million+ evidence to the Science and Technology Committee Inquiry examining the
impact of spending cuts on SET and scientific research
1. Introduction
The university think-tank million+ is pleased to submit evidence to the Committee’s Inquiry into
the impact of spending cuts on science, engineering and technology and scientific research. In
particular, this submission
-
assesses the overall implications of the Pre-Budget Report
-
identifies issues with policies of concentration adopted by the Research Councils
-
outlines the threat to postgraduate provision throughout the sector if budget reductions
are used to concentrate the funding of postgraduate doctoral students
-
outlines the implications of the 2008 RAE, associated QR settlement and the Secretary of
State’s annual grant letters to the Higher Education Funding Council for England for
STEM, other science programmes and the future funding of excellent research
-
comments on proposals to apply economic impact assessments in future Research
Council decisions and in the Research Excellence Framework
-
assesses increases in applications and enrolments for STEM students and invites the
Committee to consider further the reasons why some STEM graduates do not progress
to STEM focused careers
-
analyses the impact of the decision to provide an additional 10,000 STEM student places
in 2009 and the issues arising in respect of the hefce unit of resource
-
identifies the disadvantages of the switch of £14m from other Research Councils to
support the Science and Technology Facilities Council's re-prioritised budget and the
consequences of the STFC’s own proposals to reduce by 25% the number of funded
scholarships and fellowships.
million+ would be pleased to appear before the Committee as part of its Inquiry.
2. Impact of Pre-Budget Report on Universities
In the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced
 a 10p rate of corporation tax on income derived from British patents as incentive for
companies to exploit British scientific discoveries
 £200m for new innovative industrial projects and
 a reduction of £600m by 2012-13 "from higher education and science and research
budgets from a combination of changes to student support within existing
arrangements; efficiency savings and prioritisation across universities, science and
research; some switching of modes of study in higher education; and reductions in
budgets that do not support student participation."
Unlike teaching funding, the science and innovation budget has been ring-fenced by
Government. The long-term security of this ring-fence has been guaranteed by the Government
under the framework to improve research funding and is supposed to last until 2014 although
the future of this ring-fence after the general election remains uncertain.
However, the pressures and reductions in Hefce grant will affect those universities which have
less access to research funding but whose research is relevant to the economy and society,
making a significant contribution to the capacity of the university to earn additional income from
external research contracts and creating significant value for the institution in terms of capacity
to compete in the UK and the international market (including the postgraduate market.
In respect of the latter it should be noted that modern universities have a 30% share in the
postgraduate international market and access to research infrastructure funding through quality
related research funding is a crucial element of maintaining and expanding that market and the
numbers of UK-domiciled postgraduate taught and doctoral students.
3. Research Council Funding
Research Council funding is highly valued by universities throughout the sector. The most
significant threat to modern universities will arise if the trend towards concentration, funding
regional centres and funding by critical mass is accelerated.
As the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) demonstrated there is no evidence that critical
mass is a criterion of quality and concentration of Research Council funding and studentships can
only restrict rather than expand the number and diversity of UK postgraduate students and the
UK’s research base.
4. Postgraduate Provision
Notwithstanding the outcome of 2008 RAE, the reductions in the higher education budget and
the BIS review of postgraduate provision have led to a lobby by some universities to concentrate
postgraduate doctoral provision. There is no sound evidence basis for the Government to pursue
such a policy which would undermine university title and the contribution to UK higher education
and the international market of universities which were awarded teaching and research-degree
awarding powers almost two decades ago. Moreover, there is no academic rationale for further
concentration – particularly in a digital world where researchers are just as likely to collaborate
with their counterparts internationally.
As evidenced by the RAE, critical mass is not a pre-requisite for excellent research and critical
mass of excellent research is not a pre-requisite for doctoral students. The quality of supervision
is a much more important factor and quality supervision is not restricted to a handful of
universities. It is also worth noting that some of the largest science departments are in modern
universities and that some of the latter have expanded their STEM facilities e.g. the University of
Central Lancashire (UCLan) has opened a chemistry department and further concentration would
undermine the investments in STEM provision that are being made across the sector.
