Memorandum submitted by The Russell Group
(FC 67)
INTRODUCTION
The Russell Group is an association of 20 major
UK research-intensive universities. Collectively Russell Group
universities represent 12% of the higher education sector by number
and account for a significant proportion of the UK's research
base, employing 40% of academic staff and educating 56% of PhD
students. Russell Group universities are successful in winning
the majority of the competitively available funding for research
from a wide range of sources. Approximately two thirds of research
funding going into the university sector is won by Russell Group
institutions including 63% of research grants and contracts from
UK industry and commerce.[2]
The UK's leading universities are one of the
country's success stories. The UK is second only to the US in
terms of research productivity and punches well above its weight
although the UK public and private expenditure on R&D still
lags behind many other G7 nations. Leading research-intensive
universities provide a concentration of talent, state-of-the-art
facilities teaching and research, and offer a stimulating, competitive
and progressive environment to enable them to:
— Generate a significant volume of excellent
research.
— Provide first-class research-informed
teaching at undergraduate level.
— Deliver high-quality postgraduate training,
enabling PhD students to work together alongside researchers of
an internationally defined calibre.
— Act as a focal point for clusters of
knowledge intensive business activity.
— Stimulate inward investment.
— Offer international leadership and access
to international research networks.
— Promote and facilitate international
research.
Russell Group universities are international
institutions, whose research and teaching has a major impact on
the UK economy. Russell Group universities:[3]
— Have an estimated total economic output
of £25.3 billion per annum.
— Are responsible for supporting 237,000
jobs UK-wide.
— Are a successful UK export industry,
with overseas earnings of £3 billion per annum.
Maintaining an environment within the UK which
is conducive to science, research and innovation is essential
not only for the success of the economy but also to enabling the
UK's world-class universities to compete for academic talent,
the brightest students and R&D investment from the private
sector, charitable and other sources. This is recognised in Government's
framework for higher education, "Higher Ambitions"
which states "A key asset in attracting researchers and maintaining
the critical mass of our research activity is our clear public
commitment to science and research. Stable government funding
and support provides an essential foundation for science and research
base to plan and grow".
The Russell Group agrees, and welcomes the Government's
commitment in "Higher Ambitions" to the dual
support system for research and to the public funding of teaching
via independent Funding Councils. These are fundamental components
of the UK HE funding framework and are necessary to enable universities
(and other funders and collaborators) to plan, invest, and develop
sustainable partnerships over appropriate timescales. They are
also critical to maintaining UK and international stakeholder
confidence in the HE sector.
Whilst this inquiry focuses on the impact of
government spending cuts to science, engineering and technology,
the Russell Group would like to emphasise that the cuts announced
by the government to universities, science and research budgets
will inevitably have a significant impact on teaching and research
across the academic spectrum. The points raised below about the
impact of these funding cuts and the importance of concentrating
limited public funds on the very best UK research and teaching
in order to maintain the UK's world-class research base are as
applicable to the arts, humanities and social sciences as they
are to STEM subjects.
1. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
1.1 We recognise that the Government has made
major increases in investment in higher education and research
since 1997. This increased provision has included substantial
uplifts to the STEM-focused Research Councils, preferential weighting
of STEM subjects in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and
an additional £75 million in funding from HEFCE over the
years 2007-08 to 2009-10 to support the provision of very high
cost laboratory subjects (chemistry, physics, chemical engineering
and mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering). This additional
funding has helped Russell Group universities to maintain high
quality research and research-led teaching in these critically
important subjects.
1.2 The cuts in public spending for HE and research
announced in October 2008, in the 2009 budget, and in the pre-budget
report, and the annual grant letter to HEFCE in December 2009
amount to some £915 million. In December the STFC also announced
cuts of around £28 million per annum to its programmes in
order to balance its books. These cuts, which follow cuts to some
departmental R&D budgets and other reductions such as the
loss of funding for the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme
in England and Wales, are cumulatively eroding the sustainability
of the UK's leading universities. This is damaging their ability
to compete for resources and talent on the world stage and will
in time undermine UK competitiveness. Public finances are likely
to be squeezed substantially after the general election and the
outlook for universities is grim.
1.3 It is worth emphasising that whilst the
UK is cutting its public investment in universities, many competitor
countries are substantially increasing public investment in HE
and research and concentrating this funding on centres of excellence.
Countries such as the US and France are investing in higher education
as a means to prompt a swift, but sustainable, recovery from recession,
recognising that research underpins innovation and long-term economic
growth. Other countries, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Canada,
Denmark, and Germany, are investing selectively to create or strengthen
world-class universities with the aim of challenging the existing
world leaders for academic talent, students and resources, ultimately
boosting their nation's economic productivity.
1.4 In this climate, where resources are under
pressure and international competition is intensifying, public
investment must be prioritised on strengthening research centres
with world-class capability. "Higher Ambitions"
states that this approach is necessary to protect the UK's international
reputation for research excellence and to enable the UK to compete
successfully to attract the world's best researchers, brightest
students, and inward R&D investment. The framework emphasises
the need to support and protect the UK's "strongest, world-leading
centres of research" and that this should mean more concentration
of research and resources.
