to make drastic cuts to capitalspending. We believe that it is crucial that current planning for UK science expenditure beyond 2015 (ie thenext Spending Review) can assume a restoration of capital budgets, so that UK scientists can participateeffectively now in preparatory work for the next generation of major scientific projects. Many of these projects70 See www.rgs.org/pefectstorm for further details



are now being coordinated at European level through the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures(ESFRI) and thence to a broader world level, eg through discussions between ESFRI and the US NationalScience Foundation (NSF).

7. Recent ESFRI-NSF discussions have focused on a number of environmental research projects includingseveral 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 majorimpacts in areas such as space weather and also solar effects on climate and the surveillance of near-Earthspace. 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 givethe UK and the rest of Europe a leading position in this area of research. The UK has played a major leadershiprole in the preparatory work for EISCAT_3D—as we did for the original EISCAT radar system, built 30 yearsago. British scientists are well-positioned to maintain that role and exploit the exciting new science that it willproduce—and that will address the growing recognition that the Earth’s upper atmosphere is an important partof the environment within which human activities take place. The project will also create opportunities for UKindustry to develop and build the advanced hardware and software technologies that will be at the heart of thenew radar.

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

References

RAS submission to Select Committee inquiry into Emergencieshttp://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 Astronomyhttp://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/RAS_submission_to_astronomy_and_particle_physics_inquiry.pdf

26 April 2011

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 in2008 by the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (EMS) and the Operational Research Society (ORS). The CMSprovides an authoritative and objective body that exists to develop, influence and respond to UK policy issuesthat affect the mathematical sciences in higher education and research, and therefore the UK economy andsociety in general.

— The IMA is the UK’s learned and professional society for mathematics and its applications andhas around 5,000 members.

— The LMS was founded in 1865 and has as its purpose the advancement, dissemination andpromotion of mathematical knowledge in the UK and worldwide.

— The RSS, founded in 1834, aims to nurture and promote statistics, encouraging statisticalknowledge and disseminating good practice in society at large.

— The EMS was founded in 1883 and has around 450 members. Its aims are the promotion andextension of the Mathematical Sciences, particularly in Scotland.

— The ORS is the world’s oldest-established learned society catering to the Operational Researchprofession, with 3,000 members in 53 countries.

Summary

UK mathematical sciences research is excellent on an international scale, and its high quality cruciallydepends on the diverse and distributed nature of the research community: over 1,100 staff FTE of world leadingor internationally excellent research from 56 different institutions were submitted to RAE2008. MathematicalSciences underpin our 21st century technology, economy and society, and this is recognised in the employmentmarket, where our graduates are in extremely high demand. However, EPSRC funding in mathematical sciencehas decreased significantly in real terms over the past decade, to the point where current funding levels threatenthe health and continued excellence of the discipline. There are potentially severe consequences of the reductionor 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 thenumber of highly-skilled mathematical science graduates. This has potentially profound consequences forbusiness, for industry, and for education.

A. Mathematical Sciences: Research

1. CMS (Council for the Mathematical Sciences) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence onthe Spending Review 2010. The term mathematical sciences encompasses pure, applied and applicablemathematics, including statistics and operational research. They constitute fundamental scientific disciplines intheir own right, but also provide languages, theories and tools for every field of engineering and science andimpact 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 EPSRC,71

Major contributions to the health and prosperity of society arise from insights, results and algorithms createdby the entire sweep of the mathematical sciences, ranging across the purest of the pure, theory inspired byapplications, hands-on applications, statistics of every form and the blend of theory and practice embodied inoperational research.

3. Current mathematical sciences research has a substantial impact on UK society. For example, statisticalepidemiologists are adapting containment and treatment strategies for pandemic influenza in preparation forpotentially more serious strains of H1N1. Pure mathematicians work (necessarily unpublicised) on crucial areasof national security at the Heilbronn Institute, funded by GCHQ. In energy, new mathematical models andnumerical algorithms are improving both the efficiency of oil and gas extraction as well as the operation ofrenewable and traditional energy markets. In finance, sound quantitative risk management will be essential fordeveloping effective regulatory procedures. The IMA has recently produced a set of case studies to illustratesome of the many ways that mathematics research impacts on contemporary society.72

4. Page 12 of the BIS funding allocation document73 states: Our policy is to concentrate funding furtheron research centres of proven excellence, so these centres have the critical mass to address national challengesand 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) andfurther concentration would not be beneficial. Any proposed additional concentration would have a negativeeffect on both education and on industrial support. Indeed, two of the main findings of the recent InternationalReview of Mathematical Sciences71 are that:

Overall, mathematical sciences research in the UK is excellent on an international scale, and that thehigh quality of UK mathematical sciences research depends critically on the diverse and distributedresearch 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 appearance74

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. Thecorresponding figures for physics and for chemistry are included for comparison. (The figures for each row arecalculated by multiplying the output percentage in these quality bands by the number of academic staff in eachRAE submission, and adding over all submissions.)

Table 1

ACADEMIC STAFF FTE OF 3* AND 4* RESEARCH FROM RAE 2008

No. of institutional 3*–4* research inUnit of Assessment (UoA) submissions RAE2008 (staff FTE)

Chemistry (UoA 18) 33 737Physics (UoA 19) 42 957Mathematical Sciences 57 1129(UoAs 20–22)

B. Mathematical Sciences: Education

7. The size and importance of the discipline is evident at the undergraduate level: with 5,475 graduatingstudents in 2007–08, the mathematical sciences undergraduate cohort is nearly the same size as those for71 International Review of Mathematical Sciences, draft report presented on 28 January 2011, available from www.cms.ac.uk/

activities.html72 Mathematics Matters case studies, Institute of Mathematics and its Applications,

www.ima.org.uk/i_love_maths/mathematics_matters.cfm73 Department for Business Innovation & Skills, “The allocation of science and research funding 2011–12 to 2014–15”, December

201074 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee: Spending Review 2010 (19 January 2011), Q150



chemistry (2,965) and physics (2,765) combined. Figure 1 on the following page shows the number of firstdegree 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 bystarting salaries. Table 2 below shows the average salary of undergraduates and postgraduates six months aftergraduation in 2007–08.

Table 2

AVERAGE SALARY OF UNDERGRADUATES AND POSTGRADUATES SIX MONTHS AFTERGRADUATION IN 2007–0875

Subject First degree Postgraduate (ex PGCE)

Biological Sciences £16,500 £22,500Physical Sciences £19,000 £24,000Computer Science £21,000 £24,000Engineering & technology £23,000 £25,500Mathematical Sciences £22,500 £27,000

Figure 1

NUMBER OF FIRST DEGREE QUALIFICATIONS OBTAINED BY STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITIES INMATHEMATICS, PHYSICS (INCLUDING ASTRONOMY) AND CHEMISTRY FROM 1985–86 TO

2008–09. THE DATA UP TO 1993–94 RELATES TO UNIVERSITIES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONTAINANY DATA FOR POLYTECHNICS (SHOWN BY THE VERTICAL DOTTED LINE)76

9. Even with such a large graduate cohort there is a severe lack of qualified mathematics teachers. Figuresin a recent Royal Society report77 show that only about 2% of primary teachers in England have a specialistmathematical science qualification (fewer than one for every four primary schools). An earlier RS report78

estimated that there were 21,126 mathematics teachers (including 11,652 who have a mathematical sciencesdegree, or about 55%) in English secondary schools. DfE data on the shortfall in mathematics teacherrecruitment is tabulated in another RS report79 and graphed in Figure 2 below.75 Taken from the table on p 94 of Adrian Smith’s report One Step Beyond: Making the most of postgraduate education (March

2010)76 Data (originally from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, HESA) taken from www.iop.org77 Science and mathematics education, 5–14, The Royal Society, July 201078 The UK’s science and mathematics teaching workforce, The Royal Society, 200779 The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity, The Royal Society, 2010



Figure 2

CUMULATIVE SHORTFALL IN MEETING MATHEMATICS RECRUITMENT TARGETS, 2000–01 TO2007–0880

C. Mathematical Sciences: Research Funding

10. Contrasting with the strong performance in research and education outlined in sections A and B, CMSwishes to draw attention to the very low levels of research funding in mathematical sciences. A high proportionof Research Council support for the mathematical sciences is provided by the EPSRC. Table 3 lists EPSRC’spublished “research grant commitment by programme” from 2002–03 to 2009–10.

Table 3

EPSRC RESEARCH GRANT COMMITMENT BY PROGRAMME (IN £M)81

Programme /Year 2002–032003–042004–052005–062006–072007–082008–09 2009–10 %change

(7years)

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

Information and 44 63.6 80.4 88.8 87.2 83.3 75.6 72.0 64%

communications technology

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 88.0Subtotal: 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%

11. Table 3 shows that EPSRC’s total research grant commitment has increased by 77% during the sevenyear period 2002–03 to 2009–10. This increase includes a uniform uplift of 45% because of the introductionof full economic costing (fEC) in April 2006. Note however that the corresponding increase for mathematicalsciences is only 33%, which when the fEC uplift and inflation are factored in, represents a large cut in researchgrant commitment in mathematical sciences.

12. We note also that the overall level of EPSRC support in the mathematical sciences is very low comparedto disciplines such as chemistry and physics. This is in spite of the excellent research performance andsubstantial educational contribution outlined in Sections A and B respectively, both of these being of crucialimportance to the long-term scientific, industrial and economic performance of the UK. Figure 382 belowclearly shows that this is not predominantly because of higher equipment costs for experimental sciences—thefact is that far fewer staff are funded in mathematical sciences than in other major disciplines. The very lownumber of funded postdoctoral positions has profound consequences for the future health of the discipline, aswe discuss below.

D. Conclusions

13. There are potentially severe consequences of the reduction and concentration of core Research Councilsupport to mathematical sciences. The most immediate threat is that of a decline in the amount of internationallyexcellent research in the mathematical sciences produced in the UK. Some other less obvious consequencesare described below.80 The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity, The Royal Society, 201081 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 2009–1082 EPSRC data



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. TheInternational Review83 panel regards this fragility as a serious potential risk to the UK’s future internationalstanding in mathematical science. While mathematical science is an international subject, so that UKdepartments have been able to recruit excellent staff from around the world (in most but not all fields), there arerisks stemming from this solution: a lack of stability, and a possible shortage of role models for undergraduatemathematical scientists.

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 research,84 it is not government policy that industryand commerce should be concentrated: indeed the opposite is required. However, research concentration couldlead to the loss of productive relationships between companies and their local mathematical sciencedepartments, together with a narrowing of the supply of research advice, interns and knowledge transfer. Themovement of new PhDs into industry and commerce is one of the best forms of knowledge transfer, a processwhich currently works well at both local and national levels.

16. Unintended consequences of current policies: Advanced undergraduate teaching in mathematical scienceis necessarily “research informed”. Faced with reduced research council funding, departments will shrink oreven close: there is already anecdotal evidence from several of the large English mathematical sciencesdepartments that their universities are preferentially choosing to hire staff in “big science” disciplines wherethere is the potential to bring in large amounts of fEC funding, rather than mathematical sciences where RCUKfunding levels are low. Cutting the research base in this way may reduce the number of highly-skilled graduatesavailable to industry and as teachers, particularly at a time when large fee increases could cause moreundergraduates to study close to their parental home.

27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by GuildHE (SR 18)

GuildHE and CREST welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Science and TechnologyCommittee and we consider the inquiry both timely and appropriate.

GuildHE’s major concerns about the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 centre on how cuts to researchfunding disproportionately affecting the small and specialist sector negatively influence sustainable long-termgrowth 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.83 International Review of Mathematical Sciences, draft report presented on 28 January 2011, available from www.cms.ac.uk/

activities.html84 Department for Business Innovation & Skills, “The allocation of science and research funding 2011–12 to 2014–15”, December

2010



2. Innovation in specialist areas key to economic growth and vital to regional development is threatenedby 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 consideredwith 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, regionaland national industries. Introducing thresholds, cutting relatively small, stragic funding for projects andresearchers, and concentrating public resources even further on large institutions ignores the complexity of theresearch and innovation chain, and will curtail the development of and the access to research vital for UKgrowth in the short and long term.

In a recent interview, Lord Willis of Knaresborough expressed concern about the 45% cut to the researchcapital budget. He went on to state that the UK could “probably sustain ‘no more than 30’ universities withcapacity to attract the best global researchers and carry out world-class research”. He suggested that the othersshould “merge with neighbouring colleges of FE to create US-style liberal arts and comunitiy colleges todeliver the high-quality skills training the UK is ‘dying for’.”85 While this may represent an extreme position,we are concerned that the need to curtail spending by increasing concentration of research funds is a foregoneconclusion in government. Although at the Science and Technology Committee’s Oral Evidence session on 19January 2011, Chief Executives from the Research Councils pointed out that the majority of research fundingis already concentrated in this manner, the thinking expressed in Lord Willis’s interview, and implicitlysupported by sector trends, exemplified by the ESRC’s approach to creating Doctoral Training Centres, runscounter 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, whenthis is coupled with thresholds premised on “critical mass”, as occurred in the case of HEFCW, unintendedconsequences can mean the removal of funding from small, skilled teams of researchers engaging directly withbusiness and targeting particular economic growth areas. This is the case with Glyndwr University, whichrecently experienced a 100% cut to their HEFCW-administered QR budget despite the excellent internationallyrecognised work undertaken on behalf of the European Southern Observatory86 and at the Centre for SolarEnergy Research, which is researching, in direct collaboration with local SMEs, ways to make the UK a leaderin sustainable building practice and manufacturing. Glyndwr University, like many GuildHE members, alsoworks in direct partnership with research-intensive universities, helping these institutions in particular with thedifficult 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 CSR2010 thinking and cuts.87 The potential loss of funding due to the introduction of a threshold limiting accessto HEIF 2011–15 means that translational research benefiting SMEs and regions will be curtailed in keyeconomic sectors; including food security, health, education and the creative industries.The new allocationmethod moves money away from certain institutions—as well as localities and specialist sectors—in favour ofothers; it does not save money, or increase the value of national Knowledge Exchange programmes. A numberof HEIs who will receive funding under the new threshold-governed allocation have achieved a lower rate ofreturn on HEIF4 investment than smaller and specialist institutions who, with the proposed methodologyand threshold, will not receive any funding at all in HEIF 2011–15.88 Hence, scale is preferenced overtrue performance.

The allocation threshold also has the potential to disproportionately affect economic growth in specificsectors and places. Many smaller and specialist institutions work in places and/or sectors where their85 Paul Jump, “Leave it to the select few”, Time Higher Education Supplement, 24 March 2011, p 20.86 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.87 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 toHEFCE’s consultation on HEIF 2011–15, as have individual institutions.

88 See Annex A, “HEIF 4—Impact of Funding by HEI (Tables 1 and 2)”. Using the 1:2:7 HEIF 2011–15 weightings, 13 GuildHEmember institutions produce the same or better rate of return on investment than HEIs who are receiving substantial HEIFallocations and / or moderation. Growth of income is also important here: a few examples of HEIs who have excelled in a verychallenging economic period include Bishop Grosseteste University College, which has increased it HEIF-eligible income by arate of 23 times; University College Birmingham, which has increased its HEIF-eligible income from £525,000 to £1,323,000in three years; and Newman University College, which has achieved a 150% rate of growth in HEIF 4. In the report Evaluationof the Effectiveness of the Role of HEFCE/OSI Third Stream Funding (April 2009/15) the KTP income growth rate for the artscluster, of which a number of GuildHE member institutions represent a substantial and growing body, was 35%, compared withan overall average of 12%.



interactions with business are unique and they may be the only source of such support and expertise.89 Manysmaller towns and cities and their economic base are likely to lose out completely and given the focus of theirinstitutions in certain areas of economic activity,90 the loss of funding is likely to be disproportionatelydamaging to local, regional and national growth.

Every penny of HEIF funding is valued by small and specialist institutions and their partners, and its losshas a disproportionate effect on the activity these HEIs are able to offer to local economies, just as its presencein recent years has represented real value-for-money investment.91 The new allocation method means thatengagement with industry and communities will need to be scaled back during a period of austerity; the sharingof close-to-market, translational research with local and regional business will be jeopardised, with detrimentaleffects to communities as well as to their HEIs. This is exacerbated where either the specialisation of researchand teaching activity and / or the lack of alternative HE providers means that an HEI losing HEIF is often thesole provider of incubation and investment.92

A large amount of HEIF-funded activity has been focused on improving graduate employability, in particularproviding incubation and support for graduate start-ups.93 With the loss of HEIF funding, these programmeswill 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 toprogrammes that directly target the translation of HE skills and knowledge to the workforce. Again this furtherjeopardises 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 thoseinstitutions continuing to receive HEIF funding. Small and specialist institutions will therefore receive no HEIFfunding with no moderation of the effect. The capacity built up in past rounds (both staff and dedicatedfacilities) will be severely damaged by this decision. The percentage of income lost represented by the completeremoval of HEIF is disproportionate amongst GuildHE HEIs, and frequently made worse because many ofthese 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 contributedirectly to the UK economy, without consideration of its role in shaping inquisitive and discerning graduatescapable of leading in an information age.

