1 Introduction
1. The Science and Technology Committee is appointed
by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration
and policy of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and its
associated bodies. One of OST's principal roles is to oversee
science and technology policy across Government. The Committee
explores this aspect of OST's work by inquiring into the work
of other Government departments where their policies have a significant
science and technology dimension. Universities fall within the
remit of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). However,
the provision of university science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) courses, and the resulting supply of STEM graduates,
has a significant impact on the health of the UK's Science and
Engineering Base (SEB) in particular, and on the national economy
in general.[1] Our decision
to inquire into strategic science provision in English universities
was based on the premise that good scientific education leads
to a thriving scientific and innovative culture. This Report builds
our earlier Report on Science Education from 14 to 19,
which looked at science teaching at secondary school level.[2]
As is outlined in chapter 4, many of the recommendations of this
earlier Report would, if successfully implemented, lead to an
increase in the number of students choosing to study STEM subjects
at university, and consequently in the supply of STEM graduates
entering the workforce.
2. Education is a devolved issue: university funding
is distributed via the four national funding councils, of which
the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is one.
Although many of the issues explored in our inquiry are undoubtedly
applicable to university STEM departments in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, our conclusions and recommendations are confined
to universities in England. Where a policy area is not devolved,
for example trade and industry, the Report refers to the UK as
a whole.
3. The Committee announced its inquiry into strategic
science provision in English universities on 21 December 2004.[3]
The inquiry was launched in response to a number of closures of
university STEM departments. In particular, in November 2004,
Exeter University announced that it would close its chemistry
department, a decision that was subsequently questioned in Parliament.
Other disciplines, notably some modern languages, have experienced
departmental closures too.[4]
In this inquiry we have looked at the issue of strategic science
provision as a whole, and have not dealt with individual departmental
closures.
4. The Committee's terms of reference for the inquiry
were:
- The impact of HEFCE's research
funding formulae, as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings,
on the financial viability of university science departments;
- The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend;
- The implications for university science teaching
of changes in the weightings given to science subjects in the
teaching funding formula;
- The optimal balance between teaching and research
provision in universities, giving particular consideration to
the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
departments;
- The importance of maintaining a regional capacity
in university science teaching and research; and
- The extent to which the Government should intervene
to ensure continuing provision of subjects of strategic national
or regional importance; and the mechanisms it should use for this
purpose.
5. In the course of our inquiry we held four oral
evidence sessions. At these sessions we took evidence from:
- a panel of students, the Higher
Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and HEFCE on 7 February 2005;
- OST, Research Councils UK (RCUK), the Regional
Development Agencies (RDAs) and the Association for University
Research and Industry Links (AURIL) on 28 February 2005;
- a panel representing learned societies and the
Association of University Teachers (AUT) on 2 March 2005; and
- a panel of university Vice Chancellors and a
Minister from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on
9 March 2005.
The transcripts of these sessions are published with
this Report, along with the 98 written submissions we received
in response to our call for evidence and as answers to supplementary
written questions. We would like to place on record our thanks
to OST and DfES for their prompt and helpful responses to our
many queries throughout the course of this inquiry. We would also
like to thank our specialist adviser, Professor Michael Elves,
formerly the Director of the Office of Scientific and Educational
Affairs at Glaxo Wellcome Plc.
Time constraints
6. Strategic science provision in English universities
is a weighty and complex subject. Many of the individual issues
raised in our terms of reference, and that arose subsequently
during the course of the inquiry, could form the basis for entire
Reports in themselves. By contrast, the time available for the
Committee to conduct its inquiry has been limited by our aim to
publish a Report before the Dissolution of Parliament, widely
expected to take place in April 2005. This Report is necessarily
concise and we acknowledge that we have not been able to pursue
every thread of our inquiry as fully as we would have liked had
time permitted. The Committee was, however, fortunate that the
bulk of the evidence that it took, both orally and in writing,
revealed a broad consensus on many of the key issues relating
to the provision of STEM disciplines in English universities.
Whilst it has not been possible in the time available to make
reference in the body of the Report to every aspect of the evidence
that we collected, the basis for our conclusions and recommendations
can clearly be traced in the material published in volume II.
Working assumptions
7. Throughout the inquiry we have heard many calls
for extra funding to be injected into the university system to
support the provision of STEM subjects at both undergraduate and
postgraduate levels. Many submissions saw this as key to the continuing
financial viability and academic excellence of university STEM
departments. However, we believe that it is extremely unlikely
that the Government will commit to further increasing the value
of the total pot of money available to such departments in the
immediate future. Indeed, in oral evidence, Dr Kim Howells MP,
Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education
in the Department for Education and Skills, told us that "we
are increasing the quantum but in a way that it has never been
increased by any other government previously. […] The universities
have never had more cash than they have got now".[5]
Given the
unlikelihood of increased overall funding, this Report focuses
on ways in which existing funds can be used more effectively to
ensure good provision of STEM subjects in English universities.
1 Throughout this Report, the acronym STEM has been
used to refer comprehensively to science, technology, engineering
and mathematics. The same acronym is sometimes used elsewhere
to refer to science, technology, engineering and medicine.
We have used chosen to use this particular acronym to avoid the
pitfalls caused by usage of the terms STM (science, technology,
medicine) and "science", which are sometimes perceived
to exclude key disciplines (for example, mathematics). Back
2
Third Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2001-02, Science Education from 14 to 19 (HC 508) Back
3
Press notice 12 of Session 2004-05. Back
4
Exeter University also announced that it would close its Italian
and music departments. Back
5
Q 495 Back
|