1.5 The Russell Group supports this view and
believes that it is important that SET policy and funding models
reflect this approach. This includes the REF assessment methodology,
as well as in the methods subsequently used to allocate QR funding
in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
1.6 We believe that discussions about strategic
priorities for public investment in higher education, science
and research should continue to be based on solid evidence and
analysis, and discussed in partnership between government, research
funders, business, and universities via Funding Council boards,
Research Councils' governing bodies, and national entities such
as the Funders Forum and the Council for Science and Technology.
This model has, on the whole, worked well over the last 10 years.
If further cuts in HE and research budgets cannot be avoided,
robust strategic thinking and re-prioritisation must be applied
across the UK research base. Early dialogue and debate will help
universities and other stakeholders to manage the risks more effectively
and to assess impacts, revise strategies, and re-prioritise objectives.
2. Evidence on the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research both from a historical
perspective (for QR funding) and looking to the future (for Research
Councils grants)
2.1 Government support for basic research is
an essential part of the UK innovation system. Public investment
in research generates a huge range of beneficial outputs and impacts
which underpin and contribute to the UK's long-term economic growth,
well-being and quality of life. Government also has a vital role
in creating a policy and regulatory environment and providing
signals and incentives to enable excellent research and innovation
to flourish. The introduction of measures to evaluate economic
impact more systematically and to use this information to inform
the distribution of public funding is a significant policy development
in this context.
2.2 As successful competitors for a substantial
volume of public funding, Russell Group universities share a commitment
to ensuring that the outputs from their research are disseminated
widely across the academic sector and beyond, and that efforts
are made to ensure that this research ultimately has an impact—whether
this be on teaching, society, culture or the economy. Further
information about these impacts is available in our forthcoming
publication "The economic impact of research conducted
in Russell Group universities".
2.3 Whilst it is appropriate that future public
investment in research recognises and rewards these efforts, the
quality of research must remain the paramount criterion used to
determine how funding is distributed if the UK is to maintain
its world-class research base. It is essential that both sides
of the dual support system continue to stimulate, incentivise,
and fund excellent, novel, high-risk fundamental research. It
is important that the introduction of impact assessment does not
result in a shift in funding to more conservative or more applied
research or give this perception. This matters because evidence
suggests that the highest quality research, particularly basic
research, is likely to have the most significant social and economic
impact over time. For example, from the Russell Group's recent
analysis of a number of commercialisation case studies, it is
clear that the majority of highly successful licences and spin-out
companies from Russell Group institutions have emerged from long-term
curiosity-driven research.
Impact assessment in the REF
2.4 The only realistic way to evaluate the impacts
of research is post-hoc, after the research has been completed;
outputs have been peer reviewed and disseminated; and intermediaries
or potential users have utilised, transformed, or integrated the
knowledge arising from the research into product or policy development
or some other kind of development activity. The timescale and
nature of this process is unpredictable, lengthy and often convoluted.
2.5 A variety of methods for evaluating the
impacts of research have been developed including econometric
or statistical analysis, bibliometric and citation analysis, use
of indicators, expert review, network analysis and/or case studies.
In selecting a method it is important to consider when impact
should be evaluated (how long after the research was conducted)
and at what level of aggregation (eg at the level of a programme,
research organisation or subject area). The answers to these questions
will depend on the purpose of the impact evaluation, for example
the need to demonstrate the overall benefits of public investment
in research; to review the effectiveness of an area of research,
programme or institute; and/or to inform future investment decisions.
2.6 In the US, assessment of the wider economic
and societal benefits of research is a common feature of post-programme
or periodic subject reviews undertaken by federal research funding
agencies or learned societies. Such reviews nearly always use
a case study approach to track and estimate the economic impacts
of technologies or areas of research over time and are primarily
used for STEM research eg
— National Institutes of Health economic
studies program (http://ospp.od.nih.gov/ecostudies/)
— American Council for Chemical Research
study "Measuring Up: R&D Counts for the Chemical Industry"
(http://www.ccrhq.org/publications)
— National Institute of Standards and Technology
"Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment"
(http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr03-857/contents.htm)
2.7 In the UK similar approaches are utilised
by the Research Councils, learned societies and universities to
evaluate and demonstrate the economic impacts of programmes, institutes
and areas of research eg
2.8 These kinds of studies are primarily a means
to demonstrate the long-term benefits of public investment in
broad areas of research, although the methodologies employed can
also be used to evaluate the long-term impacts of an institution
or a large research programme. These approaches are not well suited
to use in the REF because they tend to be tailored specifically
to the research being evaluated; are time consuming and expensive
to undertake, requiring the development of in-depth case studies
and the application of specialist economic or statistical analysis;
and tend not to be concerned about the attribution of research
impacts to university research groups—a key requirement
of REF impact assessment.