While contract research with companies like Pfizer has, of course, been vital to sustaining the UK sciencebase, the work undertaken by researchers engaging in translation research with UK SMEs and regional businessis no less vital to the national economy. Central to that system is the creation of a generation of skilledgraduates capable of competing not only in the STEM subjects, but engaging in research and innovation thattargets communication and behaviour—both central to the art, design, media, performing arts and humanitiesresearch and learning that contributes substantially to the “creative industries” the UK is internationallyrecognised for. This emphasis on critical thinking, enquiry, communication and engagement is also central toresearch undertaken in the land-based sector, which continually decries the UK’s lack of skilled graduatesand postgraduates.

GuildHE institutions are nationally and internationally recognised for the quality of their teaching and theirresearch in to education practice at all levels. Their research-active staff engage directly with withundergraduates and postgraduates, many from widening participation backgrounds, tapping in to the UK’sunder-exploited human capital. Students learn about and work on cutting-edge research projects,94 they learn89 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 nationalsupermarkets on food preservation systems, central to issues of food security and world population growth. The University ofWorcester uses its National Pollen and Airobiology Research Unit facilities to test prototypes with partners including Dyson. StMary’s University College has concentrated its HEIF-related activity on health enterprise activity, including the Centre forBioethics and Emerging Technologies, the Endurance Performance Centre, and the Centre for Workplace Health, the latter whichworks with partners including the British Heart Foundation, Carphone Warehouse, Sainsbury’s, Bovis Lend Lease, Age Concern,St Dominics Sixth Form College and Thompson Reuters.

90 Food security and agriculture; teaching; health; and the creative industries.91 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 £9 million in EU/RDA capital and revenue funding inSeptember 2010.

92 See Falmouth, Worcester, Winchester, Cirencester, Shropshire and Cumbria, for example.93 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 individualsinnovating in the creative industries, and Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts’ partnership with the NCGE, which includestranslational research on the ways in which performance graduates can contribute to, for example, workforce training and mentalhealth support programmes.

94 For example, University for the Creative Arts works in scientific and medical imaging, using their excellent graphics andanimation departments to generate visuals that help scientists make breakthroughs in their own research, and aid in teachingnew clinicians and researchers. Here, as in many other case, arts specialists and STEM researchers work together, dependent onone another for the means to achieve innovation.



how to collaborate with business, and many (supported by public and private funds) go on to create graduatestart-up companies, generating jobs as a direct result of their exposure to research innovations in small andspecialist clusters.

As a result of the CSR 2010 and the requisite cuts and concentrations stemming from an overhaul to theUK HE system, small and specialist institutions are experiencing a substantial loss of support for both researchand 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.

4. International Reputation

The introduction of thresholds and the concentration of resources95 on a small group of research-intensiveinstitutions means that small and specialist HEIs will find it difficult to maintain and actively seek out mutuallybeneficial relationships with European and international partners. These potential collaborators are reluctant toenter in to partnerships, even in areas of vital international concern (for example, research into sustainabilityand food-security), if they feel that the UK government is not committed to its research base and is, howeverunintentionally, acting to undermine its quality and diversity.

This is compounded by problems created by UKBA reforms to student visas. International students want toundertake undergraduate and research degrees not only at large, research-intensive institutions; they come toGuildHE member institutions because of the particularly innovative, specialist work undertaken in anenvironment where teaching and research are treated holistically. Many return home to introduce innovationsthey have learned or developed in the UK to their own practices and economies. Other wish to stay on andwork with partners in the UK to develop business and research ideas. This option is increasingly under threatas a result of government reforms, which could mean a further cut to research budgets across the sector.96

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 researchincome 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 RuralAffairs, 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 thesector.97 They have also committed to innovative and sustainable methods for developing their collaborativeand interdisciplinary research capacity, exemplified by the creation of the Consortium for Research Excellence,Support and Training.98

Despite their performance, they are now threatened with disproportionately cuts to a variety of fundingstreams, despite claims by the government that, along with sustainability, growth, innovation and diversity arethe stated ends of HE reforms. The research undertaken by GuildHE member institutions is central to thenational 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 UKresearch base, and to ensure that short-term thinking about cuts and concentration does not impede innovationand growth.

Declaration of interests

This response is submitted on behalf of GuildHE, one of the two formal representative bodies for HigherEducation in the UK. It is a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Charity. It was founded in 1967 as theStanding Conference of Principals, registered as a company in 1992 and became GuildHE in 2006. GuildHE has31 members/associate members. These include publicly funded higher education providers, a smaller number ofprivate providers of higher education plus some further education colleges offering higher educationprogrammes. For more information about members and activities, visit www.guildhe.ac.uk/

27 April 2011

95 The concentration of UK Research Councils to Doctoral Training Centres will also effect international graduates undertakingresearch degrees at small and specialist institutions.

96 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)”.

97 See Grant Thornton’s report, cited in the Times Higher Education Supplement article of 7 April 2011, entitled The FinancialHealth of the Higher Education Sector. GuildHE institutions have achieved a surplus of 6.1% of income, the highest in thesector.

98 See Annex B for more information on CREST.



An

nex

A

HE

IF4—

WE

IGH

TE

DIM

PAC

TO

FFU

ND

ING

BY

HE

I(U

SIN

G1:

2:7

MO

DE

LH

EFC

EH

AV

EA

PPL

IED

TO

HE

IF5)

—(T

AB

LE

1)*

Tabl

esh

ows

inco

me

gene

rate

das

am

ultip

leof

fund

ing

rece

ived

(wei

ghte

dus

ing

the

crite

ria

appl

ied

inH

EIF

5)

Tota

lF

undi

ngTo

tal

HE

IF4

Inco

me

HE

IF5

Indi

cativ

eR

ecei

ved

duri

ngG

ener

ated

Allo

catio

nIn

stitu

tion

HE

IF4

(wei

ghte

d)R

atio

Ann

ually

(£)

1U

nive

rsity

ofO

xfor

d£5

,381

,382

£134

,202

,900

24.9

£2,8

50,0

002

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

£5,3

81,3

82£1

05,0

09,9

0019

.5£2

,850

,000

3U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

£5,3

81,3

82£8

4,87

2,00

015

.8£2

,850

,000

4U

nive

rsity

ofM

anch

este

r£5

,381

,382

£80,

873,

100

15.0

£2,8

50,0

005

Uni

vers

ityof

Her

tfor

dshi

re£4

,953

,973

£67,

028,

800

13.5

£2,8

50,0

006

Uni

vers

ityof

Sout

ham

pton

£5,3

79,4

09£6

2,35

9,80

011

.6£2

,850

,000

7U

nive

rsity

ofL

eeds

£5,3

81,3

82£6

1,96

9,60

011

.5£2

,850

,000

8K

ing’

sC

olle

geL

ondo

n£5

,381

,382

£57,

392,

100

10.7

£2,8

50,0

009

Uni

vers

ityof

Liv

erpo

ol£4

,950

,052

£52,

321,

600

10.6

£2,8

50,0

0010

Uni

vers

ityof

New

cast

leup

onTy

ne£5

,255

,769

£54,

333,

600

10.3

£2,8

50,0

0011

Uni

vers

ityof

Cam

brid

ge£5

,329

,790

£54,

514,

300

10.2

£2,8

50,0

0012

Inst

itute

ofE

duca

tion

£1,7

16,7

27£1

6,91

9,70

09.

9£1

,021

,022

13U

nive

rsity

ofB

irm

ingh

am£5

,381

,382

£51,

345,

400

9.5

£2,8

50,0

0014

Cra

nfiel

dU

nive

rsity

£5,3

81,3

82£4

4,05

1,00

08.

2£2

,850

,000

15U

nive

rsity

ofW

arw

ick

£5,1

22,8

30£3

9,42

1,80

07.

7£2

,850

,000

16U

nive

rsity

ofB

rist

ol£5

,276

,636

£39,

600,

600

7.5

£2,8

50,0

0017

Lon

don

Scho

olof

Eco

nom

ics

and

Polit

ical

Scie

nce

£2,8

37,3

32£2

1,08

2,70

07.

4£1

,687

,500

18U

nive

rsity

ofY

ork

£5,1

27,4

82£3

7,78

4,40

07.

4£2

,850

,000

19Q

ueen

Mar

y,U

nive

rsity

ofL

ondo

n£5

,013

,825

£35,

287,

400

7.0

£2,8

50,0

0020

Uni

vers

ityof

Shef

field

£5,3

81,3

82£3

6,57

7,00

06.

8£2

,850

,000

21In

stitu

teof

Can

cer

Res

earc

h£1

,182

,221

£7,3

24,7

006.

2£7

03,1

2522

Uni

vers

ityof

Surr

ey£5

,262

,097

£32,

174,

000

6.1

£2,8

50,0

0023

Lon

don

Bus

ines

sSc

hool

£4,7

97,0

56£2

8,59

1,00

06.

0£2

,850

,000

24U

nive

rsity

ofN

ottin

gham

£5,2

40,5

44£3

0,80

3,00

05.

9£2

,850

,000

25A

nglia

Rus

kin

Uni

vers

ity£2

,908

,111

£15,

379,

700

5.3

£1,7

29,5

9626

Uni

vers

ityof

Dur

ham

£4,8

82,7

06£2

5,46

4,50

05.

2£2

,850

,000

27C

oven

try

Uni

vers

ity£4

,894

,131

£24,

724,

300

5.1

£2,8

50,0

0028

Uni

vers

ityof

Cen

tral

Lan

cash

ire

£3,8

02,8

09£1

8,35

3,50

04.

8£2

,261

,717

29U

nive

rsity

ofL

eice

ster

£3,2

26,5

20£1

3,91

9,70

04.

3£1

,918

,970

30U

nive

rsity

ofH

ull

£3,3

57,9

96£1

3,36

2,00

04.

0£1

,961

,504

31U

nive

rsity

ofE

xete

r£4

,855

,660

£18,

333,

800

3.8

£2,6

85,9

2332

Uni

vers

ityof

Nor

tham

pton

£2,2

24,7

33£8

,137

,900

3.7

£1,1

92,2

12



Tota

lF

undi

ngTo

tal

HE

IF4

Inco

me

HE

IF5

Indi

cativ

eR

ecei

ved

duri

ngG

ener

ated

Allo

catio

nIn

stitu

tion

HE

IF4

(wei

ghte

d)R

atio

Ann

ually

(£)

33U

nive

rsity

ofW

olve

rham

pton

£3,9

48,1

98£1

4,24

6,20

03.

6£2

,087

,085

34R

oyal

Vet

erin

ary

Col

lege

£2,3

43,4

81£8

,147

,200

3.5

£1,1

93,5

7435

Uni

vers

ityof

the

Art

sL

ondo

n£5

,177

,267

£17,

198,

700

3.3

£2,5

19,6

3036

Bis

hop

Gro

sset

este

Uni

vers

ityC

olle

ge,

Lin

coln

£300

,000

£991

,800

3.3

£−37

Gui

ldha

llSc

hool

ofM

usic

&D

ram

a£6

30,5

18£2

,084

,400

3.3

£305

,367

38U

nive

rsity

ofSu

ssex

£3,8

73,3

13£1

2,69

3,70

03.

3£1

,859

,642

39L

iver

pool

John

Moo

res

Uni

vers

ity£4

,326

,890

£13,

793,

800

3.2

£1,9

41,4

3440

Uni

vers

ityof

Bat

h£5

,157

,068

£16,

219,

000

3.1

£2,3

76,1

0341

Buc

king

ham

shir

eN

ewU

nive

rsity

£1,6

64,4

52£5

,164

,700

3.1

£756

,635

42U

nive

rsity

ofE

ast

Ang

lia£3

,911

,297

£12,

058,

300

3.1

£1,7

66,5

5543

Lan

cast

erU

nive

rsity

£4,9

03,4

53£1

5,10

3,00

03.

1£2

,212

,607

44U

nive

rsity

ofR

eadi

ng£4

,901

,064

£14,

820,

100

3.0

£2,1

71,1

6245

Liv

erpo

olH

ope

Uni

vers

ity£1

,566

,562

£4,6

74,9

003.

0£6

84,8

7846

Roy

alN

orth

ern

Col

lege

ofM

usic

£607

,878

£1,7

35,1

002.

9£2

54,1

9447

Uni

vers

ityof

Salf

ord

£4,3

73,3

64£1

2,20

0,60

02.

8£1

,787

,402

48So

utha

mpt

onSo

lent

Uni

vers

ity£2

,165

,817

£5,9

84,4

002.

8£8

76,7

2249

Tri

nity

Lab

anC

onse

rvat

oire

ofM

usic

and

Dan

ce£9

69,8

81£2

,658

,900

2.7

£389

,532

50U

nive

rsity

ofC

hich

este

r£7

36,3

44£1

,944

,800

2.6

£284

,915

51L

eeds

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity£3

,993

,689

£10,

247,

000

2.6

£1,5

01,1

9852

Uni

vers

ityof

Gre

enw

ich

£4,7

28,8

86£1

1,80

8,10

02.

5£1

,729

,901

53L

ough

boro

ugh

Uni

vers

ity£4

,512

,666

£11,

165,

600

2.5

£1,6

35,7

7454

Staf

ford

shir

eU

nive

rsity

£3,3

60,6

00£8

,206

,000

2.4

£1,2

02,1

8955

Gol

dsm

iths

Col

lege

,U

nive

rsity

ofL

ondo

n£9

45,7

77£2

,260

,400

2.4

£331

,151

56R

oyal

Agr

icul

tura

lC

olle

ge£4

36,1

38£1

,040

,300

2.4

£−57

Con

serv

atoi

refo

rD

ance

and

Dra

ma

£630

,518

£1,4

92,9

002.

4£−

58A

ston

Uni

vers

ity£4

,905

,063

£11,

537,

300

2.4

£1,6

90,2

2859

City

Uni

vers

ity,

Lon

don

£5,0

07,5

24£1

1,43

0,40

02.

3£1

,674

,567

60U

nive

rsity

ofW

estm

inst

er£3

,797

,295

£8,5

34,5

002.

2£1

,250

,314

61L

ondo

nM

etro

polit

anU

nive

rsity

£4,7

28,8

86£1

0,56

1,50

02.

2£1

,547

,272

62O

xfor

dB

rook

esU

nive

rsity

£5,0

46,5

73£1

1,17

8,50

02.

2£1

,637

,663

63U

nive

rsity

ofPl

ymou

th£4

,643

,987

£10,

270,

600

2.2

£1,5

04,6

5564

Scho

olof

Ori

enta

lan

dA

fric

anSt

udie

s£1

,484

,776

£3,2

43,8

002.

2£4

75,2

2165

Uni

vers

ityof

Tees

side

£4,0

17,3

78£8

,693

,800

2.2

£1,2

73,6

5266

Can

terb

ury

Chr

ist

Chu

rch

Uni

vers

ity£2

,837

,332

£5,9

95,7

002.

1£8

78,3

7767

Roy

alC

olle

geof

Mus

ic£6

51,7

75£1

,376

,900

2.1

£−68

Uni

vers

ityC

olle

geFa

lmou

th£9

69,3

99£1

,934

,700

2.0

£283

,436



Tota

lF

undi

ngTo

tal

HE

IF4

Inco

me

HE

IF5

Indi

cativ

eR

ecei

ved

duri

ngG

ener

ated

Allo

catio

nIn

stitu

tion

HE

IF4

(wei

ghte

d)R

atio

Ann

ually

(£)

69U

nive

rsity

ofH

udde

rsfie

ld£3

,219

,364

£6,3

65,5

002.

0£9

23,5

5370

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity£4

,774

,160

£9,4

36,4

002.

0£1

,382

,444

71St

Geo

rge’

sH

ospi

tal

Med

ical

Scho

ol£3

,233

,448

£6,3

80,8

002.

0£9

34,7

9572

Roy

alC

olle

geof

Art

£1,0

64,1

76£2

,053

,300

1.9

£300

,811

73U

nive

rsity

ofC

hest

er£1

,559

,375

£2,9

84,8

001.

9£4

37,2

7774

Uni

vers

ityof

the

Wes

tof

Eng

land

,B

rist

ol£4

,255

,997

£8,0

65,9

001.

9£1

,181

,664

75U

nive

rsity

ofB

olto

n£1

,145

,961

£2,0

87,4

001.

8£3

05,8

0776

Bou

rnem

outh

Uni

vers

ity£2

,445

,585

£4,3

77,1

001.

8£6

41,2

5077

Uni

vers

ityof

Nor

thum

bria

atN

ewca

stle

£4,8

50,7

24£8

,538

,600

1.8

£1,2

50,9

1578

Bir

min

gham

City

Uni

vers

ity£5

,030

,808

£8,8

29,3

001.

8£1

,293

,503

79R

oyal

Aca

dem

yof

Mus

ic£5

65,2

76£9

81,6

001.