Modern universities teach 30% of all international postgraduate taught and doctoral students in
addition to the majority of postgraduate taught UK domiciled students as illustrated in Figure 11.
This is a very high rate of productivity bearing in mind the lower levels of research funding
received by these universities. Cconcentration of doctoral provision would only serve to
undermine this market.
1
million+ submission to BIS PG Review (Jan 2010)
2
Figure 1: Distribution of international postgraduate students
Crucially, further concentration will damage the prospect of enhancing the number and diversity
of UK-domiciled postgraduate students - both of which are in urgent need of improvement. The
number of UK postgraduate students has platueaued for 5 years. The social profile of
postgraduate students in modern universities to a greater extent reflects the diversity of their
undergraduate student profiles and the more flexible options to study which are available in
these universities. The postgraduate students of these universities are more likely to be mature,
to study part-time and there are greater numbers of UK ethnic minority students. It is highly
likely that these students would be disadvantaged by concentration which would also inevitably
mean geographic concentration and favour London and the South-East and particular urban
areas.
5. Quality-related Research (Hefce) funding
Significant and important Government funding to universities for research (from the Science and
Innovation Budget) is allocated by the Higher Education Funding Councils as Quality Related (QR)
funding. In the year 2007-8, QR funding was over £1.5bn and will increase to almost £1.9bn by
2010-11.
Universities have received QR funding in the form of a block grant to spend on whatever
research they wish. This money, and the security previously provided by a five year settlement
has allowed universities to take strategic decisions to invest in building and support a strong
research infrastructure (e.g. facilities, salaries and equipment).
Universities also bid for other forms of funding from public and private sector sources to support
specific projects. However, relying on this form of ad hoc funding does not allow a university to
establish and maintain a long term research infrastructure. At the time of the QR funding
decision in 2002, the Government supported greater selectivity and concentration of funding on
research of international significance even though the volume and quality of research had
increased significantly since 1990.
This resulted in a small number of universities receiving the vast majority of QR funding over a
five year period i.e. from 2003. Bearing in mind the increase in the budget, the majority of
universities received little QR funding even though the quality of their research had improved.
After the 2002 decision, 76% of all QR funding was allocated to just 19 universities (representing
at the time only 15% of the 120 universities in the UK). This disproportionate allocation of QR
funding and the exclusion of the majority of universities has major detrimental implications for
the UK’s research base and its ability to meet the demands of industry - including SMEs - and the
public and not-for-profit sectors.
3
Concentrating funding on a few universities wastes the huge wealth of practical experience in
other universities and limits opportunities for students who will be the innovators and the
postgraduate students of the future. This concentration of QR on a very specific level of research
risks creating a research base that is narrow in its scope and its geographic spread. It has also
resulted in the closure of some departments e.g. chemistry and there is no evidence that this
level of concentration has provided better returns in terms of Government investment.
It is unlikely that excellence in a range of subjects, including in STEM areas, can be nurtured in a
handful of UK universities. An expanded and more competitive research base would benefit UK
plc and create greater accessibility to research, including for businesses as they restructure to
meet new economic and global challenges.
The outcome of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) confirmed that there was worldleading excellence and high quality research widely spread across the UK's universities. 150
institutions had at least 5% of their research activity in one of their submissions classed as
"world-leading". RAE 2008 demonstrated beyond doubt that universities which had received very
modest amounts of QR funding in the past could compete with others which had historically
benefitted from much higher levels of funding. It is now even more obvious that no one
university or group of universities can claim to lead all of the research agenda, including in STEM
areas.
The Secretary of State's grant letter for 2009-10 confirmed that the Government would maintain
its commitment to fund world-leading research wherever it had been found by RAE 2008.