2.9 The Russell Group response to the Funding
Councils consultation on the REF, states that "it is important
that the REF encourages researchers to consider and pursue effective
means for exploiting their research whilst avoiding perverse incentives
which could discourage novel, unorthodox, or high-risk research"—including
the establishment of new research groups or collaborations. We
support the inclusion of an element of impact assessment in the
REF in principle, provided that a robust methodology can be developed,
which commands the confidence of the HE sector, research users
and other stakeholders. The Russell Group has specific concerns
about:
— Defining "impact":
the Funding Councils need to define what constitutes "impact"
and how this differs from the assessment of "significance"
under the research outputs component of the REF. Based on the
experience of the impact pilot projects, the Funding Councils
should develop and issue clear advice to the sector about the
definition of "impact" and give a range of examples.
— Linking impacts to excellent research:
because the purpose of the REF is to evaluate research excellence
and facilitate the allocation of QR (rather than to evaluate and
fund knowledge transfer or public engagement) it is essential
that impact assessment is explicitly linked to research activity
and research excellence. The impact pilot projects need to explore
ways to enable the panels to verify that the impact statements
and case studies submitted are based on excellent research.
— Attribution of impacts: the
exploitation of research is non-linear, often happens over a long
period of time, and involves multiple organisations and individuals,
many of whom are beyond the influence of the original researchers
or their institutions. The Russell Group believes that it is essential
that impacts are rooted in the research portfolio of the submitting
unit ie it is not acceptable for a third-party institution to
able to take someone else's excellent research, carry out non-research
activity to exploit this (eg collation of research findings) and
then be able to claim the impact as part of its REF submission.
The Funding Councils will need to address this issue and that
of attributing impacts from collaborative research and consortia
as part of the impact pilot projects
— Assessment period: a number of
studies (such as the Wellcome, AMRC and MRC study) show that the
period from research to impact is often in excess of 20 years.
As such we believe that the period of 10-15 years proposed in
the consultation is too short and would prefer each panel to be
given the flexibility to determine what is appropriate in each
discipline, subject to guidance about minimum timescales. If a
standard period is to be set then this should extend to 20 years
after the original research was conducted.
— The burden of impact assessment:
The Russell Group has concerns about the volume of work likely
to be involved in the development and assessment of impact submissions.
For example, if HEIs provide one case study for every five FTE
submitted this would equate to around 890 impact statements and
case studies in the engineering unit of assessment (UoA). Given
that impact assessment is being introduced for the first time
it will be important to evaluate the bulk of the evidence submitted,
and to demonstrate that a sufficiently broad group of expert users
have been consulted to enable realistic judgements to be formed
about the reach and significance of the impacts.
2.10 Eleven Russell Group universities are participating
in the REF impact pilot projects and are working with the Funding
Councils to address these challenges and develop a credible and
practical impact assessment methodology. Although these pilots
should go a considerable way to exploring and addressing the theoretical
and practical challenges of developing and using impact assessment,
these cover only 5 UoAs and outputs from this exercise are by
no means certain. Since impact assessment is a new and untested
component of the REF with no pre-existing methodology we believe
that we believe that impact should be introduced at a maximum
level of no more than 15% in the first REF. This should be accompanied
by a commitment to review the relative weighting of impact in
subsequent REF exercises in the light of practical experience.
This will help to manage the risks associated with introducing
a new and potentially destabilising element into the REF and to
help build the community's confidence in impact assessment. More
detail is provided in the Russell Group's response to the Funding
Councils on the development of the REF at: http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-groups-policies/
Research Councils' impact assessment
2.11 Funding research and postgraduate training,
and promoting and supporting the exploitation of research outcomes
to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the UK are core
parts of Research Councils' missions. As such it is both reasonable
and necessary that the Research Councils should seek to evaluate
the economic impact of their investments at a suitable point in
time after the research has been completed, reviewed and disseminated.
However, as indicated above, we do not believe that it is always
possible to predict the future impacts of basic research before
that research has been undertaken—if this were the case
the proposed research would fail to meet the peer review criteria
for excellent, innovative research.
2.12 Research Councils UK has published a statement
entitled "Expectations for Societal and Economic Impact"
which states that Research Councils expect award holders to "identify
potential benefits and beneficiaries from the outset, and through
the full life cycle of the project(s)". In April 2009, Research
Councils introduced a new peer review requirement asking applicants
for funding to predict who is likely to benefit from the proposed
research, how they might benefit, and the kinds of steps which
might be taken to increase the likelihood of the benefits being
realised. Applicants are also required to produce an impact plan
describing how the potential impacts of research will be realised.
Writing in THE, Professor Alan Thorpe, the chair of RCUK, said
that "Impact plans are not designed to ask peer reviewers
or applicants to predict future benefits; they are intended to
ensure that applicants consider potential pathways to impact".