7£−

80Sh

effie

ldH

alla

mU

nive

rsity

£4,8

09,0

63£8

,261

,600

1.7

£1,2

10,3

3481

Roe

ham

pton

Uni

vers

ity£1

,929

,386

£3,1

48,1

001.

6£4

61,2

0082

Uni

vers

ityof

Sund

erla

nd£4

,347

,508

£7,0

57,2

001.

6£1

,033

,888

83U

nive

rsity

ofB

radf

ord

£4,5

81,7

29£7

,397

,200

1.6

£1,0

83,6

9984

Liv

erpo

olIn

stitu

tefo

rPe

rfor

min

gA

rts

£378

,409

£593

,500

1.6

£−85

Art

sIn

stitu

teat

Bou

rnem

outh

£577

,342

£905

,500

1.6

£−86

Uni

vers

ityof

Glo

uces

ters

hire

£1,4

61,5

50£2

,288

,300

1.6

£335

,239

87C

entr

alSc

hool

ofSp

eech

and

Dra

ma

£441

,552

£689

,000

1.6

£−88

Kee

leU

nive

rsity

£3,3

39,5

14£5

,101

,400

1.5

£747

,361

89B

rune

lU

nive

rsity

£5,0

53,1

04£7

,675

,500

1.5

£1,1

24,4

7090

Scho

olof

Phar

mac

y£8

64,8

07£1

,296

,200

1.5

£−91

Uni

vers

ityof

Win

ches

ter

£760

,695

£1,1

40,0

001.

5£−

92U

nive

rsity

ofB

righ

ton

£4,7

31,2

28£7

,053

,800

1.5

£1,0

33,3

9093

Uni

vers

ityof

Wor

cest

er£1

,063

,245

£1,5

50,0

001.

5£−

94U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Bir

min

gham

£746

,087

£1,0

48,8

001.

4£−

95D

eM

ontf

ort

Uni

vers

ity£4

,987

,743

£6,9

93,3

001.

4£1

,024

,527

96L

ondo

nSc

hool

ofH

ygie

ne&

Tro

pica

lM

edic

ine

£990

,910

£1,3

76,1

001.

4£−

97N

ottin

gham

Tre

ntU

nive

rsity

£4,1

93,4

50£5

,779

,000

1.4

£846

,630

98U

nive

rsity

ofE

ssex

£3,6

86,0

56£5

,058

,300

1.4

£741

,047

99M

iddl

esex

Uni

vers

ity£2

,837

,332

£3,7

84,8

001.

3£5

62,5

0010

0U

nive

rsity

ofPo

rtsm

outh

£3,9

29,7

82£5

,122

,600

1.3

£773

,116

101

Yor

kSt

John

Uni

vers

ity£7

90,3

14£9

99,2

001.

3£−

102

Ope

nU

nive

rsity

£5,0

82,8

68£6

,286

,000

1.2

£950

,000

103

Lon

don

Sout

hB

ank

Uni

vers

ity£4

,233

,414

£4,9

38,1

001.

2£8

07,5

1610

4St

Mar

y’s

Uni

vers

ityC

olle

ge£7

09,0

66£8

24,9

001.

2£−



Tota

lF

undi

ngTo

tal

HE

IF4

Inco

me

HE

IF5

Indi

cativ

eR

ecei

ved

duri

ngG

ener

ated

Allo

catio

nIn

stitu

tion

HE

IF4

(wei

ghte

d)R

atio

Ann

ually

(£)

105

Uni

vers

ityof

Ken

t£4

,532

,826

£5,2

52,4

001.

2£8

97,4

5510

6H

arpe

rA

dam

sU

nive

rsity

Col

lege

£1,4

71,1

11£1

,619

,400

1.1

£−10

7K

ings

ton

Uni

vers

ity£4

,755

,123

£4,5

46,7

001.

0£9

11,0

5510

8R

oyal

Hol

low

ay,

Uni

vers

ityof

Lon

don

£2,9

81,6

89£2

,823

,900

0.9

£484

,978

109

Uni

vers

ityC

olle

gefo

rth

eC

reat

ive

Art

sat

Can

terb

ury,

Eps

om,

Farn

ham

,M

aids

tone

£1,2

23,2

27£1

,098

,400

0.9

£−11

0U

nive

rsity

ofB

edfo

rdsh

ire

£2,5

18,7

30£2

,190

,500

0.9

£484

,056

111

Nor

wic

hSc

hool

ofA

rt&

Des

ign

£408

,888

£342

,700

0.8

£−11

2U

nive

rsity

ofE

ast

Lon

don

£3,3

98,0

14£2

,841

,200

0.8

£608

,391

113

Bir

kbec

kC

olle

ge£3

,242

,102

£2,6

81,6

000.

8£6

40,7

9311

4N

ewm

anU

nive

rsity

Col

lege

£434

,211

£339

,300

0.8

£−11

5U

nive

rsity

ofD

erby

£3,7

09,5

66£2

,837

,400

0.8

£674

,476

116

Uni

vers

ityof

Lin

coln

£2,6

20,9

92£1

,975

,100

0.8

£509

,526

117

Uni

vers

ityC

olle

gePl

ymou

thSt

Mar

k&

StJo

hn£5

78,7

35£3

99,3

000.

7£−

118

Lee

dsT

rini

ty&

All

Sain

ts£5

37,3

98£3

30,6

000.

6£−

119

Rav

ensb

ourn

eC

olle

geof

Des

ign

and

Com

mun

icat

ion

£575

,845

£353

,200

0.6

£−12

0C

ourt

auld

Inst

itute

ofA

rt£3

00,0

00£1

71,9

000.

6£−

121

Ros

eB

rufo

rdC

olle

ge£3

00,0

00£1

30,0

000.

4£−

122

Wri

ttle

Col

lege

£848

,007

£303

,500

0.4

£−12

3B

ath

Spa

Uni

vers

ity£8

83,9

04£3

04,0

000.

3£−

124

Uni

vers

ityof

Cum

bria

£2,2

96,3

76£7

04,2

000.

3£−

125

Hey

thro

pC

olle

ge£3

00,0

00£9

1,50

00.

3£−

126

Edg

eH

illU

nive

rsity

£1,2

81,8

28£3

78,8

000.

3£−

127

Lee

dsC

olle

geof

Mus

ic£3

00,0

00£6

2,70

00.

2£−

128

Uni

vers

ityof

Lon

don

£634

,699

£37,

400

0.1

£−12

9T

ham

esV

alle

yU

nive

rsity

£2,7

46,3

80£−

0.0

*C

ourt

esy

ofB

isho

pG

ross

etes

teU

nive

rsity

Col

lege

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [02-11-2011 15:52] Job: 011652 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011652/011652_w029_michelle_(A) SR 30 ADS.xml


THE CONSORTIUM FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE, SUPPORT & TRAINING

The CREST provides an innovative model for how to further research excellence and promote institutionaland interdisciplinary collaboration. Taking as its premise the principle that quality researchers should berecognised and funded wherever they are found, regardless of the size of the institution, the Consortium buildson the “islands of research excellence” secured in the RAE 2008. The CREST plays a vital role in telling thestory of these ongoing research achievements to the wider Higher Education community and to the generalpublic. This activity is particularly timely and important given that the specialised, near-to-market, commercialand community-centred research pursued by CREST’s members is central to local, regional and nationalregeneration 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 makea distinctive offering; the kind of collaboration that CREST facilitates builds on existing strengths, and providesnew 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: networkingsoftware to promote communication; distance learning technology to facilitate the sharing of best-practice; anda repository to showcase research outputs. This allows members to interact and present research within anevolving forum that takes into account the logistical, time and financial constraints facing the modernresearcher.

The CREST also:

— brings together researchers and PGRs for interdisciplinary symposia, providing the opportunity topresent specialist research to a diverse audience, in particular through the CREST Symposia (mostrecent: 13 & 14 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; and

— acts as a repository and disseminator of information about UK, EU and international researchpolicy and events relevant to its members.

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

The current list of participating CREST members includes:

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

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [02-11-2011 15:52] Job: 011652 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011652/011652_w029_michelle_(A) SR 30 ADS.xml


Research Group (3-5

Mee�ngs / year)

Director: Prof Graeme

Wilkinson, Glyndwyr

University;

Research Leads

GuildHE Council and Execu!ve

CREST Council (1 AGM)

Chair: Prof Chris Gaskell, Royal

Agricultural College,

Heads of CREST member

ins�tu�ons (18); Research

Leads (18)

Subject Groups (3

mee�ngs / year plus

events):

Subject leads

GuildHE CEO &

CREST Secretary

CREST Research

Network Coordinator

HEFCE

Whilst

ac�ve as

a funder

Task

Groups

Symposium

Art, Design,

Media &

Performing

Arts

Applied

sciences

Humani�es

Sport, Well-

being, Ageing

& Physical

ac�vity

Prac!ce

Groups

REF

Etc.

Web

IP

Etc.

Educa�on

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

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 providedby the government to universities and colleges in England for teaching and research (including support forknowledge exchange). In doing so, it aims to promote high quality education and research, within a financiallyhealthy 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 ofworld leading quality across the full range of disciplines, creating a sustainable and flexible national baselinecapacity which enables the sector to respond strategically to a changing external environment and on whichresearch and other activity funded from other sources can build. Within the dual support system, our fundingis allocated as a grant which the receiving institutions may spend in ways that they consider will best meetthese 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 onthe knowledge of their strengths and strategic priorities. HEIs are engaged with and informed by those whotake their research forward to applications. The grant also supports HEIs in nurturing and providing supportfor collaborative research. Assurance of the appropriate use of research funding within the flexibility providedby the grant is provided by the periodic assessment of research quality via the RAE and benchmarking activitiesundertaken on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

4. In particular, our funding supports HEIs undertaking innovative research, including in new fields andopening new lines of enquiry; the potential that it creates for them to make connections across subjects with atechnological, business and social focus is particularly important in this context. It also makes a substantialcontribution to maintaining a strong and stable physical and human environment in which excellent researchfunded 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 blockgrant and project funding, has been a major factor in achieving and maintaining the exceptionally high qualityof 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, includingthrough the direct application and exploitation of HE research (supported by our Higher Education InnovationFund); by underpinning the contribution of all HEIs to creating a highly educated, skilled and flexibleworkforce; 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 itsupports.

HEFCE Funding for Research 2011–12

6. In 2011–12 HEFCE will distribute £1,558 million in recurrent research funding. This is a reduction incash 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 andstrengthen excellent research capacity through a period of funding constraint. This is reflected in our grantallocation 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 theinitial allocations for 2010–11. In the 2010 grant letter, the Government asked us to protect theseelements. We regard them as highly significant both in encouraging HEIs to undertake researchcommissioned by charities and business—especially at a time when less public funding will beavailable for research—and in helping them to remain competitive as excellent and affordableproviders 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 researchof the highest levels of excellence.

9. Previously, mainstream QR has been allocated taking into account research activity of a quality that is atleast 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 for2* research. From 2011–12 we have now begun a two stage process to allocate mainstream QR by referenceonly 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 £35million is now allocated driven by activity at 2* level—resulting in a slope of 0.294:3:9. From 2012–13 wepropose 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 shareof 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 bythe 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, thenotional effects of the change for individual discipline fields should be manageable over the two years in allcases. Some subjects, where there are comparatively more departments with a less strong quality profile, willsee correspondingly greater notional reductions in 2011–12.

BREAKDOWN ON TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING BY BROAD SUBJECT GROUP

Percentage2010–11 2011–12 Difference 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%



Percentage2010–11 2011–12 Difference difference

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 degreeprogramme 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 ofsupporting 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 usefulindicator of the sustainability of postgraduate supervisory activity at whole-institution level, which wemight 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-recurrentfunding, in the form of special funding and earmarked capital, is provided for specific purposes and to promotechange that cannot easily be achieved through other routes.

15. Most of our earmarked capital for research is allocated by formula, through the research capitalinvestment fund (RCIF). Allocations recognise the excellence of the research of an HEI and are based on acombination of HEIs’ Research Council research income, QR and other research income. £549 million is to bedistributed 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 physicalinfrastructure.

(b) Contribute to reducing carbon emissions, improved space utilisation, and increased sharing andutilisation 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 developingnational 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 projectsfunded 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 inhigher education, strengthening links with businesses, public services, communities and the wider public inorder to increase economic and social impact. In recognition of the importance of universities and businesscontinuing 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 millionfrom science and research ring-fenced funding and £37 million from HEFCE. This reflects the fact that HEIFsupports 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 Wakehamrecommendations. 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 throughactions 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 ModernisationFund to support the further development of shared services) to develop shared data centres, applications anddata management services and support. The major users and beneficiaries will be research intensive HEIsleading to efficiencies through data being managed more efficiently (generating both cash and carbon savings)and being more easily shared.

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 asignificant 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 andproduction. 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 inthe oil and gas industry, with over 5,000 members worldwide. The objective of the Society is to promote, forthe public benefit, education in the scientific and technical aspects of petroleum exploration. To achieve thisobjective the PESGB makes regular charitable disbursements, holds monthly lecture meetings in London andAberdeen 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 ofthe Royal Astronomical Society or the Geological Society of London. Its role is to promote geophysics andknowledge 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, whichencompasses those working in industry, academia and government, with a wide range of perspectives andviews 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 severalsectors of the hydrocarbons industry. The document also draws on consultation carried out with the courseleaders of UK petroleum geoscience MSc courses.

2. We have chosen to focus this joint submission solely on the effect which the science and research budgetallocations have had on the provision of taught Masters courses in petroleum geoscience, and the likelyconsequences for the oil and gas industry. In particular, we note with concern the decision of the NaturalEnvironment Research Council (NERC) to discontinue from 2011 the provision of studentships for thosefollowing MSc programmes across the Earth and environmental sciences, in light of the pressures on its overallbudget. We now view the risk of serious market failure with regard to the provision of suitably qualifiedscientists and engineers as being sufficiently important to the future of the UK oil and gas industry to warranta combined response from our organisations, including the present submission to the Committee’s call forevidence. While our focus here is on the hydrocarbons industry, we note that the risk to future supply ofsuitably 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 beeninformed 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, thesection on energy refers only to renewable sources—yet in 2011, 60% of the UK’s total energy requirementswill be met by oil and gas produced from UK reserves. Nonetheless, the skills framework document highlightsthe 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 notedthe need to encourage students to take STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects, and thechallenge the UK faces in this regard.

5. The UK hydrocarbons industry will depend on the supply of trained personnel qualified in a range ofSTEM subjects, including thousands of geoscientists, both to continue to develop the UK’s resource base, andto maintain its strong foothold in the industry globally—many UK-trained geoscientists have gone on to achievemanagement positions at the highest levels in oil and gas companies the world over. The domestic industrydelivers enormous economic value to UK plc (£38 billion of GDP in 2007), much of which is returned togovernment through taxation. It is also fundamentally underpins UK energy security. Oil and Gas UK haveestimated 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 thegovernment’s stated aim of rapidly developing and deploying carbon capture and storage (CCS) at commercialscale—a necessity if we are to continue to burn fossil fuels while rapidly reducing our CO2 emissions. This isan industry in which the UK has the potential to become a world leader, and which could rival the presentNorth 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 anadditional 859 geoscientists with postgraduate training.

7. The continuing exploration, development and production of the UK’s hydrocarbon resources, and theability to ensure their sustainable use through CCS, demand a high degree of national capability in severalgeoscience disciplines, and a workforce equipped with skills and competencies which are not achieved at firstdegree level. The added value to industry of Masters degrees is indicated by the observation of some employersthat new recruits with such a qualification are typically regarded as “profitable” within months, while for thosewith only a Bachelors degree this may take years. Applied Masters courses represent one of the principalsources of skilled personnel for industry, including those who go on to take senior management positions. TheUK hydrocarbon industry’s strong global position depends to a great extent on its excellent graduates at bothBachelors and Masters level, and would be placed in jeopardy should this supply of high-quality trainedpersonnel founder.

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

9. Many of those entering applied MSc courses in geoscience disciplines have first degrees in other STEMsubjects. For these graduates, Masters courses serve as “conversion” courses—a great strength in meeting thegrowing need for personnel with interdisciplinary skills, who can work in teams with colleagues from a varietyof scientific and engineering backgrounds.

10. MSc graduates also represent one of the most effective mechanisms for knowledge transfer, takingoutputs 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 publicfunding for Masters training in these vital areas. While recognising the pressures on Research Council’sbudgets, the BGA and GSL have previously written directly to NERC, pointing out some of the likelyconsequences of this decision. Notwithstanding the limitations of NERC’s consultation and analysis regardingskills needs, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that public support for taught MSc programmes must infuture be delivered through the Funding Councils, which are charged with setting their own budgets in linewith their own strategic priorities. Our concern is not which agency of government provides this modest buthugely 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 somereluctance on the part of government to distribute funding via NERC specifically for the support of appliedMasters 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 berecognised as quite distinct from research funding.

