APPENDIX 4
Memorandum from the Save British Science
Society
1. Save British Science is pleased to submit
this evidence in advance of the Committee's scrutiny session on
RCUK. SBS is a voluntary organisation campaigning for the health
of science and technology throughout UK society, and is supported
by over 1,500 individual members, and some 70 institutional members,
including universities, learned societies, venture capitalists,
financiers, industrial companies and publishers.
2. Although SBS believes strongly in the
need for the Research Councils to work together where appropriate,
we were never convinced that there should have been a need for
the creation of RCUK. Its formation had the appearance of being
a reaction to the perception that the Government needed to "do
something" in response to the last quinquennial review of
the Research Councils. This impression was somewhat strengthened
when the former Director General of the Research Councils said
in his speech at the launch of RCUK that all it needed as a new
logo and a new website.
3. Nevertheless, we accept that cross-Council
collaboration was not as strong as it could have been and that,
in a world where interdisciplinary science is increasingly important,
partnerships between Councils are a more crucial part of the research
funding landscape than they have ever been. For this reason, we
have not openly criticised the formation of RCUK, in the hope
that whatever the costs, it would begin to address this challenge.
4. We believe that it may be too soon to
judge effectively whether RCUK is in fact helping the Research
Councils to work together, but we believe that the costs of at
least some of its activities are not fully justified.
5. In 1997, just 2% of the Science Vote
was administered centrally by the Office of Science and Technology
rather than by the individual Research Councils. Now, some 23%
of the budget is decided centrally. The effect of this rapidly
increasing central spending is that, while the Science Vote as
a whole has increased by 68% in real terms, the individual Research
Councils have not seen similar increases.[1]
6. The Engineering and Physical Science
Research Council has seen an increase of just 6% in its budget
over the same time. Like all the Research Councils, it has also
been given extra responsibilities, with the overall effect that
the percentage of physics grant applications that have been successful
has fallen from 48% in 2000 to 29% today. This decline is not
due to increasing demand, because the number of applications has
fallen by 20% over the same timeframe.[2]
7. With scientific research appearing to
suffer cuts while the Government is unquestionably investing very
large and increasing sums of taxpayers' money in science, any
new costs, such as those associated with RCUK, must be rigorously
justified.
8. RCUK probably makes up a very small proportion
of the centrally administered funds (the bulk of which are presumably
infrastructure funding awarded under the Science Research Investment
Fund), but in a situation where funding will always be tight,
all costs must be justified. SBS believes that, in at least some
cases, that is not currently possible.
9. For example, towards the end of 2003,
RCUK produced two glossy brochures entitled A Vision for Research
and A Synthesis of Strategies. These documents were completely
at odds with what RCUK should have been doing.
10. The culmination of the two documents
was a list of research questions that that "the Research
Councils will be working to solve in the next few years".
The list includes questions ranging from "What is gravitation?"
to "What does it mean to be a citizen of the expanding European
Community [sic]?"
11. It is absurd to propose that officials
in Swindon can dictate that where Newton and Einstein reached
the barrier of their genius, the Research Councils will nevertheless
"solve" the question "What is gravity?" within
the next few years. Whatever theoretical and experimental breakthroughs
are taking place at the moment, it remains an extraordinary claim.
And while it may be desirable to understand the effects of increasing
the size of the European Union, if it is important for public
policy, the question should be addressed by the relevant ministry
(presumably the Foreign Office, which unfortunately has no research
budget at all).
12. No doubt it could be argued that the
list of questions came from the Research Community itself. But
it was only constructed because RCUK decided that, for the first
time in history, the Research Councils would predetermine the
specific questions for which researchers in the science base would
be granted funding.
13. The Haldane Principle is breaking down.
In the case of the Research Councils, it is supposed to mean that
the individual Councils, with their own Royal Charters, make funding
decisions based on the needs and priorities of the research community.
Now questions are being dictated by RCUK, a body that until recently
was presided over by a central official.
14. SBS applauds the decision of the current
Director General of the Research Councils not to chair the strategy
committee of RCUK. We hope he is signalling an intention to restore
some measure of the Councils' independence. That the Government
perceived a need for RCUK in the first place was a sign of how
far attitudes have changed to the independence of the science
community.
15. In addition to the need for coordination
of scientific work, the Research Councils could usefully coordinate
more of their administration. For example, as SBS understands
the situation, each Research Council has its own central functions,
such as personnel departments, press offices etc. Financial savings
could no doubt be made by sharing resources in these areas. A
central coordinating body that achieved this would free up funds
for science, making the Research Councils even more efficient
than they undoubtedly are already.
16. It is not our intention to be unremittingly
negative and to give the impression that we believe RCUK's work
is all a waste of time and money. However, we do believe that
there is much more to be done if its expenditure is to be fully
justified to the scientific community, to the taxpayer, and of
course to Parliament.
January, 2005
1 Forward Look 2003: Government funded science, engineering
and technology, DTI, 2003. Back
2
Physics World, November 2004, pp.9-10. Back
| 