2.13 Whilst the Russell Group agrees with the
RCUK chair that it is vital that the sector and funders work together
"to make a strong and persuasive case for continued investment
in research by the taxpayer", it is evident that the only
reliable and effective way to demonstrate the economic impact
of research investments is to evaluate this after that research
has taken place. It is reasonable to encourage recipients of Research
Council funding to consider who the eventual beneficiaries of
their research might be, and where appropriate, to take steps
to engage potential users and beneficiaries during the lifetime
of the research. However, given the long-term and unpredictable
pathways of research exploitation and substantial differences
in exploitation patterns in different subject areas, predicting
who these beneficiaries might be will not be feasible in every
case and applicants should not be encouraged to provide spurious
information.
2.14 The Russell Group is continuing to follow
closely the changes introduced by the Research Councils. We are
reassured that the guidance issued by Research Councils to applicants
and reviewers makes it clear that research excellence remains
the primary criterion for the peer review of proposals. We are
also reassured that some Research Councils (eg ESRC) have given
clear statements that excellent research proposals with no obvious
or immediate societal or economic impact will not be disadvantaged
in the peer review process and would like to see this message
reinforced by all of the Research Councils. We would like to see
greater clarity and consistency from Research Councils in their
communications about impact and expect them to monitor closely
and report how the introduction of impact statements affects both
applications submitted and peer review decision making to ensure
that it does not stifle funding for novel, unorthodox or highly
innovative research.
3. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
3.1 Many of the funding cuts summarised in paragraph
1.2 are very recent and their full impact on individual universities
and programmes may not be known for some time. For example, it
remains to be seen how HEFCE will choose to operationalise the
cuts announced in the December grant letter, and the impacts of
this will not be clear to individual English universities until
they receive their annual grant letters in March. However, HEFCE
has already announced that it will achieve some of the necessary
savings through the withdrawal of targeted allocations within
its teaching funding. This funding currently provides additional
support for the costs of old and historic buildings and some postgraduate
taught courses. Russell Group institutions stand to lose to £30
million per year from the withdrawal of these allocations.
3.2 Research-intensive Russell Group universities
already have diversified income streams and continue to perform
extremely well in the international sphere despite the disparity
in resources compared to competitor institutions in the US and
elsewhere. The potential impacts of the announced cuts in public
funding will fall across all elements of university activity and
individual universities will choose how best to manage these impacts
in light of their mission objectives. In the current climate it
will be increasingly difficult to secure additional funding from
private or charitable sources and cuts could potentially impact
on ability of Russell Group universities to compete internationally
for researchers, students and resources at a time when international
competition is increasing as a result of very substantial increases
in investment in research and postgraduate funding across the
US, Europe and in Asia. Potential impacts are summarised below:
Impact on research and collaboration
3.3 It is too soon to determine what the impact
of £915 million of funding cuts to HE and research might
have on Russell Group universities. Although the Secretary of
State's letter to HEFCE indicated a desire to protect research
funding, HEFCE has already agreed a reduction of £16 million
in QR in 2010-11. This could impact on charity support or business
research (both of which have a strong STEM focus). Cuts to the
HEFCE capital investment programme for research are likely to
mean that some Russell Group universities will have to reschedule
infrastructure renewal and development unless alternative funding
can be accessed eg the planned new biological and life sciences
building for the University of Bristol.
3.4 Russell Group universities use their competitively
won public funding to lever substantial income from commercial,
charitable and other funders for collaborative research and for
teaching. As well as the obvious impact of being able to support
less research and invest less in research infrastructure, reductions
in the public funding available for research creates uncertainty
amongst researchers and their collaborators, making it more difficult
to build the trust and relationships on which successful collaboration
and co-funding is based. Ultimately this could deter companies,
charities and others investing in research in the UK. Uncertainties
about future levels of funding and potential cuts also influence
the mobility choices of researchers, increasing the likelihood
that the best researchers currently in the UK may look to move
elsewhere. It will also be more difficult for research-intensive
universities to recruit and retain new talent from the UK and
overseas. Attracting and retaining these individuals is crucial
to the international competitiveness of research-intensive universities,
and their continuing ability to win income for research from a
diverse range of organisations.
Impact on recruiting postgraduates
3.5 The ability to attract the brightest postgraduate
research students from the UK and across the world is important
for Russell Group universities because it adds to an institution's
research productivity, brings in new perspectives, builds foundations
for future collaboration, and contributes towards creating an
international environment which benefits all students. Overseas
students also generate significant benefits in terms of fees income.
Russell Group universities are competing for postgraduate talent
in a global market place. Their competitiveness is based upon
offering high quality programmes which demonstrate high levels
of student satisfaction and lead to students acquiring knowledge,
competences and skills which they and employers value. Competition
is fierce and many other countries are offering an education in
English and financial incentives to attract talented postgraduates.
The anticipated loss of £16 million from QR funding could
result in less funding for postgraduate support, and the cuts
to capital funding for research will curtail investments in modernising
laboratory facilities and equipment. This will compound the losses
already being sustained by universities on some laboratory-based
doctoral programmes and the loss of the Overseas Research Students
Awards Scheme in England and Wales.