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

13. Other MSc students fund their studies themselves. With undergraduate fees rising, students may be lesswilling 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 theshortfall caused by NERC’s cuts, but our community believe that this is unlikely. As noted above, largercompanies already provide a significant level of MSc sponsorship. However, there is insufficient incentive forindividual companies to provide further funding. Graduates may not be retained in employment by theirsponsoring company for long enough to justify the investment, particularly given the high level of mobility ofgeoscience graduates. This risk is relatively greater for SMEs, for which the loss of investment in an individualis 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 constructionreferred to above, are also unlikely to sponsor geoscience students, particularly given their relatively low profitmargins.) Recent changes to the UK tax regime for the hydrocarbons industry are likely to lead to an increasedfocus 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 offerstudent sponsorships, will be facing the tightest challenges from their own management over costs in light ofincreased pressure on post-tax margins. This reinforces our experience as industry professionals and educatorsthat industry will not respond immediately to make up much of the shortfall in MSc sponsorships and coursefunding.

15. The organisations making this submission are nonetheless committed to stimulating and supportingindustry funding. The PESGB already provides student bursaries as part of its charitable purpose, and is alsoconsidering 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 effortsalone 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 asalready 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 underthe new immigration regulations. However, it would be wrong to assume that we will be able in future toimport the qualified personnel we need. Despite the large number of Earth scientists being produced in emergingeconomies, 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 norexporting trained Earth scientists. New constraints on the student visa system may further limit the number ofinternational candidates entering the UK postgraduate education system.

Impact of Reduced Support for MSc Students

17. We have consulted the directors of 12 courses at nine universities (Table 1) offering vocational trainingin 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 hasfunded around 30 students per year, at a cost in the order of £500,000 (just over 10% of the total number ofNERC MSc studentships). As well as helping to sustain UK student numbers, NERC’s support has functionedas a quality kite-mark, recognising academic excellence. If this public funding is not restored or substituted, inthe context of the increased pressures on industry funding and self-funding outlined above, the likely impactsare 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 astudent’s ability to secure funding than academic capability. Fewer MSc students will reduce animportant “feeder pool” for primary research at PhD level and beyond.

— Reducing participation from less well-off students in Masters courses, adversely impactingindustry’s access to talent and increasing the probability of social divisions in access to highereducation.

18. These factors may combine sufficiently to threaten the financial viability of some courses, many of whichhave long-established reputations for academic excellence globally. In some smaller specialisms, there may befew courses already, and further closures may threaten national capability. The absolute number of suchspecialists needed by industry is small, but many of those currently in the workforce are relatively near theend of their careers. If they cannot be replaced, this will soon critically undermine industry’s ability to discoverand characterise hydrocarbon resources, as well as increasing risk in the safe drilling of exploration anddevelopment wells. A crucial field of this kind is micropalaeontology, in which already there are no specialistMSc courses remaining (the last having been at UCL). What little capacity remains for teachingmicropalaeontology 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 inbiostratigraphy, but is now a customer for such skills rather than a supplier. (See the MicropalaeontologicalSociety’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, andlarge multinationals may shift the focus of their activities outside the UK, to the detriment of national energysecurity and economic wellbeing.

Recommendation

20. The change announced in funding policy for applied Masters programmes in Earth sciences, whenconsidered in the context of other policy changes (notably regarding undergraduate student fees, the taxationregime for the hydrocarbons industry and visa requirements) and the outlook for the global geoscienceworkforce, runs the risk of significant unintended consequences. We believe that there is a real danger thatthese short-term changes could have a disproportionate adverse impact on the long-term competitiveness ofthe 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 attendurgently 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 othermechanism judged more appropriate in the context of the Higher Education policy regime morewidely.

— Government should also consider providing additional incentives to stimulate industry funding ofapplied 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 Facesthe Geoscience Profession. Paper from AGI/IUGS workforce study, published in First Break RecruitmentSpecial (European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers), 6pp.

British Geophysical Association. January 2011. BGA response to NERC 2011–15 Delivery Plan. Letter toNERC, 3 pp.

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

Geological Society of London. February 2011. Natural Environment Research Council support for MSctraining. 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 SystematicsReview, 4pp.

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

Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain. April 2011. PESGB Young Professionals at the Housesof 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.

Table 1

UNIVERSITY COURSE DIRECTORS CONSULTED, MARCH 2011

MSc Course Director

University of Aberdeen Integrated Petroleum Geoscience Dave JolleyBangor University Applied Marine Geoscience Dei HuwsUniversity of Derby Applied Petroleum Geology Dorothy SatterfieldUniversity of Edinburgh Exploration Geophysics Mark ChapmanHeriot Watt University Exploration, Appraisal and Development Andy Gardiner

Reservoir Evaluation and ManagementImperial College London Petroleum Geophysics Helmut Jakubowicz

Petroleum Geoscience Howard JohnsonUniversity of Leeds Structural Geology with Geophysics Douglas Paton

Exploration Geophysics Roger ClarkUniversity of Manchester Petroleum Geoscience Jim ArmstrongNewcastle University Petroleum Geochemistry Martin Cooke

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 fundedby the government from 2004 until 2011 at an average of £1.8 million p.a over the seven years, (£2.5 millionin 2010–11) to address the serious under representation of women in science, engineering and technology(SET),99 working with organizations, business and individual women. The Science Budget Allocation includeda decision not to renew funding for the UKRC from April 2011.100 A transition sum of £500,000 for 2011–12was 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 anindependent expert organisation for equality and diversity in STEM acting as a driver and catalyst, requiring arealistic level of funding and appropriate timescales. The UKRC is particularly well placed to continuepromoting good practice and identifying where equality of opportunity is lacking, assisting the governmentwith “deep insight”101 of causes and solutions. This role is indicated in the recommendations that follow.99 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.100 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15: investing in world-class science and research, BIS,

December 2010101 The Equality Strategy—Building a Fairer Britain 2010 www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx



This submission explains the concerns that the UKRC has in relation to the science budget allocation andthe 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.

Recommendations for the Science and Technology Committee

1. A framework and strategy for Diversity in the STEM workforce should be produced which clearlyarticulates how “embedding good practice”, the “right incentives and direction”, “better value” and “widerreach and greater impact”102 will be defined, assessed and progress measured.

2. The Government should ensure that the costs and benefits of the decision not to renew funding for theUKRC can be assessed in the context of BIS’ strategy and the Government’s overall equality objectives, andput 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 heldby those funded to deliver programmes.

4. A new strategy on women in SET should be fully articulated and formalised. It should be positionedwithin a diversity framework, which has explicit, resourced and measurable objectives, and supported by anindependent expert organization acting as a driver and catalyst, backed by a realistic level of funding andappropriate timescales.

5. The Government should recognise that mainstreaming and the provision of an expert resource and catalystare not in conflict, and that mainstreaming will not be effective without an expert resource and driver. Theytherefore should resource a longer “transition” period to measure and assess the effectiveness of implementationof the new strategy.

6. The Government should continue to allocate core funding to the UKRC beyond 2011–12. This will sustainan 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 ofeffort. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for all relevant stakeholders enabled to strategically align byan expert centre.

7. The Government should resource the UKRC to broaden its formal remit to deliver on a wider diversityagenda, to align with the Equality Act 2011.

8. The Government should ensure that the leadership on Equality and Diversity from mainstream bodiesdoes not result in piecemeal and fragmented coverage. Equality analysis and capability for action should coverthe 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 diversityactions during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 period is maintained at equivalent to previous levels and is transparentwithin the mainstreaming approach.

1. Background

1.1 The UKRC [www.theukrc.org] has a vested interest in the science budget. The UKRC was core fundedby the government from 2004 until 2011 at an average of £1.8 million p.a over the seven years, (£2.5 millionin 2010–11), to address the serious under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology(SET),103 working with organizations, business and individual women. The Science Budget Allocation includeda decision not to renew funding for the UKRC from April 2011.104A transition sum of £500,000 for 2011–12was 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 andresearch careers and research funding, employers of SET qualified people, the SET industrial sectors and themany 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 singleorganisation but for strategically aligned efforts from all relevant stakeholders.”105

102 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15: investing in world-class science and research, BIS,December 2010

103 SET and STEM are both used in this document according to the relevant policy linkage. SET largely for occupations andworkforce and STEM to include education pathways.

104 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15: investing in world-class science and research, BIS,December 2010

105 SET Fair: A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2002 DTI



1.4 The UKRC agrees. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for all relevant stakeholders enabled tostrategically 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 theGreenfield Report SET Fair (2002). The UKRC has received two rounds of core funding through theDepartment for Business Innovation and Skills and its predecessor departments. In the period 2008–11 theUKRC was awarded £7.45 million and in the period 2004–07 a total of £5.2 million.

2.2 The UKRC has therefore developed over seven years as the UK Government’s lead organisation for theprovision 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 anddiversity of the workforce in these sectors.

2.3 The UKRC has an advanced model of cultural change for SET business and organisations and asuccessful package of employability and career support for women. These are tried and tested models createdin 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 womenand 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, toincrease the recruitment, retention and progression of women scientists, engineers andtechnologists.

— The UKRC develops and delivers resources and programmes to support individual women to getinto, 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 andeffective 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 andstrategic influence within the SET community in support of its aims.

2.4 During the last contract period 2008–11, the UKRC directly reached over 7,000 women, of which 2,500have participated in specific career development support, with approaching 900 women reporting positiveoutcomes at March 2011, such as raised profile, entering training, progression in work or returning toemployment. The UKRC’s direct engagement with organizations and employers in the same period has so farled to over 300 organisations, encompassing over a million people, reporting positive changes andimprovements in gender equality through their work with the UKRC, such as increased recruitment andretention, diagnosis and action plan, improvements in working environment. Additionally the UKRC supportsand provides information and resources for groups and networks. The UKRC’s “Connect” project for groupsand initiatives supporting women in SET has over 100 registered member organizations with a collectivemembership reach of over 25,000 women.

2.5 The loss of direct support services both to individual women and organisations and businesses issignificant.

3. Science Budget

3.1 In its announcement106 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 diversityprojects. 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 theSTEM workforce by embedding and mainstreaming it through a number of the programmes we fund, and thoseof the partners with which we work.”

And:

“…given the right incentives and direction, we expect these (programmes) to establish a wider reach andgreater 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, incentivizedand measured.

3.4 The Government’s stated commitment to promoting equality and ensuring diversity in the STEMworkforce remains welcome.106 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15: investing in world-class science and research, BIS,

December 2010



3.5 There are a number of problems with the decision not to fund the UKRC with public sector monies fromthe 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 theUKRC’s funding.

4.2 There was no formal and open consultation process concerning the funding to the UKRC, or the needfor its work, or its effectiveness. No immediate stakeholders of the UKRC were involved and neither were anywider SET sector and community stakeholders. The UKRC would have welcomed discussion and debate torefresh 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 statutoryrequirement. However, public bodies are still required to assess the impact of their decisions, and be transparentand accountable to communities about the decisions that they are making.107

4.4 No informal communication was received by the UKRC about the intention not to renew or the likelihoodof a withdrawal. The UKRC was not invited to make proposals and no discussion was initiated. The UKRCdid submit a paper in early November 2010, giving an outline for a forward strategy and way of working andrequesting 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 mainstreamingdiversity has met with alarm from organisations and women scientists and engineers. Many organisations arenot confident that they can proceed effectively. They have strongly stated the continued need for a central bodyof expertise, a holder of and repository for best practice, an organisation that has a strategic overview of theequality in SET landscape, which gives visibility to equality and diversity issues, which has credibility andthrough facilitation can influence change in organisations involved in programme delivery. Without due processand proper planning it has not been possible to air views and discuss the issues of resourcing, expertiseand transition time where a year isn’t long enough. The lack of timely transition planning in 2010 leavesthem 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 changestrategy from a “centre” offering strategic alignment, to a mainstreaming strategy lead by two or three othersector bodies. The UKRC has consistently met and often exceeded the requirements and targets agreed withthe 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 andprogress to date. Concerns about lack of consultation, the need to retain expertise through policy changes andmanage successful transitions, emerge strongly from the Inquiry into the Review of Public Bodies by the PublicAdministration Select Committee. The steps taken by BIS to secure a successful transition to the new strategyhave 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 andaccountability, are not yet articulated or agreed. The Royal Academy of Engineering is mentioned in theScience Funding Allocation announcement as developing a “new diversity programme in engineering” with asmall allocation of funding, however the focus and outcomes are still to be determined. Neither has a parallelbody to lead on the wider “science” domain been identified. There is a danger that the time needed to agree newroles 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: theUK statistics guide 2010.108

Only 5.3% (674 thousand women), or about one in 20, of all working women are employed in any SEToccupation, compared to 31.3% for all working men (nearly one in three), in a total of 5.5 million women andmen in SET occupations. This means that a man is six times more likely to work in a SET occupation thana woman.107 http://www.bis.gov.uk/equality-impact-assessments

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8017174108 Available in pdf at: http://www.theukrc.org/resources/ukrc-statistics-guide-2010



5.2 The number of girls and women studying STEM has improved. However STEM graduates do not alwayswork in SET occupations.109 Female STEM graduates of working age110 in the UK (a total of 620 thousandwomen) are more likely to take up employment in non-SET than in SET occupations. Only 29.8% (185thousand) of all female STEM graduates of working age in the UK are employed in SET occupations comparedto half (782 thousand) of all male STEM graduates of working age. Nearly 100 thousand female STEMgraduates are either unemployed or economically inactive.

5.3 Women were only 12.3% of the workforce in all SET occupations including health and skilled trades in2008. This is an increase of 2.0 percentage points since 2003.

Review of the position of women in SET 2002–03

5.4 In 2002, the government established a review into the representation of women in SET. The SET Fairreport called for an integrated approach to address the fragmentation of efforts, the need for culture changeand the importance of policy implementation at organisational level. The government responded in 2003 witha strategy on women in SET which included setting up the UKRC to work with businesses and organisationsand individual women, particularly returners.111 It also set up an Implementation, later “Expert Group” onWomen in STEM, originally tasked to monitor the whole strategy’s implementation. The future role of variousSTEM advisory groups has not yet been finalised, however, volunteer groups and forums should not beconfused with the role of 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’s2003 strategy. The extent to which all the other key elements of the strategy not directly within the purviewof the UKRC were achieved or otherwise should also have been assessed and reviewed. This has not beendone. The decision not to renew funding to the UKRC is not evidenced by proper arguments for the notion ofan 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 CabinetOffice to undertake an analysis of its core work with organisations and individual women. This shows a returnof over 5:1 for every £1 invested, which means that the £2.8 million invested in these UKRC activities over18 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 andcommunity. The positive impact on families and peer groups was an important added benefit of the UKRCwork with individuals.

5.8 Combining a cut in resources with the mainstreaming approach will considerably limit what can beachieved. 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 leadresponsibility 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 announcementmakes enormous assumptions about the appropriate theory of change: the methods by which awareness israised, and the processes to achieve more equal outcomes. The concept of mainstreaming is problematic in thefield of gender and equality. The government has not articulated what is meant formally or informally. Theterm 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 mainstreamingpolicies, and approaches to change in organisations and businesses.

6.3 “Gender Mainstreaming” as a concept and an approach to inequality has been used informally andformally for more than 20 years.112 Its success in relation to women’s equality is still debated. It was originally109 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.110 Term “working age” includes individuals who are in employment, unemployed and economically inactive.111 A Strategy for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2003, DTI112 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. 321–343Ben-Galim, Dalia and Campbell, Mary and Lewis, Jane (2007) Equality and diversity: a new approach to gender equality policyin the UK. International journal of law in context, 3 (1). pp. 19–33Eveline, J and Bacchi, C (2005). What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender? International Feminist Journal ofPolitics, 7,4, 496–512Walby, 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 ofPolitics, 7,4, 555–74.



conceived to have education and awareness, analysis and data, and consultation and participation activities ortools as components. One commentator said: “Mainstreaming is a deceptively simple concept that is likely to beextremely difficult to operationalise.”113 Others have aptly put it that: “If gender is everybody’s responsibility ingeneral, then it’s nobody’s responsibility in particular.”114 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 toequality in institutions and in society. The elements can be summarised as being: a framework (eg legislation,equality objectives and policy); positive action; and gender mainstreaming. “Diversity mainstreaming” is aneven newer concept and aspiration, with far less history, or theory and practice to inform its implementationorganisationally.

