House of Commons - The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research

The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research - Science and Technology Committee Contents

3 Demonstrating impact

23. When he gave evidence to us on 3 February, Professor Brian Cox drew attention to the 1996 review commissioned by the Treasury of The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance by the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex.[42] On the issue of assessing the economic benefits arising from investment in science, the review concluded that:

Virtually all [studies of the impact of research on productivity] have found a positive rate of return, and in most cases the figure has been comparatively high. However, these attempts have been beset with both measurement difficulties and conceptual problems such as the assumption of a simple production function model of the science system.

[...]

One can attempt to estimate the rate of return to basic research but only on the basis of very questionable assumptions. [Edwin] Mansfield's work suggests that there is a very substantial rate of return, but the precise figure he arrives at (28%) is open to some doubt.[43]

24. That review also suggested that "Government expectations about the benefits from basic research are changing. A new 'social contract' is emerging in which there are more specific expectations that basic research should generate economic and social benefits in return for the substantial public funds that it receives".[44] Lord Drayson confirmed that the idea of a social contract did influence Government policy in this area, when he told us that "this is taxpayers' money [...] researchers should expect to be part of a process which ensures that that taxpayers' money has the biggest impact that it possibly can have for the benefit of the country, whether that is economic, or social, or what have you".[45]

25. The so-called "impact agenda", as referred to in several of the memoranda we received,[46] has long been the policy of the Research Councils. Professor Thorpe reminded us that it was "not for nothing that our [Research Councils UK's] strap line is excellence with impact, because that has actually characterised the last 20 years up to now".[47] In its memorandum, Universities UK referred to "accusations that include the emergence of an 'instrumentalist' approach to funding research and that there is too great a focus on research as an economic driver".[48] It was nevertheless persuaded that:

moves by the Research Councils and HEFCE have, however, sought to foster a system which incentivises impact at every opportunity rather than seeking to redirect research funding into particular areas that have an immediate or apparent impact, economic or otherwise. In this regard the debate has, to an extent, unfortunately become distorted and artificially polarised.[49]

26. The question of impact arose in two separate contexts in the course of our inquiry. The first was in HEFCE's proposals for a replacement for the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), the process by which the excellence of research in universities is assessed. Proposals for the new assessment, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) include a retrospective measure of impact weighted at 25% of the overall assessment. The second context in which impact arose was the Research Councils' grant application forms. The forms invite researchers to "add to their case for support by describing the potential impact of their work, and pathways towards realising that, under the following headings [academic beneficiaries, impact summary, impact plans]".[50]

The Research Excellence Framework

27. Funding of research activities within the higher education sector takes place under a system of "dual support". HEFCE provides grants to support infrastructure and running costs, while the Research Councils, the EU, charities and Government fund specific projects. HEFCE allocates grants on the basis of quality-related research funding (QR). The quality of research was until recently assessed through the RAE, an exercise which was held roughly quadrennially between 1986 and 2008. The REF will place greater emphasis upon the "impact" of research to the economy, society, public policy, culture and quality of life. The proposals attracted significant comment in the memoranda we received.

28. Opinion was split on the merits of the inclusion of impact. The majority of organisations representing the universities broadly welcomed the proposals, albeit with some caveats.[51] The concern expressed over the inclusion of impact in the REF fell into three camps: those who thought 25% was too great a weighting to place on an untested measure;[52] those who disputed the feasibility of assessing impact at all;[53] and those who postulated a 'hierarchy of impacts', with economic benefits being prioritised over all others.[54] In its memorandum, HEFCE acknowledged that "concerns were raised by some academic associations and the University and College Union (UCU) about the potential adverse consequences of using impact as an element in assessment", and set out the steps it was taking to address them.[55] It is conducting a pilot involving 29 Higher Education (HE) institutions and five expert panels, comprising leading academics and research user representatives from the private, public and third sectors".[56] The outcome of the pilot exercises are expected in the autumn,[57] although it is not anticipated that impact will be dropped as one of the criteria.

29. We raised the issue of the inclusion of retrospective assessments of impact within the REF with the witnesses at our session science within HE on 10 February. Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of HEFCE, suggested that it was "perfectly reasonable for the Higher Education Funding Council, that has a long-term commitment to the sustainability of the research infrastructure, to look back, to determine what has been achieved and to take account of that in our resource allocation process".[58] He recognised the concerns of "a group of physicists who are doing very fundamental work who see difficulty in this", but countered that there was "enthusiasm out there, certainly amongst young scientists, to be thinking in these terms nowadays".[59] Speaking on behalf of the University and College Union, Dr Alastair Hunter told us that, whilst the UCU "had no problem in principle with the idea that you can look at historic impact", "the difficulty with that is how it would fit into current allocations".[60]