Impact on teaching
3.6 At the present time the major cost pressure
on universities is the funding for teaching and student support.
Research-intensive universities face specific cost pressures on
teaching. Russell Group universities seek to provide research-informed
teaching delivered by leading academics, providing access to top
quality equipment and resources whilst maintaining a low student:staff
ratio. This kind of educational experience is costly, particularly
for laboratory-based subjects. The case study at section 9 gives
an indication of the funding gaps involved. The additional funding
from HEFCE to support high cost science subjects outside the mainstream
teaching grant is currently due to end in 2009-10. The withdrawal
of this funding will have very serious consequences for Russell
Group universities, because in many cases the mainstream teaching
funding fails to adequately recognise the full cost incurred in
teaching laboratory-based science subjects.
3.7 Whilst BIS has sought to minimise the reduction
in teaching grant funding, the reductions in the capital budget
for teaching will impact on universities' abilities to renew and
upgrade laboratory facilities and equipment, libraries, collections,
and other teaching and learning facilities which underpin high-quality
undergraduate provision. Capital projects are likely to be scaled
back or postponed. This is likely to disproportionately impact
upon STEM subjects which are more dependent upon access to expensive
laboratory facilities and equipment.
3.8 Russell Group universities have a strong
track record in increasing cost effectiveness and are focused
on pursing new and innovative ways in which to deliver greater
cost efficiency and higher levels of productivity. For example,
by leading or participating in a number of HEFCE's feasibility
studies to investigate innovative uses of shared services and
resources. Russell Group universities recognise that their administrations
will need to continue to respond flexibility to these challenging
and changing circumstances, with a renewed emphasis on sustainability
and drive for efficiencies across all parts of their business.
As noted by Price Waterhouse Coopers in their report "Weathering
the Storm: Coping with financial challenge in the HE sector",
many of the "easy" savings have already been realised.
The extent to which further efficiency savings can be made without
a negative impact on the teaching quality or the international
research competitiveness of the UK's leading universities is questionable.
The continued drive for improved efficiency has the potential
to be counter-productive, if, for example, it results in the loss
of ability to attract and retain leading academic staff and the
brightest students.
4. The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
4.1 Russell Group universities competitively
win around 70% of STFC's annual research grant funding to the
university sector (£96 million in 2007-08) and host many
of the UK's leading particle physics and astronomy research groups
(66% of research active physicists in UK universities are at Russell
Group institutions). Russell Group universities are also major
players in the provision of postgraduate education in the areas
supported by STFC eg 11 out of the 19 UK HEIs offering postgraduate
provision in astronomy and space science are Russell Group institutions,
as are 5 out of 6 UK HEIs offering postgraduate nuclear physics,
and 9 out of the 16 HEIs offering particle physics at masters
or doctoral level. 69% of postgraduate research students studying
physics or astronomy are at Russell Group universities.
4.2. We commend the efforts of STFC to consult
widely with the academic community as part of its latest prioritisation
exercise and welcome the clear statement given by the Council
about its future priorities. The budget cuts however are substantial
and the loss of excellent research that would have been supported
is regrettable. These cuts and the continuing uncertainty about
the future funding of the particle physics and astronomy research
in the UK have a number of implications for Russell Group universities.
Impact on research, collaboration and the UK's reputation
as a partner in international particle physics and astronomy projects
4.3 The withdrawal of funding from a number
of international projects will have a major impact on the UK research
groups working on these projects (eg researchers at the Universities
of Glasgow and Edinburgh contributing to the anti-Proton ANnihilation
at DArmstadt (PANDA) project, and the researchers at the University
of Birmingham who are the only UK group involved in Accelerators
and Lasers Combined Experiments ALICE, one of the major experiments
at the Large Hadron Collider). Withdrawal from these projects
hampers the ability of UK research groups to lever new funds for
collaboration and also raises questions about the reliability
of the UK as an international partner, which will inevitably colour
negotiations for future international research projects.
Ability to attract and retain leading physicists
and astronomer
4.4 The Russell Group was critical of STFC's
decision to cut 25% of its funding for postgraduate students and
fellowships from 2010-11 because of the adverse impact on students
and early career researchers. The decision by STFC's Education,
Training and Careers Committee to preserve as far as possible
funding for PhD students and funding for advanced fellowships
(for outstanding researchers) is welcome. However, this comes
at the expense of support for early career researchers, with no
postdoctoral fellowships being awarded in 2010, a move which could
well drive UK talent abroad. Researchers in the particle physics
and astronomy fields are highly mobile and a high proportion of
those working in the UK are foreign nationals (the Institute of
Physics estimates between 32%-40% of physics researchers in UK
and Ireland are from the EU and 16%-20% are other overseas nationals).
As the University of Leeds has indicated in its evidence, some
astronomers and solar system physicists may leave the UK to pursue
their research in countries where funding is more secure and where
they will be able to work in research groups which continue to
participate in international projects. Attracting high calibre
replacements will be challenging in the current climate and some
institutions may choose to withdraw from areas of research if
the excellence cannot be maintained.