6.4 More equality (in terms of opportunity, treatment and outcome) in organisations, institutions and societydepend on a number of factors including wider social change, business drivers, workforce relations, governmentpolicy 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 complex.115 Atthe very least, the debate itself signals an area of public policy and practice in industry that has establishedbodies of knowledge and theories of change. These seem to have been set aside in the funding decision aboutthe 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, determined or assessed within thenew 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 “bettervalue” or “wider reach and greater impact”.116

Equality—the Coalition Government strategy on equality—Building a Fairer Britain (2010)117

6.7 Building a Fairer Britain does not include a signal or commitment to a diversity or mainstreamingframework. The strategy prioritises two elements of equality—equal treatment and equal opportunity. Its focusis 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 “occupationalsegregation and traditional approaches to job design” (p7) And, as the UKRC has also pointed out,118 thisstrategy spells out how much is lost to the economy by the waste of women’s talents. It rejects a labour marketthat “writes people off” because of “outdated perceptions”. It casts government’s role as leader, catalyst andadvocate for change, working across society, recognising good practice and drawing on “deep insight”. Thegovernment 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 inclusivityand equal pay and opportunities. Notably, they say, “We need to address outright discrimination in theworkplace and tackle persistent cultural attitudes that place barriers to individuals entering and progressing inthe workplace because of outdated and misplaced assumptions and practices… Behavioural insights could helpus address cultural attitudes. For example we know that some people have intrinsic biases about male andfemale capabilities, which impacts negatively on women’s career advancement”.

6.10 The UKRC is particularly well placed to continue promoting good practice and identifying whereequality of opportunity is lacking, assisting the government with deep insight of causes and solutions, andhelping with transparency.

6.11 The strategy also draws attention to the new arrangements it intends to make for consultation withwomen. The UKRC’s Connect initiative, which encompasses over 100 groups and organisations, reaching over25 thousand women in SET—a network of networks of women in SET is at risk. There is a danger that thekey stakeholders of women and other under-represented groups, as the customers, participants and finalbeneficiaries of the strategy on women in SET, will not be given effective voice and involvement. Women inSET may be fragmented again and less able to participate in the new arrangements for engaging with womenand women’s organisations which are being advocated by the Home Office as part of the consultation in Spring2011 on Strengthening Women’s Voices in Government.119

6.12 It is not coherent or strategic when specific issues and approaches identified in one equality strategyare ill matched by the BIS Science budget allocations.113 Mazey, S. Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Principles and Practice 2001114 Pollack, M A and Hafner-Burton, E (2000) Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union. P.452115 Stocktaking 10 years of “Women in Science” policy by the European Commission 1999–2009 2010 EU116 Department for Business Innovation and Skills: The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2104–15 (December

2010)117 The Equality Strategy—Building a Fairer Britain 2010 www.equalities.gov.uk/news/equality_strategy.aspx118 Women Mean Business, The UKRC 2010

www.theukrc.org/files/useruploads/files/organisations/1997_gpg_womenmeanbusiness_v6.pdf119 www.equalities.gov.uk/what_we_do/womens_engagement.aspx



Diversity

6.13 With respect to the policy decision to focus on diversity rather than gender alone, the UKRC agreesthat it is right that stakeholders address all relevant equality issues to achieve a greater “diversity” across theboard. In fact it does so itself very effectively.120

6.14 But it is not clear why this should be done a the expense of an effective initiative designed to addressthe most significant question of inequality in SET, that of women’s severe under representation, and not eveninvite the UKRC to set up similar responses to the specific needs of other under-represented groups.121

Change management and leadership methods

6.15 What is in contention here are the methods by which awareness is raised and more equal outcomesachieved.

6.16 The UKRC has supported and witnessed a much deeper acceptance in the UK that women ought to beparticipating in greater numbers and at higher levels in SET than prior to the publication of the SET Fair reportin 2002. Leading organisations and business increasingly recognise the value and competitive advantage womenbring to STEM education, research and industry in terms of excellence, innovation and as a source of supplyto meet skills shortages.

6.17 However, it is still widely the case that key senior people in SET are not fully sensitive to the issuesthat face under represented groups. Parts of the sector are held back by out-dated attitudes regarding women’sroles 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 andprogression issues they face.

6.18 The UKRC’s model of change has emphasised the need to embed and mainstream. It encouragessystemic change within organisations, businesses and wider service provision. The UKRC has been outcomeoriented, working with, not against, organisational direction and priorities, encouraging and enabling andhelping share good practice through a number of products, techniques and programmes. A great proportion ofthe UKRC’s work has been within major businesses and institutions. The approach builds ownership andcapacity 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 fromboth fields to make representations and give advice on how existing services might be strategically aligned andimproved (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 permittedin 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 inparticular women’s increased participation is a backward step. The UKRC’s range of services and products hasbeen designed to optimise potential for change in a systemic and systematic way. The UKRC recognises theinterplay of societal expectations and stereotypes, tradition and role models, cultural resistance, unconsciousbias and the continuum of opportunities for progression or attrition from school, through career and intoleadership.

6.22 Change management requires a catalysing approach, creating opportunities and individuals able tooperate at the “convergence of different domains and levels of activity. Their role involves connecting andleveraging knowledge, ongoing strategic relationships and collaborations, and forms of accountability acrosssystems.”122

6.23 The UKRC has not and does not propose itself as a body that should or could take all the necessaryaction. In the new circumstances it will seek to ensure that businesses, organisations and individual womencan access an appropriate range of services that it has been providing. But just as importantly, the UKRCproposes itself as a body that takes a strategic overview, identifies issues and gaps and then can assist withcatalyzing and aligning change. It is not clear that the new arrangements can offer the approach and expertiseto 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 clearly120 Through outreach, targeted promotion and networking , the UKRC has, for example, achieved participation rates of 20–25%

from black and minority ethnic communities.121 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-2010A full baseline assessment for all equality strands should be established to underpin the new equality mainstreaming strategy.

122 Sturm, S Gender Equity As Institutional Transformation: The Pivotal Role of “Organizational Catalysts” in Learning fromADVANCE Stewart, A, Malley, J and Lavaque-Manty, D. (eds) 2007 University of Michigan Press



articulates how “embedding good practice”, the “right incentives and direction”, “better value”and “wider reach and greater impact”123 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 fundingfor the UKRC can be assessed in the context of BIS’ strategy and the Government’s overallequality objectives, and put in place the appropriate mechanisms for accountability and scrutinyof diversity and equality initiatives.

6.24.3 The Government should ensure that relevant expertise for mainstreaming and delivering equalityis 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 bepositioned 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 arealistic 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 alsoidentified a shortage of appropriate skills as an issue. They have also recognised the critical role of women inSET where women’s talents are clearly being wasted.

7.2 The UKRC has consistently proposed a more integrated and comprehensive approach to policy andservices 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 advancementservice and next step, apprenticeships in non traditional areas etc.124 However, its service base and strategicoverview 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 andsector culture. Fragmented projects to assist individual women or other under-represented groups will havelittle effect if the difficult but essential issue of organisational culture change is ignored. Organisational culturechange 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 ofdevelopment and awareness in the community, suggests that their priority still tends to focus on early supplyand the start of the pipeline. After all the work done by women in SET over 30 or 40 years this remainsconcerning. A focus only on initial supply ignores attrition: the unacceptable fall out of women from SET overa 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 alonewill 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 tocareer advancement. Women trying to return after a career break and adults wanting to re-skill to enter STEMare unlikely to be a priority for the Science and Society programmes. UKRC has worked extensively withthese groups.

7.7 Removing the central and comprehensive overview on gender equality and diversity across the breadthof STEM at the same time as making other dramatic policy shifts and funding cuts, such as in HE fees andfunding, 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 CharterScheme, funded and run jointly by the UKRC and the Equality Challenge Unit. More than 50 higher educationinstitutions are members of the scheme, and membership represents almost 40% of all eligible HE bodies, with37 silver departmental awards.

7.9 The UKRC provides a unique service role in collating and analysing gender statistics and researchevidence and integrating gender and SET in wider policy debate and formation. Without such information toinform 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 struggleto make any financial commitment to organisational change with regard to gender equality. Larger privatesector bodies are unlikely to invest in broader sector-wide programmes, and will limit their efforts to shortterm direct services for their own workforce.123 The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15: investing in world-class science and research, BIS,

December 2010124 http://www.theukrc.org/influencing-policy/policy-submissions



7.11 The UKRC aims to continue its work through funded projects and charged for services to industry andother 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 UKRCis recognized as a model of good practice and where EU strategy for women in science now focuses onstructural change in science and research organizations. BIS could work more closely with the UKRC as anexpert body for international reputation.

7.13 Government core funding to support the expertise and vantage point of the UKRC at the heart ofchange on science would preserve the UK’s leading edge. It would achieve a continuity of strategy andresourcing, coupled with systematic and systemic action on many fronts—from school to top leadership andthroughout 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 andcatalyst are not in conflict, and that mainstreaming will not be effective without an expert resourceand driver. They therefore should resource a longer “transition” period to measure and assess theeffectiveness of implementation of the new strategy.

7.14.2 The Government should continue to allocate core funding to the UKRC beyond 2011–12. Thiswill sustain an efficient expert centre that can: develop necessary equality resources and tools forthe STEM community; provide an overview to address gaps in action, avoid reinvention andduplication; ensure co-ordination of effort. Women’s participation in SET is a matter for allrelevant 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 widerdiversity agenda, to align with the Equality Act 2011.

7.14.4 The Government should ensure that the leadership on Equality and Diversity from mainstreambodies does not result in piecemeal and fragmented coverage. Equality analysis and capability foraction should cover the breadth of the STEM sectors, the full range of professional and vocationaloccupations 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 anddiversity actions during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 period is maintained at equivalent to previouslevels 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 previousfunding, but only for one year, and has the following implications:

— A loss of momentum built over seven years.

— Neither enough resources nor long enough time to undertake an adequate transition to a newstrategy.

8.2 It is right that key organisations in the SET community, businesses and universities “take a lead” inmaking the necessary changes. But change on gender equality cannot be bottled and shipped, even withacknowledged business incentives: There is more than a knowledge base to build. Leadership from keyinstitutions and an expert centre are not mutually exclusive strategies, they are complementary. Just astechnology 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, allworking in partnership.125

8.3 A lead expert organisation for gender equality offers a strategic overview, able to address the systemicnature of the participation of women and girls in SET, and advise on changes across the system—in thevocations and the professions of technology, engineering and science.

27 April 2011

125 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 the2010 Spending Review.

The positive relationship between world class medical science and national gains in health and wealth iswell established.126 The UK’s superior medical research base, our co-coordinated landscape of private, publicand 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 publiclyfunded science base that in turn leverages substantial additional support from industry and charities. Wewelcome the fact that, in this period of substantial public sector cuts, the Chancellor recognised the fundamentalrole science will play in economic recovery and provided an unexpectedly good settlement for science andresearch. Protecting spending on health research and science (via favourable settlements to both the MedicalResearch Council and the Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research) means that the UKcan continue to make extraordinary contributions to the translational science agenda. Furthermore, since manyof the immediate challenges facing society today, such as ageing or obesity, require expertise from across thefull range of medical, natural science, engineering, humanities and social science disciplines, a good settlementacross the research base was important in order to safeguard the valuable advances that will benefit patientsand society. We were pleased to see the funding for UKCMRI and Diamond confirmed in the Spending ReviewSettlement, 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 theseare spent effectively, for example by promoting co-ordination amongst funders. We welcome the Government’scommitment in its “Plan for Growth” to implement the recommendations of the Academy’s recent report onthe regulation and governance of health research and to reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy that is wastingvaluable funding.127,128 While the decision to protect the science budget in cash terms is most welcome, thisshould be considered in the context of the substantial investments in science being made by our internationalcompetitors such as China, India, Brazil, Germany, France and the USA. We must therefore maintain the abilityto regenerate key research areas when more funding becomes available. This will allow the UK to remain acompetitive part of the international research endeavour and to exploit opportunities for support from industryand charities both in the UK and overseas.

Monitoring the Long-term Impacts

If it is the Government’s intention to build the economy via knowledge-based industries then any perverseimpacts of the spending review and other changes must be identified and addressed. The long-term impacts ofa flat-cash settlement across much of the science base and efficiency savings that have been required acrossthe Research Councils are not yet clear.

In terms of ensuring a sustainable pipeline of researchers, we have yet to see whether the increase inuniversity 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) andthe number of students (both clinical and non-clinical) applying for PhD studentships. The raising of theretirement age will lead to less turnover in staff and there may be a need for “new blood schemes” to attractthe next generation. In the medical sphere, the £21 billion efficiency savings in the NHS could adverselyimpact on research budgets, and the scope for clinicians to conduct research. More generally, this will putpressure on the partnerships between universities, medical schools and healthcare providers that underpinsuccess in academic medicine.129 Proposed changes to the way that the medical workforce is trained couldfurther undermine these relationships.130 Finally, while a lack of general capital investment is sustainable forone to two years, after that it will become problematic; we cannot rely on charitable foundations to fund thenecessary infrastructure and equipment in the long term.

It will therefore be important that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has the resourcesto monitor the ongoing impact of the settlement and related changes that impact on researchers, and to seekinput from the research community as it did to inform the 2010 Spending Review bid. In addition to identifyingthreats, BIS and the scientific community will need to exploit opportunities presented by the economic recoveryand be ready with proposals for initiatives for investment that can further stimulate the growth. We regard thetranslational research area as a priority for future investment.

The National Academies play an important role in monitoring the health and sustainability of their respectivescientific communities. The Academy of Medical Sciences does not unfortunately receive a Grant from BIS,126 Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust (2008). Medical research: what’s it worth?

http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99puid137.html127 HM Treasury & BIS (2011). The Plan for Growth http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf128 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=88129 For examples of these partnerships please see: www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/nocripublications.aspx130 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



but we welcome the fact that its support to the other three National Academies was maintained in the 2010settlement. We hope that the Committee will support us in forging future opportunities for the Academy to jointhe 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 spendingreview. This allowed us to be a focal point for the views of the biomedical research community acrossuniversities, hospitals, research councils, industry and charity funders. We were able to provide evidence ofthe health and wealth benefits of biomedical research and the vital role played by the public science budget inleveraging funding from private and philanthropic sources. Our efforts were also focused on influencingdecisions about funding for research made in the Department of Health (DH). The feedback that we havereceived suggests that these efforts helped to secure a positive settlement in both BIS and DH, which has beenbeneficial for the whole science base. The effective communication between BIS and the Academy throughoutthe process helped us to ensure that the Academy’s input and our joint activities with other stakeholders in ourcommunity had maximum impact. We are grateful to Sir Adrian and his staff for ensuring this open dialoguebefore 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 areconverted into healthcare benefits for society. Our Fellows are the UK’s leading medical scientists fromhospitals and general practice, academia, industry and the public service.

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 theSpending Review 2010.

2. The Council for Mathematical Sciences, of which the Society is a founder member, has made a substantivesubmission 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 beenparticularly identified for statistics, arising from the International Reviews of Mathematical Sciences of 2004and 2010.

4. The International Review of Mathematical Sciences (IRMS) in 2004131 identified, among other issues:

“a serious concern that now the UK is not producing a sufficient number of Ph.D. graduates in statistics tosatisfy the demand from industry and at the same time to maintain the level of excellence in universities.”

5. The IRMS of 2010132 found:

“once again that the UK statistics research enterprise is in a fragile and weakened condition, despite allits 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 manyother sectors). Advances in statistical methodologies and their applications extend across disciplines. Thethreats to the UK’s statistical capability are issues, the Royal Statistical Society hopes, will be of concern tothe Science and Technology Committee.

27 April 2011

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 instatements around the value of science accompanying the comprehensive spending review settlement. It isessential that the impact of the spending review is re-visited in 2012.131 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/reports/irmaths2003.pdf132 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/intrevs/2010maths



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 encouragingpublic interest in the life sciences. The Society represents a diverse membership of over 80,000—includingpractising scientists, students and interested non-professionals—as individuals, or through the learned societiesand other organisations listed below.

The Society welcomes the Committee’s intention to review the complex evolution of the science fundingenvironment since the Spending Review. Many forces are acting upon this sector at present including theResearch 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 educationFunding Councils, and the changes in student support arrangements arising from recommendations in theBrowne Review, among others. Relatively few areas of science are immune from the impact of these multiplechanges and it will be some time before the combined results are evident. For this reason we feel it appropriateto 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, andencourages the underlying government position that science is a potential growth engine for theeconomy and an endeavour essential for national wellbeing. However, we reiterate our concern thatthe settlement presented science with significant and growing financial challenges.

2. We are concerned that pressure from reduced funding or reduced public and private sector investmentmay have negative impacts on national capacity in terms of skills and innovation. In addition weforesee significant dangers in the greatly reduced Research Council capital budgets and the increasingerosion of the value of the science settlement due to inflation. Moreover, as other countries continueto invest in science, the UK risks losing international standing. All of this comes at a time whenfinancial and other pressures are bringing about significant changes in the advice and scrutiny functionprovided by arms’ length bodies, commissions and independent authorities etc. There is concern thatthe independent and long-range vision of many of these bodies cannot be easily recreated within thesystems retained.

3. We wish to comment specifically on university science departments. Whilst some time has elapsedsince 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 havebeen highlighted to us. Most Bioscience Departments can expect a reduction in their research grantand contract income from charities and government Departments and are aware that funding fromResearch Councils will become considerably more competitive, making it prudent to expect areduction from this source also. University income from teaching is also highly uncertain at themoment. Submissions to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) will shortly be complete for this year, butlonger-term fee structures will continue to be influenced by the forthcoming White Paper and theprocess of OFFA reviews. In addition the trends in student enrolment remain unknown and may be asignificant determinant of the medium-term financial stability of many institutions.