However, in spite of the fact that QR funding has previously been settled for 5 years, the hefce
QR settlement was restricted to 2009-10 and additional protection was provided to STEM. As a
result the one year Hefce QR funding settlement has remained highly selective but has at least
recognised the need to fund world-leading research at all institutions.
Overall, the changes arising from the 2009-10 QR settlement have been marginal e.g. 74%
(rather than 75%) of QR funding still goes to 19 universities – and QR funding overall has
increased. It is therefore disappointing that Lord Mandelson’s grant letter for 2010-11 required
Hefce to provide higher levels of funding for high level STEM – potentially placing at risk the
continued funding of excellence research wherever it was identified.
Large STEM facilities of strategic significance are funded strategically through the Research
Councils and other initiatives. The ring-fence around STEM will have the obvious consequence of
protecting those pre-92 institutions which have been historically well-funded. It will also divert
funds away from excellent research in other areas of significance to the economy including social
science, public policy but also other science programmes e.g. those associated with the UK’s
creative industries.
The overall increase in the science and innovation budget would allow hefce to achieve the
higher levels of STEM concentration identified by Lord Mandelson and to continue to fund
excellence wherever it was found. This would undoubtedly be a preferable (and fairer) outcome
since (as previously outlined), there is absolutely no evidence to support funding by critical mass.
Indeed, such evidence as there is suggests that smaller research units are more productive and
the results of RAE 2008 provide further confirmation of this.
6. Assessing Economic Impact
million+ has welcomed the inclusion of the assessment (as opposed to the measurement) of
impact in the future assessment of quality-related hefce research. A wide definition of impact
has been identified in the current Research Excellence Framework (REF) consultation. It is
4
important that a “hierarchy of impacts” is avoided. In this respect economic/commercial impact
should not necessarily receive privileged status compared to other forms of impact. The hefce
pilot project which will run into 2010 is expected to provide clarity to support the ‘impact’
agenda.
However, the tracking and linkage of impact over a 10 year time-frame is fraught with problems.
Academics move institutions across many countries and it will be exceptionally difficult to define
a necessary and convincing audit trail to impacts evidenced in the REF assessment period. In any
case, few businesses work on such long-time scales and excellent research including in STEM,
areas does not necessarily take a decade and can be associated with a near-to-market approach.
Essentially, it is the quality of the impact assessment that is important irrespective of the time
taken for that impact to be realised. Arguably, near-to-market impact cases are the only real
undisputed examples of evidence of the direct link between research undertaken and any clear
resultant impact engagement.
7. Intellectual impact
There is a strong case to broaden the definition of research impact to include a clear assessment
strategy for disseminating research through teaching and including students (at all levels) in the
development of the research culture i.e. a specific type of intellectual impact.
Research can have a considerable impact on society and the economy through the curriculum
and this activity should be promoted and rewarded. In many disciplines, the first ‘users’ of
research are students. Currently, the move to include impact assessments appears to take for
granted that high quality research has a naturally occurring, positive impact on teaching.
Research-informed teaching does not happen spontaneously and there have been public concern
about the potentially negative effect of external funding systems which encourage universities to
take key researchers out of teaching. The current REF definition of research impact will only
exacerbate this research-teaching divide when the assessment of impact applied by the REF and
the Research Council could be used to strengthen the integration of teaching and research.
8. STEM Graduates
There was an 11.7% increase in STEM applications recorded by UCAS from 2002-2007. Between
2004-05 and 2008-9 there was a 3 % increase in the enrolment of STEM full-time students and a
4% increase in part-time enrolments. Table 1 outlines the total number of HE students by
subject area from 2003/04 to 2007/08.