30. When we asked the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property (Rt Hon David Lammy MP) about the proposals to include impact within the REF, he did not express a view, stating rather that "the determination on the 'how' must be for the academics themselves, and it is a HEFCE consultation: they must determine the outcome, they must determine the weighting".[61]

31. We commend the lengths to which HEFCE has gone in order to consult and seek to meet the concerns of the academic community with regard to the inclusion of a retrospective assessment of impact within the Research Excellence Framework. We fear that their efforts may be in vain. It is our view that however meritorious the idea of awarding funding on the basis of past impact may or may not be, the difficulties associated with capturing past impacts effectively and allocating funds fairly on the basis of them will be insurmountable.

Pathways to impact

32. The second context in which impact arose was Research Council funding for research projects. It was frequently claimed in memoranda we received that the Research Councils were asking researchers to "predict" the impact that their research would have.[62] Professor Thorpe strongly denied this, stating that "what we are asking for researchers to do is to think about how to open up the pathways to enable impact to happen".[63] Nevertheless, Professor Cox told us that "I have no idea how to do it. That is what you hear from each one of my colleagues who has sat on panels: 'I do not know how to do it'".[64] Lord Drayson told us that his sense was that "actually the majority of the scientific community do believe this is sensible, do believe that it can be done and are willing to work with both HEFCE and the research councils in the projects which they have to try and do this in an effective way".[65]

33. However, we were told numerous times during the course of our inquiry that the Research Councils were not asking researchers to predict the impact of their research when filling out grant applications.[66] At our evidence session on 10 February, Professor Thorpe, Chair of RCUK, and Professor Sterling, Chair of the STFC, stressed that the role of impact within grant applications was as a tie-breaker, alongside value for money, that could be used to choose between two otherwise equally deserving proposals.[67] Such tie-breakers were especially important in a highly-competitive research environment, given that only 25% of proposals ended up being funded.[68]

34. Sir Alan Langlands' assertion that young scientists were enthusiastic about thinking about the impact of their research struck a chord with what Lord Broers had told us the previous week.[69] He had cited the work of the Nobel prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes, whose invention of the maser was borne out of a very applied, problem-solving approach to research.[70] It was put to us that "if you do look at the great advances that came out of pure science, you find they came out through people who were very interested in impact".[71]

35. The concept of science as problem-solving is in counterpoint to the objection often raised against the use of impact in research proposals; that the great scientists of the twentieth century would not have attracted public funding had they been required to make such an assessment. We put that point to Lord Drayson, who responded that "I think that if you read the biographies of those individuals about what was going on at the time around their laboratories, for example, you get the impression that there was no doubt at the time that the work that they were doing was going to have massive impact".[72] To our knowledge, no analysis of the relationship between the great scientific advances and publicly-funded research has been conducted, but it would doubtless yield interesting results.

36. If the Research Councils were not encouraging researchers to think about potential impact then it would be necessary for a select committee to recommend that they did. However, misconceptions persist about the role of impact in grant applications and it seems that many assessors and those being assessed think that they are being asked to 'predict' impacts, when in fact the purpose is to stimulate thought about how impact might be developed. It is up to the Research Councils to improve the guidance they provide, and we urge them to act to clear up the misunderstanding. We do not believe that the consideration of pathways to potential impacts should be used as a tie-breaker in grant applications.

37. Lord Drayson told us six times that he was still making the case for science within Government for science's allocation within the next Budget and CSR.[73] Lord Drayson told us that "The lack of data on impact which exists at the moment makes it more difficult to make that case effectively within government".[74] Given that the very best literature on the subject concludes that reliable quantification of the economic impact of investment in science and research is deeply problematic at best, the suggestion that the Treasury is waiting for 'hard figures' on the benefits of research causes us great concern.

38. If investment in science does not continue to rise in real terms, not only will the Government have effectively abandoned its aspirations as set out in the Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, but will start to lose both the progress made over the past six years and also begin to compromise the UK's international standing. There is a growing consensus that increased investment in science is essential. The argument is made not only here but also in the Royal Society's The scientific century: securing our future prosperity,[75] and the Council for Science and Technology's (CST) A Vision for UK Research.[76]

39. If funding does not increase, UK-based researchers and institutions may find it harder to participate in projects requiring collaboration and the sharing of international facilities, if commitments to medium and long-term funding cannot be made. If there is even a perception that British science is suffering as a result of cuts, the UK will become a less attractive place for academics to work.[77] A similar consequence could very well be that science will be seen once again as a less attractive destination for students contemplating higher education. With all the work that has gone into increasing the demand for science places within HE, it would be an enormous waste of past effort and future potential were cuts to be visited upon the sector.