4. While continued reinvigoration and improvement of the environment for science learning andadvanced skill development at university and higher level colleges is to be embraced, the sense offuture instability in the skills pipeline currently being reported to us is a matter of great concern. Thislevel of uncertainty may generate indecision or overreaction, neither of which would be a welcomeoutcome. Many areas of science learning are intrinsically expensive to deliver, without necessarilyguaranteeing higher level earnings for their graduates. Choices on the fees applied to individualcourses are likely to be influenced locally but may have implications for the overall viability ofdepartments and the national coverage of learning centres for specific skills. In addition, the differentfunding and charging arrangements in Scotland, in particular, are likely to have an effect and there isvalid 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 arefunded through the T component of the HEFCE budget and extra support for which from ResearchCouncils and industry is likely to be reduced. In these circumstances, UK graduates seeking to becomeMasters Students may well regard these fees as a significant barrier as they do not currently have easyaccess 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 theBologna process. It is essential that arrangements do not present talented and ambitious UK studentswith a barrier to advancement at this level.

6. We would like to reiterate our position that there is a national need for high-quality biosciencegraduates and bioscience research and that the challenge of maintaining quality degree programmesand research performance in a developing “market” will require the careful attention, collaborationand 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 grantsand a change to focus on proven excellence will make it difficult to protect and nurture emergingexcellence 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, andcertainly by late 2012 when there has been a full-fee student intake.

Member Organisations Represented by the Society of Biology

Anatomical Society Marine Biological AssociationAssociation for the Study of Animal Behaviour Nutrition SocietyAssociation of Applied Biologists RNIDBiochemical Society Royal Entomological SocietyBreakspear Hospital Royal Microscopical SocietyBritish Andrology Society Royal Society of ChemistryBritish Association for Lung Research Science and Plants for SchoolsBritish Association for Psychopharmacology Scottish Association for Marine ScienceBritish Bariatric Medical Society Society for Applied MicrobiologyBritish Biophysical Society Society for EndocrinologyBritish Crop Production Council Society for Experimental BiologyBritish Ecological Society Society for General MicrobiologyBritish Lichen Society Society for Reproduction and FertilityBritish Microcirculation Society Society for the Study of Human BiologyBritish Mycological Society SCI Horticulture GroupBritish Neuroscience Association The Physiological SocietyBritish Pharmacological Society UK Environmental Mutagen SocietyBritish Phycological Society University Bioscience Managers’ AssociationBritish Society for Ecological Medicine Zoological Society of LondonBritish Society for ImmunologyBritish Society for Matrix Biology Supporting Member Organisations

British Society for Medical Mycology Association of the British Pharmaceutical IndustryBritish Society for Neuroendocrinology (ABPI)British Society for Plant Pathology Association of Medical Research CharitiesBritish Society for Proteome Research AstraZenecaBritish Society for Research on Ageing BioScientifica LtdBritish Society for Soil Science Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ResearchBritish Society of Animal Science Council (BBSRC)British Toxicology Society GlaxoSmithKlineExperimental Psychology Society Huntingdon Life SciencesFisheries Society of the British Isles Institute of PhysicsGenetics Society Lifescan (Johnson and Johnson) Scotland LtdHeads of University Biological Sciences Medical Research Council (MRC)Heads of University Centres of Biomedical Science Pfizer UKInstitute of Animal Technology Royal Society for Public HealthInternational Biometric Society SyngentaLaboratory Animal Science Association The British LibraryLinnean Society Wellcome Trust

Wiley Blackwell

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 arethe largest independent funder of cancer research in Europe. Over half of all cancer research in the UK iscarried out by our doctors and scientists, who have made significant contributions to half of the top 30 drugsused to treat cancer patients worldwide today. Cancer Research UK’s work is entirely funded by the publicand in 2009–10 we spent £334 million on research, supporting the work of more than 4,000 scientists, doctorsand nurses. We receive no government funding for our research and each year, we fund an extensive programmeof 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 thenation now and in the future. To date, one of the strengths of the UK research base has been its ability toleverage funding from sources outside the public purse. Industry, charities and the government have differentbut complementary roles as research funders. The synergistic nature of these relationships, and how they linkwith 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 theoutcome of the 2010 spending review.

— The life sciences sector now needs stability, predictability and security through sensible regulationand prolonged investment to allow it to grow. For these reasons, Cancer Research UK would liketo see a long-term strategy for investment and growth in science beyond 2014–15, to includecommitments to jointly funded Institutes.

— Cancer Research UK, along with the other major medical research charities in the UK, is callingfor a long-term government commitment to the charity support element of QR funding allocatedto universities (known as the Charity Research Support Fund).

— We look forward to further detail from government outlining how they will take forward theannouncements in the Plan for Growth.

— Continuing government commitment to science remains vital for the future of the medical researchlandscape 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 ofthe UK science base, especially in medical sectors. Members of the Association of Medical Research Charitiesfunded £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 contributionthat charities were making to the quality of research conducted in UK universities. In all the scientific andmedical-related subjects, cancer studies received the top rating, with around 80% of the studies being fundedby charities, the majority from Cancer Research UK. Medical research charities have been able to fully integratetheir work with universities, and the collaborative environment that this has created has realised significantbenefits for science in the UK.

Medical research charities have consistently been a strong partner in funding medical research, and havecontinually invested in research in universities. Cancer Research UK alone spent £163 million in 2009–10 inUK universities. Charities choose to fund research in UK universities because of the world-class researchenvironments that they provide. The Quality Research block grant from the Higher Education Funding Councilfor England builds strong, autonomous universities by giving them the stability, flexibility and freedom tomake strategic decisions about their own research activities. The charity support element of QR funding (alsoknown as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF)) is a vital element of this as it enables Governmentfunding to leverage additional partnership funding from the charity sector, with approximately 15% of researchincome 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 governmentdid not take the opportunity to give this a longer term grounding in the budget allocations to 2014–15. CancerResearch UK, along with the other major medical research charities in the UK, is calling for a long-termgovernment commitment to the CRSF. The continued existence of the CRSF and equivalents affects the entiremedical research landscape in the UK. Universities and charities need to be able to plan their future fundingand 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 couldlead to attrition of the research base, and could disproportionately affect progress in medical research inuniversities, where the majority of charitable funding is focused. A long-term commitment to this partnershipwill enable innovative research to continue to be funded by charities in universities and ensure universityinfrastructure is sustainable over time.

Continued Support for Jointly Funded Institutes

Although funding allocations up until 2014–15 have been indicated as part of the spending review it isimportant to highlight the long-term commitments in major jointly funded institutes, that will requirecommitment beyond 2014–15.

Cancer Research UK is partnering with the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, UniversityCollege London, Imperial College London and King’s College London to build the UKCMRI. The vision forthe UKCMRI is to create a world class research centre that will tackle some of the biggest medical challengessociety faces. This will be the largest biomedical research centre in Europe. The project aims to find new waysto treat diseases such as cancer, and will bring together the best scientists, doctors and researchers. Bringingtogether 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 cleardemonstration 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 theMRC jointly fund the Gray Institute for Radiation, Oncology and Biology in Oxford (GI-ROB). GI-ROB isleading 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 CancerResearch UK and the departments of health for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who togetherare investing £35 million in infrastructure support over five years. They bring together laboratory and clinicalpatient-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 streamssupporting joint initiatives such as those listed above are taken into consideration, as decisions on these willbe 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 hastraditionally been a world leader in research to understand and treat disease. Our scientific publications produceover 12% of the world’s citations in both the clinical and health sciences and we have created nearly a quarterof the world’s top 100 medicines.133,134 The life sciences sector is vitally important in driving the economicrecovery. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to research by ring-fencing the science budgetwithin the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and increasing investment though the NationalInstitute for Health Research (NIHR).

The sector now needs stability, predictability and security through sensible regulation and prolongedinvestment to allow it to grow. For these reasons, Cancer Research UK would like to see a long-term strategyfor investment in science.

The publication of the Government’s Plan for Growth contained a number of proposals to drive growth inthe area of life sciences. In particular, Cancer Research UK welcomed the emphasis within the Budget andassociated Plan for Growth to remove barriers to setting up clinical research studies in the UK. We feel it isabsolutely critical that these barriers are removed in order that the UK is an attractive place to conduct healthresearch and, most importantly, so that patients can benefit. We believe that as many patients as possible shouldhave the opportunity to take part in timely research.

The announcements contained with the Plan for Growth represent a step forward in implementing therecommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences review,135 which Cancer Research UK supports. Welook forward to hearing more from Government as to how these announcements will be taken forward, andwill 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 acomprehensive long term strategy for science, which looks not only at the funding environment required butalso 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

To understand more about how charities’ investment in medical research can contribute to stimulatingeconomic growth, Cancer Research UK has commissioned the Office of Health Economics to look at theinterdependency of different medical research funders in supporting the research base.

Drawing from the experience of public, charity and private funders and leading academics, the recentlypublished report136 highlights the value that the combination of public sector and charity funding brings tomedical research. The key findings of the report are that Government funding for medical research has animpact 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; and

— UK patients’ healthcare.

The report identifies specific financial and qualitative benefits from the UK’s partnership approach to fundingmedical research. By sharing the costs and risks associated with research, UK funders contribute to a stableflow of financial support for research.

The strong base provided by public sector infrastructure support allows profit and non-profit funders to focustheir efforts on direct funding for specific projects. This model not only creates economies of scale but alsogreater 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.133 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.pd134 Academy of Medical Sciences (2010). Reaping the rewards: a vision for UK medical science

http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=99&puid=172135 Academy of Medical Sciences (2011). A new pathway for the regulation and governance of medical research.136 Exploring the Interdependency between Public and Charitable Medical Research, Martina Garau, Arik Mordoh, Jon Sussex,

OHE Consulting, April 2011



This report also shows an additional benefit for charities of continued government investment in the sciencebase. Giving priority to science funding acts as a signal of quality, and value, for this research, and thusstimulates further private investment in the charities sector.

This report adds weight to the Government’s Spending Review commitments to invest in science. It alsoprovides an important new perspective on the impact that future cuts could have on the delicate balancebetween the dedicated funding streams of UK research.

27 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 forthe benefit of all. It has a worldwide membership of around 40,000 comprising physicists from all sectors, aswell as those with an interest in physics. It works to advance physics research, application and education; andengages with policy makers and the public to develop awareness and understanding of physics. Its publishingcompany, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in professional scientific communications.

The Institute welcomes the opportunity to respond to the House of Commons Science and TechnologyCommittee’s inquiry into the Spending Review 2010. Detailed comments are provided in the attacheddocument, which follow on from our response to the Committee’s inquiry into the impact of reduced capitalfunding on astronomy and particle physics research.

Professor Peter MainDirector, Education and Science

Introduction

1. The Institute, along with the rest of the science and engineering community, breathed a sigh of reliefwhen it was announced last October that the Science Budget for the 2011–12 to 2014–15 period would bemaintained at a flat cash level and was to be ring-fenced in the context of the Coalition government’s fiscalausterity measures. Of course, there were, and still are, considerable concerns about the impact of inflation andthe efficiency savings coupled with the significant reduction of the BIS capital budget, but that was all, to anextent, tempered at the time as science had escaped the mooted cash cuts expected to range from anythingbetween and, potentially, beyond 10–25%.

2. Now that the research councils have been allocated their budgets, have published both their delivery andimplementation plans, and are implementing policy decisions, this inquiry provides an opportunity for theInstitute to raise issues of concern that may impact on the ability of UK physicists to undertake leading-edgeresearch 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 theoral evidence session and the supplementary memorandum) dealt with the impact of reduced capital fundingfor those two research areas along with astroparticle physics research; the following paragraphs summarise thekey points that were made.

4. The reduction in capital funding, as we understand it, refers not only to expenditure in relation to theconstruction of large facilities and upgrades to existing facilities, but also includes maintenance costs associatedwith existing facilities, and the funding available for university-based laboratory equipment. This is effectivelya loss of flexibility in the use of capital across all areas of science supported by RCUK. In particular, this willdisproportionately affect ongoing STFC funded research in particle physics, astroparticle physics, astronomyand 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 takea leading role in the European Extremely Large Telescope; will have a strongly negative impact on thedevelopment of astroparticle physics research (eg dark matter, high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, etc) withinthe 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 (ie STFC’s DiRAC facilityfor theoretical particle physics and astronomy, and EPSRC’s HeCToR facility); and will limit UK involvementin the upgrades to many particle physics experiments resulting in a very narrow focus, which will stifle newideas and initiatives.

6. A consequence of the reduction of capital funding for equipment has presumably led STFC to propose inits Delivery Plan for 2011–12 to 2014–15137 a significant reduction in support for university technology R&Dand, 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 wouldbe based on a misconception of how cutting-edge science and its associated innovative technology are related.137 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/pdf/dp2011–15.pdf



We were pleased, therefore, to learn from the STFC chief executive, when he addressed the Committee on 16March 2011, that no such policy of concentrating instrumentation development within STFC laboratories tothe 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 £15 million overthe period 2011–12 to 2014–15, which has been interpreted by some as an indication that the particle physicsbudget has been protected. In fact, the increase in particle physics “resource” is a displacement from shortfallsin the allocation of “capital”; in terms of both human capital and R&D, the particle physics resource hasdeclined sharply in the past five years. This apparent increase in the particle physics “resource” goes almostexclusively towards the CERN subscription.

8. Similar concerns exist about the impact of a reduction in capital funding on nuclear physics research, andthe 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 nofunding for nuclear physics facilities. Previously, major capital equipment was provided as a contribution inkind to facilitate access to international laboratories, where all nuclear physics research is now carried out. Thenew reductions in capital funding following the Spending Review 2010 settlement will have a major detrimentaleffect on the ability of UK nuclear physics researchers to contribute essential equipment to the laboratorieswhere they work. This is more significant for nuclear physics than for other science areas which are supportedby central facilities or international subscriptions.

10. This field has been especially hard hit and has already considerably contracted. The ~£10 million perannum devoted to nuclear physics in 1993 has declined even in cash terms to a projected £6 million per annumfor the coming years, prior to any further cut following the Spending Review 2010 settlement. In terms ofprojects, prior to the settlement, nuclear physics had been reduced to one project to build a limited range ofequipment for the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) and a small part of the European AdvancedGamma Tracking Array (AGATA). UK nuclear physicists have little or no influence on the future of a researcharea 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 beingconstructed such as FAIR (GSI, Germany), ISOLDE (CERN), SPIRAL2 (GANIL, France), and the JeffersonLab (US). These facilities are important to UK nuclear physicists as they are where future advances in the fieldare most likely to be made; for instance, providing the beams of radioactive ions or high energy electronsneeded to understand the structure of the nucleon, the wide variation in the properties of nuclei and the nuclearreactions fuelling stars and stellar explosions as well as the creation of the heavy elements. Unless the UKplays a major part in the development and operation of these facilities our nuclear physicists will be left outand will rapidly lose the leadership roles they currently possess. These facilities still require capital funding tocomplete some buildings and the equipment they house; if the UK were able to contribute capital funding inthe region of £20–25 million to these projects spread over a five year period, the UK’s standing and influencewould be transformed.

(ii) UK central facilities

12. The Spending Review 2010 settlement for STFC introduced the “Drayson partition”, with ring-fencedfunding for international subscriptions, grants for the STFC-funded scientific communities, and operationalfunding for the three national facilities: the Diamond Light Source, the ISIS neutron and muon facility, andthe Central Laser Facility (CLF).

13. The initial plan had been that a new funding model for the facilities would be in place before thesettlement, including the requirements of the research councils, which would have determined the allocationfor each facility. As the development of the new funding model had been delayed, the research councils, viathe RCUK Large Facilities working group, made the collective decision that the overall funding for all thefacilities should remain at the level of 5.6% of total research council expenditure. Within these boundaries, itwas agreed that Diamond would operate at full capacity for 250 days per annum (including the operation ofall 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 reductioncompared 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 weresupporting their current programmes; the research councils’ requirements for access to the facilities for theSpending Review 2010 period had not been established. It is regrettable that they have not consulted thescience community more widely, or adopted a more transparent approach to the allocation of funds. STFC waswidely criticised for its failure to engage with the community in deciding programme cuts in 2007–08, and hassince 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 fora 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 cyclesdelivering 150 days to the science programme,138 with a marginal cost of £1.7 million corresponding to around5% of the overall operational budget. In a 30 day cycle and with 28 operational instruments, ISIS deliverstypically some 200 experiments, resulting on average in over 100 scientific papers; 60% of the scienceprogramme 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 theoperating costs at a level of £2.2 million. This income depends on the UK’s ability to deliver beamtime totheir 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. Thehigh powered laser and plasma physics programmes are world leading. STFC budgetary constraints threatenthe high impact, internationally recognised projects. These projects include the Vulcan 10 petawatt project, theadvanced laser technologies needed for the European Extreme Laser Infrastructure project, and the fusionenergy concept, HiPER.