Table 1 All students at UK HE institutions by subject area 2003/04 to 2007/08
Subject area
2003/04* 2004/05* 2005/06* 2006/07* 2007/08
Percentage
change
5
over
five years
Medicine & dentistry
50760
53695
57140
Subjects allied to medicine
285600
296870
Biological sciences
143660
Veterinary science
61810
21.8%
305550
297205 287125
0.5%
145570
151255
159450 161600
12.5%
3935
4210
4335
4735
4850
23.2%
Agriculture & related subjects
14830
14735
16865
15685
17680
19.2%
Physical sciences
70265
75080
79170
80000
82130
16.9%
Mathematical sciences
30105
30560
31570
32950
34120
13.3%
Computer science
135235
128360
117035
103880
95575
-29.3%
Engineering & technology
129305
132025
130950
134445 139435
7.8%
47000
48770
55440
187290
189425
195460
82175
84610
87560
Business & administrative
studies
292340
290455
294775
Mass communications &
documentation
44710
45720
46640
132625
131725
136130
99055
96045
98095
Creative arts & design
139130
147215
Education
189625
Combined
122530
Architecture, building &
planning
Social studies
Law
Languages
Historical & philosophical
studies
Total
60375
59340
63085
34.2%
195920 198875
6.2%
88780
89245
8.6%
300445 310455
6.2%
46770
47965
7.3%
136460 136050
2.6%
99420
96620
-2.5%
154920
158890 158890
14.2%
198120
204210
212860 202300
6.7%
123070
114140
117085 118300
-3.5%
2200180 2236270 2281240 2304705 2306105
4.8%
Source: HESA Higher Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 2003/04 - 2007/08
Universities across the sector have been involved in programmes and partnerships with schools
and colleges to promote interest in STEM and to promote attainment.
However, the progression links between a STEM degree and a career in STEM areas are weak.
The Committee may wish to consider the extent to which the STEM courses on offer in some
traditional universities encourage employment in STEM focused employment.
9. Additional Student Places
Individual universities agreed to take additional STEM student numbers made available by the
Department of Businesses, Innovation and Skills in 2009 with student support but not teaching
grant provided by BIS for 10,000 additional places.
It should be noted that the focus on STEM and the exclusion of some practice-based STEM
subjects limited the offers which universities could make and restricted opportunities for
students who would have made their pre-entry subject choices several years earlier. Institutional
enrolments for 2009-10 are being confirmed but there is no evidence that these places remained
unfilled.
6
10. Hefce unit of Funding for STEM
STEM programmes fall into the higher hefce price bands. In current circumstances the allocation
of additional funding for some STEM subjects would have considerable disadvantages since
reductions would have to be made in the unit of resource in other price bands (some of which
cover some science programmes e.g. in the creative industries).
However, universities receive teaching funds from hefce as a block grant and under the 1992
FE&HE Act, the Secretary of State has no powers to direct funding by subject. Accordingly even if
it was considered desirable to move funds from other price bands to the higher priced STEM
subject bands or if additional funding became available, in practice there could be no guarantee
that universities would spend their teaching allocation in a way which increased the institutional
unit of resource for STEM.
11. Science and Technology Facilities Council
The Science and Technology Facilities Council has announced amendments to its five-year
investment strategy in multi-disciplinary science and technology. The STFC argues that this new
investment strategy, which will amount to £2.4 billion, will deliver and maximise scientific,
societal, international and economic benefit for the UK in the current more difficult financial
environment. Essentially this is a reorganisation of the STFC’s programme to focus on ‘top
priority’ items deemed to be critically important to allow UK scientists to access to the world
class facilities provided by international consortia .This decision has primarily been taken as a
result of the current lower value of sterling but it is also indicative of the consequences of a
highly concentrated funding model..
The STFC will still have a budget of £461 million near-cash (plus £73m additional capital grants) in
2010-11. However, £14m has been transferred from other Research Councils to support this
budget and this will impact on the availability of funds in other areas.
In addition, the STFC proposal to reduce by 25% the number of new studentships and fellowships
is particularly ill-advised and will affect funding for studentships in modern universities as well as
pre-92 institutions. This reduction will damage rather than enhance the prospects of an increase
in UK-domiciled doctoral students.
Pam Tatlow
Chief Executive
pamtatlow@millionplus.ac.uk
www.millionplus.ac.uk
Tel: 020 7717 1655
7