Ability to attract the brightest postdoctoral students
4.5 Paragraph 3.5 above outlines the importance
of attracting overseas postgraduate students to Russell Group
universities. Whilst STFC's recent decision to limit the reduction
in PhD studentships from 25% to 15% goes some way to alleviating
immediate concerns, sustainable, long-term investment in research,
university infrastructure, and postgraduate education remains
fundamental to maintaining the UK's reputation and market position.
Ability to attract students to study physics and
astronomy at undergraduate level
4.6 Loss of researchers and expertise could
curtail the breadth of undergraduate physics degrees in Russell
Group universities, which are dependent upon research-informed
teaching. The funding cuts and their coverage may also deter students
from pursuing courses in these areas. Russell Group universities
report comments from parents and potential students about whether
it is "worth studying physics or astronomy".
5. The scope of the STFC review announced on 16
December and currently underway
5.1 The Russell Group welcomed the announcement
by the Science Minister of a review of the STFC. Academics from
Russell Group universities are actively participating in the on-going
debate. We would like the review to explore how best to determine
the UK's strategic priorities for participation in major international
research programmes and facilities and to look at alternative
ways of funding UK participation to tension these priorities more
effectively against support for the UK's research base. As indicated
above, a solution needs to be found which enables priorities to
be tensioned against each other strategically and does not simply
result in the brunt of any currency fluctuations or cost overruns
falling on university research funding simply because making cuts
to university budgets is the simplest short-term solution for
funding agencies.
6. The operation and definition of the science
budget ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be
a similar ring-fence for the HEFCE research budget and departmental
research budgets
6.1 The science budget is a unique, UK-wide
source of public funding for fundamental, curiosity-driven research.
Via competitive peer review it provides the UK's very best researchers
with the funding, postgraduate research students, equipment and
facilities to pursue cutting-edge research across the full range
of academic disciplines. The public investment in the science
budget is also a powerful lever helping to attract £1,540
million of research investment into the UK HEI sector each year
from business, charities, the EU and other overseas funders. The
research undertaken with this funding generates new ideas and
knowledge that will ultimately drive forward human understanding,
deliver new products, goods and services, and inform public policy
contributing to economic prosperity, quality of life and well-being.
International comparisons show that UK universities are highly
efficient centres of research, with the UK generating more citations
per unit of R&D spend and more citations per researcher than
any other G8 country. Maintaining investment in the science budget
at a time when the private sector is scaling back investment in
R&D and charitable funders are slowing or deferring research
funding is essential to maintain the international competitiveness
of research-intensive universities and their contribution to productivity
and growth.
6.2 Research of this kind is by its very nature
a long-term and incremental investment, which operates on a timescale
beyond an annual budgeting cycle, a three year spending review
or five year Parliament. The ring-fence around the Science Budget
(and that around the single health research fund) provides a clear
commitment of the Government's strategic intent to invest in basic
research and enables Ministers, Government and academia to work
together to define and commit to long-term overarching research
priorities. This national commitment and broad predictability
of funding (protected from short-term political pressures) gives
academics, universities and potential research funding partners
and collaborators from the UK and overseas a high-degree of confidence
in the stability of the UK research environment. For private sector,
charitable and overseas funders and collaborators in particular,
stable, long-term public funding for research and research infrastructure
lowers the risks associated with collaboration and is a critical
factor in their selection of the UK as a partner of choice.
6.3 Universities are facing the challenge of
operating in an environment where public funding will be tightened.
Greatest pressure is likely to be around student support (see
question 9) and maintaining the unit of resource for teaching
funding. Enabling research-intensive universities to continue
to compete for and deliver excellent, basic research in this difficult
environment is critical to achieving the Government's ambitions
for maintaining the international competitiveness of the UK's
research base. The ring-fence around the science budget provides
a continuing guarantee not only to the universities, but also
to funding agencies and potential collaborators of the long-term
stability and security of public investment in the UK's research
intensive universities.
6.4 Research funded by Government Departments
is primarily commissioned for specific policy purposes and funded
on a contractual basis. Whilst Departments and Research Councils
collaborate to co-fund basic research in key policy areas, it
is important to continue to maintain departmental R&D budgets
to avoid further erosion of Science Budget funding for basic research.
The Russell Group would like to encourage greater visibility of
the funding available for research and greater transparency about
the research priorities likely to be supported—particularly
in relation to research which is subject to open competition or
tender. Publication of information about the volume of funding
available for research from individual departments and their agencies
would be highly valuable, and would also help to encourage effective
cross-government collaboration between departments, Research Councils
and the TSB.
7. Whether the government is achieving the objectives
it set out in the "Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014:
Next Steps" including, for example, making progress on the
supply of high-quality STEM graduates to achieve its overall ambitions
for UK science and innovation
Maintaining the UK's world-class university system
7.1 The RAE has been integral to enhancing the
quality of the UK research base. The Next Steps document included
recommendations to develop a metrics-based RAE to "maintain
the UK's world-class university system".