19. Moreover, the new funding model puts at risk the CLF’s pioneering facilities at the life science/physicalscience interface, housed in the new Research Complex at Harwell adjacent to Diamond. This potentially stallsthe economic benefit that arises from their research output.

20. STFC has taken the decision to reduce the UK’s contribution to the European Synchrotron RadiationFacility (ESRF) and reduce the UK’s involvement in Free Electron Laser (FEL) research to zero. This reductionis 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 researchgrants and fellowships from 31 January 2011.139 As well as the impact this policy will have on UK PhDstudents, there is considerable concern that the recruitment of high-quality European students will be severelydisadvantaged, as project studentships were, and are still to a great extent, the principal means of funding suchstudents. The average fraction of departmental PhD students from project studentships is around 20% and, ofthose, around 60% are hired from Europe and/or other overseas nations.

22. There seems no sign that the loss will be made up elsewhere in the EPSRC system, so this is a seriouscut in the support for research by EPSRC, particularly as the non-UK students recruited have been of a veryhigh standard, and they have made a very positive contribution to the research environment to the benefit ofthe whole cohort of EPSRC-funded students. Discontinuation of project studentships, at a time of reducedDoctoral Training Account (DTA) awards, is a major threat, particularly, as we understand that DTAstudentships are not costed on an fEC basis, which creates uncertainty relating to supporting students if theyare using equipment and facilities that have significant costs; project studentships allowed for the true costs ofdoing PhD level research to be recognised and properly supported. The EPSRC policy will impact on researchwithin the UK, its global reach (via those PhD students going abroad to do postdoctoral research), and onemployers.

23. We understand that EPSRC will permit 10% of the DTA funded studentships to be used for EU and/orother overseas students, but this is a rather small number. Furthermore, it is not yet clear if the 10% figure is10% 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 STFCresearch 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 2014–15document140 state that: “The science and research funding allocations will support the very best research, byfurther 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 afew, fairly large physics departments. However, the RAE2008 physics sub-panel revealed that “excellence” isspread 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 report141 that: “Many of theworld-leading research outputs observed in submissions originated from small responsive mode grants. The138 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, theILL research reactor operates for 200 days per annum; the US spallation neutron source—SNS—operates for 220 days perannum.

139 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2011/Pages/projectstudentships.aspx140 http://www.bis.gov.uk141 http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov



sub-panel believes that continuing availability of such grants is absolutely vital to encouraging and sustaininggroundbreaking research activity. Both national and European funding agencies are concentrating heavily onlarge collaborative programmes which, though worthwhile in themselves, if pursued to the exclusion of smallerscale grants, may place the nation in a weak position in the future…The physics and science community cannotknow where future developments will come from, and attempts to focus funding too narrowly into priorityresearch areas (or priority departments) will limit rather than enhance the prospects of breakthroughs at thehighest level.”

28. In light of this, we do appreciate that the research councils do not have enough resource to fund all thisexcellence, and are under pressure to prioritise the research they sponsor, but the UK is in danger of puttingall of its eggs in fewer baskets, unless it supports a more diverse range of research, both basic and applied,and all groups that have demonstrated excellence, irrespective of size. To reinforce this message, there are thecases of landmark discoveries, such as C60, which were the result of the efforts of small, less fashionableresearch groups. Such invaluable contributions as these in the future could be threatened by a policy to focusfunds on proposed centres of critical mass.

29. We urge the research councils to liaise closely with the funding councils to formulate a strategy to ensurethat 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 2,500physics graduates each year, who are highly valued for their mathematical and technical skills by both thepublic and private sector. The number of UK university physics departments has already been reduced fromaround 70 to 46 over the past dozen or so years. Any attempt to concentrate research in priority areas ordepartments, leading to potentially further closures, will have severe consequences for the teaching of physicsat the undergraduate level. Project work in the final years is nowadays routinely carried out in physicsdepartment research laboratories—only here can training and instruction using state of the art equipment beprovided 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, continueto invest heavily in their science and innovation bases. If investment in UK science and innovation continuesto stagnate, or even decrease in future settlements, the best UK-based scientists will consider moving overseasto undertake research in well-funded and equipped laboratories. The UK has recently reversed the brain drainand it will be most unfortunate to lose this talent. In addition, there is the distinct possibility that overseasstudents and researchers will no longer view the UK as a leading nation in terms of scientific endeavour anddiscovery. As a result, UK universities may lose out on the fees income from overseas undergraduates andpostgraduates, and on the pool of world-class researchers and technicians who may decide to seek employmentin 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 isnow under severe threat. Funding cuts are to be expected in the present climate, but there is a disproportionatelylarge cut falling on theoretical physics, particularly when some aspects of the research area are becoming morereliant on costly high-performance computing facilities.

32. Research has been funded by both STFC and by the EPSRC mathematics programme, with STFCtypically funding the areas with direct application to particle physics, nuclear physics and cosmology andEPSRC funding the more mathematical areas. The cuts to STFC as a whole have led to a 33% cut in fundingfor theoretical physics from 2005 to 2010. The funding for 2011–12 to 2014–15 is to be announced shortly,but could lead to further reductions. Now it appears that EPSRC is drastically cutting its funding formathematical physics.

33. Until now, mathematical physics has accounted for around 10% of the research budget of the EPSRCmathematics programme. From the projects currently funded by EPSRC around £7 million is spent directly ontheoretical physics research.142

34. Mathematical physics used to be an independent sub-theme supported by EPSRC, but has nowdisappeared from the new remit recently published on the EPSRC website.143 This change will exclude mostof the areas of mathematical physics that EPSRC has supported in the past. This includes, but is not restrictedto, the ending of support for areas that might also fall under the remit of STFC. This change in remit is instark contrast to EPSRC’s landscape document where mathematical physics144 is the only listed sub-theme toget the top rating for international profile/standing.

35. The new remit and the exclusion of STFC-related areas could, if applied consistently, mean that almostall of the currently funded research would not be funded under the new rules. There is no extra funding fromSTFC to compensate for this, so the result seems likely to be a very substantial further cut in the funding of142 http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ChooseTTS.aspx?Mode=TOPIC&ItemDesc=Mathematical+Physics143 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/progs/maths/Pages/remit.aspx144 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/other/LandscapeMaths.pdf



theoretical physics. There was no general announcement, explanation or community consultation regarding thischange of policy.

36. This picture is borne out by the experience of a number of applicants for EPSRC fellowships, with aconsiderable number being rejected on the grounds of being deemed to be outside its remit, which is contraryto what was explicitly mentioned on the EPSRC website at the time of application. Many were in areas inwhich 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 fallsbetween the remit of two research councils. We recommend that EPSRC should urgently reconsider its policytowards 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 supportbeyond 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 trainingopportunities for such young scientists, at a time when fields such as climate modelling need to attract the bestphysics 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.

40. A recent investigation by the Manchester Institute for Innovation Research145 has suggested that there isdemand from businesses for a renewed, locally-delivered programme of sector specific innovation support. Itis not clear that the Spending Review 2010 settlement will allow this to happen. In addition, the role of theLocal Enterprise Partnerships in this area remains unclear, and the Regional Growth Fund, while a welcomedevelopment 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 fromthe Spending Review 2010; it is expected that its tasking framework letter and strategy will be released overthe next few weeks.

42. It is clear that with the removal of the RDAs from the English innovation scene, the TSB will have anexpanded 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).146 The £200 million over four years allocated to the TICs is welcome, but it will need to be carefullymanaged 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 initiativesin a seemingly ad hoc manner by the government. In the 2011–12 to 2014–15 settlement it is clear that theTSB 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, byreducing the number of its longer knowledge transfer partnerships, the TSB increased its “headroom” in thenew settlement. While this was a wise course of action it does reveal the strain that the TSB’s core budget willcome under from the addition of new initiatives and programmes.

The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society promoting physics and bringing physicists together forthe benefit of all. It has a worldwide membership of around 40,000 comprising physicists from all sectors, aswell as those with an interest in physics. It works to advance physics research, application and education; andengages with policy makers and the public to develop awareness and understanding of physics. Its publishingcompany, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in professional scientific communications.

27 April 2011

145 http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/page_50369.html146 http://www.innovateuk.org/deliveringinnovation/technology-and-innovation-centres.ashx



Written evidence submitted by Science is Vital Campaign (SR 27)

Attached please find a memorandum from the Science is Vital Campaign, which is our response to the callby the Science and Technology Committee for evidence of the impact on the science and research budgetallocations for 2011–12 to 2014–15.

This submission is made in a personal capacity by the members of the Executive Committee of the Scienceis 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 tothe Select Committee’s enquiry on the impacts of the CSR on science spending. Several instances of directnegative 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 believethis evidence gathering exercise should be repeated by the Science and Technology Committee in 12–18months time.

Background

2. The Science is Vital campaign is a grass-roots organisation of scientists and supporters of science thatwas launched in September 2010 to counter the threat of deep cuts in Government’s science spending. Scienceis Vital has now formally constituted itself in order to continue to stimulate scientific interest in the politicalprocess and provide an effective conduit of the views of working scientists to policy-makers andparliamentarians.

3. The campaign used its public profile to support the call for evidence by the House of Commons Scienceand Technology Committee. Via our website (scienceisvital.org.uk), we encouraged and facilitated submissionsto the Committee from working scientists.

4. In addition, we created a web-based form that allowed us to gather additional information. The form wascompleted in confidence by over forty individuals from institutions and companies from around the UK. Thismemorandum provides a brief summary of the evidence reported, as well as information gathered frommembers of the Science is Vital executive who are themselves working scientists (Dr Jennifer Rohn, ProfessorStephen 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 theUK); 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 reflectsthe fact that they have been made by people who are not in senior positions with access to primary informationon university or company budgets.

7. Twenty of the 44 submissions stated that their institution had already implemented redundancies or afreeze on hiring. Redundancies have taken place among academic and support staff (eg research or workshoptechnicians).

8. Others noted that the squeeze on spending has led to a reduction in capacity (eg the UK’s state-of-the-artneutron source, ISIS, is now operating at two-thirds of its full operational capacity). Elsewhere ageingequipment 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 fundMasters level university courses has created a difficult situation for students of Earth and EnvironmentalSciences. The situation is exacerbated by the large increases in fees for Masters level courses that are likely toaccompany the changes in the funding of undergraduate tuition in 2012 (the reduction in Government fundingof Universities through the HEFCE teaching budget).

10. Although it is too early for the effects to have reached most scientists, there is widespread pessimismabout 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 grantapplications and funds available. Young scientists in particular are dependent for their job security on thesuccess 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 knowsomeone who is considering the same.

12. Our survey is not extensive or controlled but it does give an impression that chimes with what we havelearned in discussions with our own colleagues. There is widespread pessimism about the direction of sciencefunding in the UK over the next several years. This appears to be due particularly to redundancies amongcolleagues 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 spenda 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 theprevious administration) is being exacerbated by the continued uncertainty surrounding the implementation ofthe 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 successfulat winning grant income but that appears no longer to be true. As a consequence opportunities for the currentgeneration of young scientists are diminished.

14. There is a risk that a science base demoralised by the impact of the spending review will fall behindcompetitor 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 economicsituation remains grim but it will only exacerbate the problem of morale if the Government continues to pretendthat 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 alsohelp to repair the damage caused to our international reputation by the spending freeze and the protracteddiscussion on limiting immigration (although we recognise the worth of the particular provisions that theGovernment 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 UKscience base because the time for spending decisions to work their way to ground level is likely in manyinstances to be much longer than six months. For example, the process of submitting, reviewing and decidingon grant proposals can easily take nine months. We would therefore encourage the Science and TechnologyCommittee 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 DartnellDr Prateek BuchDr Tom Hartley

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 thescientific and engineering health of the UK. CaSE works to ensure that science and engineering are high onthe political and media agenda, and that the UK has world-leading research and education, skilled andresponsible scientists and engineers, and successful innovative business. It is funded by around 750 individualmembers and 100 organisations including industries, universities, learned and professional organisations, andresearch charities.

Summary

2. The 2010 Spending Review was initially perceived as a better-than-expected result for science andengineering, with the sector having escaped the worst of the cuts to public spending necessitated by the 2010Emergency Budget. However, in the months since the spending review it has become clear that the sector iscoming under considerable strain from a variety of angles. We argue that these strains could significantlydamage the UK’s ability to be a world-leading scientific and engineering nation in both the short- and long-term.

The Science Budget

3. 20 On October 2010 it was announced that the Science Budget was to be £4.6 billion for every year ofthe 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 improveeconomic growth and rebalance the economy. It was also leaked to the media (specifically The Times and theBBC) on the evening of 19 October, such that it featured prominently in the media that evening and thefollowing 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 theScience Budget. However, taking the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation estimates, the Science Budgetwill actually be 14.4% lower in 2014–15 than in 2010–11147—and the settlement could be further eroded byincreases in inflation.

6. There is also a question over whether inflation in science and engineering is higher than standardConsumer Price Index. For instance, the US experienced growth in the Gross Domestic Product price index (abroad measure of inflation) of 0.8% in 2010, while the US Government’s own estimate of growth in theBiomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) was over three times as high, at 2.8%.148 Fewreliable data exist on a similar phenomenon in the UK, but if costs in science and engineering do inflate morerapidly than costs elsewhere, the overall impact on the UK’s research base by 2014–15 could be real termscuts still greater than the 14.4% estimate.

7. The continuation of the “ring-fence” around the £4.6 billion Science Budget was also announced as partof the Spending Review settlement. This was extremely welcome, as it protects the Science Budget from beingraided for other public spending concerns, and also ensures that any savings within the Science Budget can bereinvested in it.

Capital Expenditure

8. The budget for capital expenditure on science and engineering facilities was not announced as part of thespending review. It was later declared that capital expenditure on research would fall by nearly 46% (£1.9billion) over the four years of the spending review; this capital funding is delivered through the ResearchCouncils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and other streams to Higher EducationInstitutions across the UK. The 46% cut compares to a 43% overall reduction in capital expenditure of theDepartment for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), so research capital is taking more than its fair share ofreductions within the department.149

9. This cut is ameliorated slightly by £220 million of funding for UK Centre for Medical Research andInnovation now coming from the Department for Health (DH), rather than the Medical Research Council.150

However, it is not clear whether this is in addition to, or subtracted from, what the DH would have otherwisereceived 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—includingstaff and equipment costs for maintaining and upgrading equipment—and much that cannot be realistically cutback without significant cost. Equipment costing relatively small amounts of money and essential for generallab work can be categorised as capital spending, depending on which Research Council is the funder. Theproportion of research money available for new equipment and facilities is therefore much less than 100% (andwill vary between different Research Councils). Therefore the impact of the capital cuts will be to reduce theUK’s capacity to invest in cutting-edge science and engineering projects by more than 50% (as well as seriouslyaffecting ongoing research).

11. It should be noted that a shortage of funding also means that past capital investment is not being fullytaken advantage of. For instance, both the ISIS light source and Central Laser Facility are currently runningbelow optimum capacity,151 even though the marginal cost of extra operating days at these facilities is verylow compared to the cost of the facility itself.

12. On 23 March 2011, Chancellor Osborne announced £100 million of new capital investment in sciencefacilities around the UK.152 This was extremely welcome, especially at a time of austerity, and will help certainfacilities attain world-leading status in their fields. However, the extra capital did nothing to remedy theenormous cut in standard operational capital budgets created by the spending review. To put it in perspective,it was also matched the sum of money (£100 million) set aside on the same day for repairing the nation’spotholes.153

13. One aspect of the Science Budget allocations which is not yet clear is whether Research Councils willhave the flexibility to transfer funds from their resource allocation into capital, in order to purchase replacementequipment or pay for maintenance. This should be clarified.147 Inflation erodes UK Science Budget, New Scientist: The S Word. Accessed 29/03/11: http://bit.ly/ecg9yN148 Biomedical Research and Development Price Index, Fiscal Year 2010 Update and Projections for FY 2011-FY 2016, US

Department of Health and Human Services. 2011149 Capital spending—a closer look, CaSE blog. Accessed 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2606150 Ibid.151 Post CSR—The level of use of national facilities, The Biochemical Society Science Policy Talking Post. 2011: http://bit.ly/

eJTUer152 Extra science spending in the Budget—details, CaSE blog. Accessed 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=4254153 HM Treasury Budget 2011, London: The Stationery Office. 2011



Old Science Budget vs New Science Budget

14. Prior to the Spending Review 2010, the “Science Budget” consisted primarily of the resource allocationand the capital allocation for the seven Research Councils, but excluded money distributed via HEFCE. Thecoalition government has now redefined the term by excluding all capital expenditure, but including theresource 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 wouldnot have been able to claim they had “frozen” it on the morning of 20 October. The true impact of the cutswas not clear until the Science Budget Allocations in late December 2010. The new definition also means thatcapital spending on research is no longer protected by the ring-fence around the Science Budget, making themeagre 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 beenthought likely. The community had been fearing cuts of up to 20% or 30%, in part due to the contents of theBusiness Secretary’s speech at Queen Mary University of London in September 2010,154 which focused ondoing “more with less”. In the end, science and engineering escaped the severe cuts which have affected otherareas of public spending.