7.2 The results of the 2008 RAE demonstrated
that Russell Group universities continue to excel both in terms
of the consistently high quality of researchers and also in the
sheer volume of excellent research. Twice as much of the research
conducted within Russell Group universities was rated as 4*, compared
with the rest of the sector. However, the new methodology introduced
in the 2008 RAE and subsequent allocation of QR funding in England
and Wales saw a much wider dispersal of research funding across
the HE sector than in previous years. A number of Russell Group
universities saw a decrease of QR funding in cash terms of between
1% and 13%. In real terms, in 2009-10 half of the Russell Group
of universities saw either a flat or reduced allocation of QR
research funding compared to 2008-09. This means that despite
a 5.6% increase in QR funding, only half of the Russell Group
universities received any benefit from this increase despite the
fact that most improved their performance, in some cases significantly
eg LSE and the University of Manchester.
7.3 "Higher Ambitions" is clear
that now more than ever the UK's research-led institutions have
a crucial role to play in helping the country to recover from
the economic downturn. It sets out the Government's commitment
to supporting and protecting the UK's "strongest, world-leading
centres of research", and recognises that in a climate of
scarce resources public investment must be prioritised on strengthening
research centres with world-class capability and that this should
mean more concentration of research and resources. This is necessary
to protect the UK's international reputation for research excellence
and to enable the UK to compete successfully to attract the world's
best researchers, brightest students, and inward R&D investment.
The Russell Group believes that it is important that the REF reflects
this agenda in its assessment methodology and in the methods used
subsequently to allocate QR funding. The REF should recognise
and reward the very highest levels of excellence in research,
and should avoid driving a growth in volume of lower quality research.
7.4 Higher concentrations of research excellence
help to maximise the impact of research and provide a rich environment
for training and developing post-graduate researchers. Critical
mass within an institution is also the foundation for innovative,
interdisciplinary research collaborations that are key to solving
global challenges. The REF needs to recognise and reward such
concentrations of excellence, particularly where this involves
interdisciplinary collaboration. More information is provided
in the Russell Group's response to the Funding Councils on the
development of the REF, as referenced at paragraph 2.10.
Improving STEM skills and the supply of scientists
7.5 Highly skilled STEM graduates are essential
to the future prosperity of the UK. Recent government consultations,[4]
as well as the wage premium which STEM graduates continue to command
in the marketplace,[5]
show that demand for STEM qualified graduates remains high amongst
UK business and industry. Employers continue to report difficulties
in recruiting sufficient numbers of STEM graduates.[6]
The Russell Group response to Sir Mark Walport's review of science
and learning for DCSF sets out the concerns of our institutions
about the supply of qualified applicants to STEM degree courses
and provides evidence of the work that universities are doing
with schools and colleges to try and address these issues.[7]
7.6 The supply of STEM qualified graduates depends
on the supply of students choosing to study STEM subjects at A-level
or equivalent. Although the commitments made by the government
in the Next Steps document were a welcome move towards boosting
STEM skills, concerns remain about the continued long-term decline
in the numbers of students studying core STEM subjects such as
physics, chemistry and maths, at A-level. Over the period 1989
to 2008 entries have fallen by 22% in maths, 36% in physics and
13% in chemistry despite total A-level entries soaring.[8]
Take up of A-level STEM subjects is showing some improvement with
maths, further maths, physics and chemistry A-levels all seeing
an increase in 2009 in both total number of candidates and those
achieving grade A (Source: JCQ Results 2009). However, as a proportion
of total A-level candidates, science candidates have remained
largely static (Source: Cambridge Assessment, A valid overview
of entries in schools and colleges, 2009). It is important
that growth in numbers of A-level STEM entrants is maintained
through reinforcing policy commitments, increasing the number
of specialist STEM teachers and increasing the numbers students
at state schools taking triple science at GCSE and then progressing
to A-level STEM subjects:
— Despite small increases in the uptake
of STEM subjects at A-level, this increase is skewed towards independent
and grammar school pupils, where the number of students studying
at least one STEM subject at A-level far outweighs the numbers
at comprehensive schools.[9]
This makes it challenging for Russell Group universities to recruit
larger numbers of state school pupils into STEM courses where
there is high demand and stiff competition for places. This remains
a significant barrier to widening participation at Russell Group
universities.
— Taking separate sciences at GCSE is an
important stepping stone to progression and success in A-level
sciences. However, there are inequalities of opportunity in this
respect, with less than a third of non-selective maintained schools
having pupils taking separate or "triple" science at
GCSE.[10]
The Government's commitment that all able[11]
state school pupils will be afforded the opportunity of studying
separate sciences at GCSE is welcome and needs to be reinforced
to ensure that this opportunity is more widely available and take-up
encouraged.
— High quality teaching in schools is also
a pre-requisite to more able students going on to study STEM subjects
at university. The Government's commitment to recruit more chemistry,
physics and maths specialists into teaching is welcome. Equally
important is that good teachers are retained in the profession.