17. However, the UK science and engineering’s success is determined more by how competitive we areinternationally, not by how BIS fares against other Whitehall departments. In the international context, thedownsized Science Budget looks less healthy.

18. Germany, a nation similar to the UK in many ways, has been forced to institute its own austerity budgetas a result of the banking crisis. Overall federal expenditure is being cut from €319.5 billion last year to €307.4billion this year, yet funding at the Ministry of Education and Research is rising by 7.2%, which includes €327million for university research excellence, and support for research and development (R&D) at the FederalEconomics Ministry is also increasing.155 This is congruent with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s past argumentthat “the prosperity of a country such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must be sought throughinvestment in research, education and science, and this to a disproportionate degree.”156

19. The Chinese equivalent of the UK Research Councils is the National Natural Sciences Foundation ofChina (NSFC), which is that nation’s main agency for funding competitive, peer-reviewed grants. China’s 2011Budget announced that the NSFC will see a 17% increase this year, which will mean its budget will havedoubled from 2009 to 2011.157

20. It is clear that the nations with which the UK will need to collaborate with and compete against areusing investment in R&D, and the knowledge economy, to stimulate their economy today and also to plan forthe 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. In2007 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%.158 This greater resilience has putGermany in a strong position to invest more in science and engineering, leaving the UK at an even greatercompetitive disadvantage as we retrench our own spending.

21. The Science Budget is not the only source of funding for R&D in the UK. For instance, the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) spent £440 million supporting R&D throughout the UK in 2007–08. The RDAshave largely been abolished, the expertise of their staff lost, and their assets are being sold,159 with theirfunction replaced by the Regional Growth Fund (RGF).

22. The RGF consists of £1.4bn available from 2011–14,160 which corresponds to an average of £400 millionper year. Therefore, even in the unlikely event of 100% of the new RGF being used to support research anddevelopment, it would not adequately replace the RDAs. The new Technology Innovation Centres, whilepotentially being an important step forward for innovation in science and engineering, only provideapproximately £50 million per year. On a related note, it is not yet clear at what level the Technology StrategyBoard will be funded on an ongoing basis.

Diversity

23. One of the notable casualties of the Science Budget allocations following the Spending Review has beenthe cessation of funding for the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology(UKRC for Women in SET).161 This is despite the continuing huge disparities between the genders in science154 The role of science, research and innovation in creating growth, Speech by Vince Cable. 2010155 German federal funding for science continues to rise, In Verba, The Royal Society. Accessed 26/04/2010: http://bit.ly/gjcUla156 Speech by Chancellor Angela Merkel on being awarded the King Charles II medal, Royal Society. 2010157 China bets big on small grants, large facilities, Richard Stone, Science. Accessed 26/04/2010: http://bit.ly/i7WYRA158 Research and development expenditure (% of GDP), The World Bank. Accessed 26/04/10: http://bit.ly/fYP999159 BIS halts local takeover of science parks, Research Fortnight, 2011.160 Regional Growth Fund, Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Accessed 26/04/11: http://bit.ly/hRecfr161 UKRC responds to government funding announcement, UKRC for Women in SET. Accessed: 26/04/11: http://bit.ly/fB98ZY



and engineering—for instance, only 30% of women with degrees in science, technology, engineering ormathematics (STEM) are employed in the STEM sector compared with 50% of men.162 This disparityrepresents a loss to the individuals involved, but there is also a huge economic cost, as significant resourceshave gone into training these individuals, who then do not get the opportunity to use their skills, at the sametime that there is high demand for those skills among employers.163

24. BIS has said they do not want to neglect the diversity agenda, but to “mainstream and embed equalityand diversity in all [their] Science and Society programmes”.164 CaSE would welcome a commitment tomainstreaming, as there are diversity problems in areas other than gender. For instance, disabled people makeup only 3.8% of the STEM workforce, compared to 5.9% of the total workforce, and CaSE is working withpartners in the sector to improve resources for disabled scientists and engineers.165 Coming from certainethnic minority or socioeconomic backgrounds also affects participation in STEM. For example, pupils fromindependent schools are considerably over-represented in science and engineering A-levels compared to theirpeers in comprehensive schools.166

25. However we are still awaiting a clear strategy from BIS showing how they plan to “mainstream andembed” the diversity agenda in their work. We call for the Department to consider and publish a strategy whichoutlines the issues they believe are most important to tackle in the coming years, and how they intend to workwith the community to do so. The need for this has become more pressing with the publication of the UKResearch Council delivery plan over the next four years, during which it will cut back its spending on careersand diversity by 73% to £1 million in 2014–15.167 Furthermore, the Government has put the Equality Act 2010up for review on its website that urges the public to fight back and cut red tape.168

Education

26. As a result of the spending review, the Department for Education has informed the Training andDevelopment Agency that it will no longer be funding “golden hellos” for new science and maths teachers,based on a “value for money” decision.169 CaSE has asked for this “value for money” analysis to bepublished,170 but this request has been ignored. The nation already has a severe shortage of teachers with therelevant background in physics, chemistry and maths, with an estimated shortage of 4,000 physics teachersalone.171 The situation may deteriorate further if funding is stopped for teacher training for graduates with lessthan a 2:2 degree, of which there are unusually high proportion in shortage subjects, as is proposed in thecurrent 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 providea historical analysis of government and other spending in science and engineering in the UK, and are a vitaltool in assessing and evaluating current activity and targets. The most recent indicators, for 2010 and publishedearlier this year, have been significantly scaled back in terms of their scope and detail. No reason for thischange has been given. We would ask the Committee to consider why it has occurred and what the implicationswill be for monitoring past and future science, engineering and innovation performance, and for policyformulation.

Conclusion

28. Socio-economic and demographic change in the UK, Europe, and the rest of the world means that thiscountry 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 higherproportion of our output and employment deriving from high-skills sectors. This is the model which competitornations 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 canbring. Benefits include the spinning out of new ideas into products that can be commercialised to buildeconomic growth or directly benefit society, for example, through health gains.172 Public investment in R&D162 Women in science, engineering, and technology: the UK statistics guide 2010, UKRC. 2011163 Emerging stronger: the value of education and skills in turbulent times. CBI/Nord Anglia, 2009.164 The UKRC stays open for business, UKRC. Accessed: 26/0411 http://www.theukrc.org/news/2011/01/the-ukrc-stays-open-for-

business165 Pale, stale, and male,CaSE Blog. Accessed: 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2443166 Full A-level results briefing, JCQ. 2010167 RCUK Delivery Plan 2011/12–2014/15. Excellence, Impact and Efficiency168 Red Tape Challenge. Accessed 27/04/2011: http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalities/169 Letter from Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP to Graham Holley, Chief Exec of the TDA, Department for Education. 31 January 2011170 Letter from CaSE to Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, CaSE Blog. Accessed: 26/04/11: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=2829171 Mathematics and Science in Secondary Schools, Moor, Jones, et al. 2006172 Securing Our Economic Future with Science and Engineering, June 2010, CaSE



also helps generate private investment from research charities and from industry.173 Note that the UK receivesan unusually high proportion of its R&D funds from foreign owned firms (17%) which may be more flexiblein the location of their spending than UK-based companies (and therefore more responsive to internationalcomparisons).174

31. The UK spent hundreds of billions of pounds during the financial crisis to rescue the nation’s financeindustry, which was on the verge of collapsing. It has become clear that the UK’s economy had become overlyreliant 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 acommitment towards such rebalancing. Science and engineering are crucial to the UK’s economic future—isthe support that they are given comparable to the efforts that were made to maintain the economic status quoduring 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 fiveyears typically used for political decision-making. For the UK to be successful in science and engineering overthe 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.

27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by the University Alliance (SR 29)

1. University Alliance175 represents 23 major, business-focused universities that are driving economic growththrough world-leading research, innovation and enterprise. Alliance universities educate over 25% of all UKstudents and achieve some of the highest graduate-level employment rates. Incorporating five of the UK’s 10largest universities, Alliance universities offer a research-informed, academic learning environment and aculture of innovation and enterprise, empowering the next generation of graduates who will help deliver growthto the UK economy.

2. Alliance universities are central to the UK’s innovation-driven economy,176 driving growth in new sectorsand markets through their delivery of high-quality, graduates, science and research.177 Alliance universitiesmaintain 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 rolein 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 adirect economic impact.

3. Through evidence-based policy and research, University Alliance and our member universities aim toimprove 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 doesnot plan to cut the science and research budget to the extent that it could damage the health of the UK researchbase. We therefore accept the budget allocations as an acceptable settlement that should maintain the UK’sstatus as a world-leader in research. However we have a number of concerns about the methods for which theremaining money178 is distributed as we set out below.

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 hasnever been more important to ensure that our scarce resources are used to fund excellent research wherever itis found. We believe that funding research on this basis is the only method that will ensure the sustainabilityand 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 highereducation sector and the economy. In this time of restricted funding it is equally crucial that the principles thathave underpinned this success are not abandoned and that the evidence-base surrounding the funding ofresearch is not ignored.173 Work on Innovation—A stocktaking of Existing Work, OECD, 2009.174 SET Statistics, BIS, November, 2009.175 www.university-alliance.ac.uk176 Shanmugalingam S et al, Nesta, Rebalancing Act, June 2010, http://www.nesta.org.uk/rebalancing_act177 L Aston and L Shutt, 21st Century Universities: engines of an innovation driven economy, September 2010 http://tinyurl.com/

5tv22js178 Following the 9.5% reduction of overall budget in real terms.



7. As such we welcome the Government’s direction to HEFCE that Quality Related funding should bedirected selectively on the basis of internationally excellent (3* and higher) research. This approach is basedon clear evidence179 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 researchfunding 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 concentratingresources on research centres of proven excellence and with the critical mass and multi-disciplinarycapacity to address national challenges and compete internationally.180

9. Whilst we support the selective funding of excellence, it is simply not the case that excellence alwaysfollows a critical mass. We accept that in some disciplines, particularly in science, that a critical mass isnecessary 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 sciencesbecause of “scale and costly kit” where there are genuine affordability constraints. Outside the physicalsciences, however, the spread of peaks of world-leading research excellence across the sector demonstrates thatcritical 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 thephysical sciences—in the UK or internationally.181 The 2008 RAE results showed an even greater dispersal ofexcellence across the sector in some disciplines. The Final Report to HEFCE of the Higher Education PolicyUnit, University of Leeds, in considering the “role of selectivity and the characteristics of excellence” foundthat:

“The effect of size is significant in most science-based subjects, but for performance of internationalquality it is evidently not the only factor. For Mathematics, however, there is no proven relationshipbetween the size of the research unit and the quality of its output: concepts of critical mass do not applyin this area.”

“The scaling pattern does not hold in Mathematics, in the arts and humanities or for some areas in thesocial sciences. It is also clear that there are a number of small units performing at the very highestlevels. Output is generally more concentrated in science than engineering, which may be due to historicalgrowth patterns. This emphasises the need to understand both the research system, its components (peakand 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 theScience and Research budget. Our member institutions play a critical role on a regional and national level onsupporting the economy and driving its growth.

14. The UK’s innovation ecosystem depends far less on the traditionally sought after technology transferand far more upon innovation in management, business process improvement and better marketing; innovationthat may owe less to traditional research and development than to new ways of building relationships betweenbusiness and academia and of incubating new skills and knowledge. The current mechanisms of measuringhow universities contribute to innovation in the UK struggle to encapsulate the rapidly expanding role andimpact of universities.

15. It is for that reason that we share concerns about focussing HEIF funding too closely on incomegeneration as the only measure of effective KE performance.182 Whatever the final balance of metrics decidedupon we must ensure that HEIF funding is able to support and reward a breadth of KE activities as distinctfrom 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 the179 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

180 BIS, The allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011–12 to 2014–15181 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/182 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



Wakeham review. We believe that efficiencies made along these principles will result in savings withoutharming the health of UK research.

27 April 2011

Written evidence submitted by ADS (SR 30)

SCIENCE & RESEARCH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS 2011–12 TO 2014–15

A|D|S is the trade association representing over 2,600 UK companies in the Aerospace, Defence, Security andSpace 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% of UK advanced manufacturing, have an annualturnover 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 marketfrom research, and on the supply of skilled and talented individuals, not only as graduates but also ascollaborators 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 andtechnology, and integrate and demonstrate them at the systems level, as part of integrated, coherent andcollaborative National Strategies such as the National Aerospace Technology Strategy (NATS) and NationalSpace Technology Strategy (NSTS).

A|D|S welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to make its input into the Science & Technology SelectCommittee’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 concernedabout the impact on our industries of what constitutes a 5–6% cut in real terms over the ComprehensiveSpending Review (CSR) period. This is in contrast to the United States where the Administration is seekingan annual budget for the National Science Foundation in 2012 that is 13.0% higher in cash terms than the 2010figure. This is a very different outlook when compared to the UK science budget which will be 6.7% lower incash 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 edgecapabilities 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 andthe second largest in the world after the USA. The UK is a world leader in the manufacture ofaircraft wings, and has a 35% market share in the sale of engines. Similarly, investment has madethe UK Defence industry the largest exporter of Defence and Security products to the UnitedStates 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 aninnovation climate, where research can be efficiently brought to exploitation. This is best done byaligning research with national strategies such as the National Aerospace Technology Strategy,which has been a successful partnership between Government, Industry and Academia, in definingresearch pathways that lead to the development of competitive products and exports that bringeconomic 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, suchthe Technology Strategy Board (including Technology and Innovation Centres and R&D TaxCredits, are supported at the right levels. Anything less risks the timely and efficient maturationof 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 simpleexample being that meteorological research saves money in the longer term if it helps to mitigateenvironmental damage. The point here is that research investment can not only create returns (asis 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 thegrowth agenda. The most effective investment is in areas where a market opportunity is clearly defined andwhere the UK already has a successful base of expertise. Such an approach will prioritise programmes that canbe 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 aligninvestment decisions on research with national strategies that are linked to business opportunities. One suchexample is the National Aerospace Technology Strategy, which defines the technologies that UK companiesneed 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 clustersand 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 PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC) budget.

1.6 To ensure the future competitiveness of ADS sectors, A|D|S believes that Science and Researchinvestment 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 spansmultiple Parliaments. The current freeze is in effect a real-term cut at a time when Science spending plans ofsimilarly developed countries is rising. A long-term outlook that shows growth will be attractive to internationalinvestors, 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 difficultto attract students to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. This could play outas a vicious circle which erodes the science base—making the UK a much less attractive place to invest forglobal businesses.

2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

2.1 The EPSRC’s budget will be cut by 12% in real terms over the CSR period. Its capital expenditure willdrop by £25 million. This equates to around half its current budget in this area, with its research grant fundingfalling by £61 million through to 2015.

2.2 Engineering and laboratory intensive courses employ more university resources than courses in the artsand humanities. This taxes the capital expenditure budget of universities, particularly those that have chosento maintain or grow their engineering and science offering. Combined, a falling intake and financial constraintswould 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 takingthem independently of one another. There is a risk of critical facilities being closed under this pattern that willdamage UK competitiveness. Industry proposes that a “UK National Strategy for Engineering Infrastructure”is required to identify facilities vital to UK competitiveness, ie, those that are needed to deliver nationalStrategies such as NATS and support large-scale technology demonstration activity, with a view to insulatingthem from further erosion.

2.4 EPSRC is conducting a review of facilities, but ADS recommends that a more strategic approach isrequired, as is greater partnership with industry, so that nascent technologies that are necessary for futuretechnologies 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 approachdoes however lead to duplication and waste. For example, there are 60 Nanotechnology Centres in the UK, itis questionable as to whether all are needed. Research councils must play a much greater role, with industryengagement 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 collaborativeCentres. This would be an efficient way of using resources and ensure that the relevant parties best cometogether to collaborate. A good example is the Advanced Simulation Research Centre (ASRC) in the SouthWest that brings together industry and academia around strategically important, exploitation driven,multidisciplinary research, that benefits multiple sectors (eg rail, marine, aerospace, wind energy in the caseof ASRC).

2.7 ESPRC has indicated that over 2011–15, it intends to increase its engagement with industry. A|D|Swelcomes this, but would caution that the current success rate of grant proposal is around one in six and likelyto be even lower with financial pressures. It is difficult for industry to sustain support (eg support to writingproposals, committing data/facilities/expertise). A|D|S proposes that mechanisms are put in place that wouldonly 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|Srepresents is the very strong interaction between public and private investment. Industrial R&D is madepossible and multiplied by public funding research and innovation. Cutting public funding for research lessensthe 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 researchersthrough 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 theNational 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 appliedtransparently. One way to achieve this is for Government to publish its rationale for its allocations to thevarious Research Councils. For example, if Government is fully supportive of a manufacturing sector-ledeconomic recovery and re-balancing—a sector that relies heavily on innovation in engineering—one mightexpect the EPSRC to be supported well as a result.

May 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited11/2011 011652 19585