Progress in these areas is essential if all students are to have
equal opportunity to learn science and maths from well-qualified,
specialist teachers. The differences between schools can be significant.
For example, physics teachers in comprehensive schools are far
less likely to have a degree in physics than their peers in the
independent sector. If disparities of this kind remain it will
continue to be challenging for universities to recruit larger
numbers of state school pupils to STEM degrees.
8. Whether the extra student support, which the
Government announced on 20 July 2009 for 10,000 higher education
places, delivered students in STEM courses
8.1 The Russell Group supports the Government's
longstanding aim that more students should have the opportunity
to benefit from going to university. However, to maintain the
confidence of students, parents, employers and others in the value
of a university education it is important that the high quality
of the teaching and learning experience is maintained. Sustainable
public investment coupled with prudent financial management in
universities is needed to ensure that the quality of provision
is maintained in the longer term.
8.2 STEM subjects such as chemistry and engineering
are particularly expensive to teach because of the need to provide
hands-on access to modern laboratory facilities and equipment.
Many Russell Group universities are teaching these subjects at
a loss (see case study below). Most English Russell Group universities
decided not to take up the offer of extra student places for STEM
subjects in 2009-10 because of the lack of additional government
funding for teaching and concerns about the impact that this could
have on maintaining teaching quality. Whilst this has delivered
some limited growth in recruitment to STEM degrees, in the absence
of corresponding funding from HEFCE for the teaching of these
students, there remain serious concerns about the lack of sustainable
funding for these places.
9. The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students
9.1 The Secretary of State's Grant letter to
HEFCE on 22 December 2009 outlined a further £135 million
of cuts on the overall funding council support for universities
in England, on top of previous cuts of £180 million which
were announced for 2009-10. The combined effect of these cuts
is a reduction in the HEFCE funded grant for teaching of £215
million. According to the figures quoted in the grant letter,
this will result in a reduction of the planned unit of resource
from £4,140 to £3,950.
9.2 As indicated at paragraph 3.6 research-intensive
universities face specific cost pressures on teaching. The case
study below provides an example of the income gap which one Russell
Group university has experienced in teaching chemistry.
Case study: the cost of teaching undergraduate
chemistry student X at an English Russell Group university in
2007-08. The student:staff ratio for chemistry at this institution
is just over 13:1
— Cost of teaching (per undergraduate
FTE): £14,190 per annum
— Income received per student:.
— Funding Council grant: £7,500[12]
— Total = £10,570 per annum
— Loss = £3,620 per undergraduate
FTE per annum.
(1) Based on HEFCE standard resource for chemistry
in 2008-09 plus additional targeted allocations/weightings.
9.3 The reduction in the overall unit of resource
will only exacerbate this situation. Since STEM subjects receive
funding within the HEFCE T-funding model based on a weighting
of the "standard resource" an overall reduction in the
unit of resource could have a proportionately greater impact on
these subjects. However, as indicated above, HEFCE has not yet
indicated how it will make the savings that it has been asked
to make in the teaching grant for 2010-11. Therefore, it is too
early to comment on what the impact of those cuts will be on STEM
education in particular. Moreover, individual institutions will
make their own decisions concerning the budgets of individual
science and other departments, based on the overall financial
position of the university.
February 2010
2 2007-08 HESA data show that 68% of Research Council
funding going into the HE sector was won by Russell Group universities,
with Russell Group universities also securing 62% of Funding Council
investment. Back
3
Data derived from the Universities UK report "The Economic
Impact of HEIs". Back
4
The Demand for STEM Graduates, DIUS, CIHE, ETB and IER,
January 2009. Back
5
See, for example: (1) 1994 Group (2008). Graduate Employment
and Earnings: are universities meeting student expectations? London:
1994 Group; (2) PricewaterhouseCoopers (2005). "The economic
benefits of higher education qualifications". Rates of return
in comparison with those that left school with only two "A"
levels. Back
6
Emerging stronger, CBI/Nord Anglia education and skills survey
2009; ABPI (2008) "Skills needs for Biomedical Research":
http://www.abpi.org.uk/publications/pdfs/2008STEM_Skills_Report.pdf Back
7
Russell Group response to DCSF consultation on science and learning,
Sept 2009. Back
8
JCQ entry trends-A, AS, AEA Tables. Back
9
Less than 1 in 10 students take 1+ science A-level in mainstream
and science specialised schools compared with 1 in 3 at grammar
and independent (Source: House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee, 10th report of session, 2005-06, Science Teaching in
Schools, Evidence from DfES. Back
10
Coyne M, Goodfellow J M Report to the Secretary of State, DIUS,
on universities' links with schools in STEM subjects (September
2008). Back
11
The commitment applies to all pupils achieving level 6 or above
in science at key stage 2 (age 14). Back
12
The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation
& Skills; Grant letter to HEFCE, 22 December 2009 (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/HEFCE/2009/grant1011/letter.htm) Back
| 
