RSC fights on .

In the wake of the of the closures of the chemistry departments at Anglia Polytechnic University (APU) in Cambridge and at the University of Exeter, in December, the House of Commons science and technology committee launched an inquiry into what steps need to be taken to safeguard an adequate provision in science teaching and research in universities in England. According to Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the committee, 'we need to establish what can be done to ensure that we have enough science students to guarantee the future success of this country's science'. The inquiry will be welcomed by chemical scientists as a means to raise the profile of what has become a critical issue for them and a nervous time for all but the strongest research departments. It's a bonus, too, for the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), which is currently lobbying the Government as part of its Campaign for the Chemical Sciences to develop a structured national and regional strategy for allocating public funds to support strategically important subjects.

The Committee asked interested parties for written evidence on five underpinning issues.

• The impact of the Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) research funding formulae, as applied to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 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 its consequences.
• 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, and the financial liability of teaching-only science departments.
• The importance of maintaining a regional capacity in university science teaching and research.
• The extent to which the Government should intervene to ensure continuing provision of subjects of strategic national or regional importance.   

Responding to the Committees's inquiry was not difficult for the RSC. Much of what it wrote had already been submitted to the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review last summer (see Educ. Chem., 2004, 41(4), 86). On that occasion, the Government announced its long-term commitment to science, with several promises, at least two of which have not as yet been honoured. Critically, the promises of protecting strategically important subjects and monies of £70m allocated to achieving this in the short term seem to have fallen by the way. (The RSC had calculated that £300m was necessary to secure the future of physical science departments in the UK.) So the RSC continues its campaign, reiterating some home truths, backed by evidence it has wasted no time gathering.

Under the current funding formulae, for teaching and research, the RSC warns that every 4-rated chemistry department (as determined by the last RAE), 'must be regarded as vulnerable'. In short, adequate funds are not being provided via HEFCE to fund chemistry teaching in its own right, it is heavily cross-subsidised from research monies. And since 4-rated departments have had their research funds severely cut, there is no counterpart to the teaching deficit. 'Coupled with the high costs of running adequate laboratory facilities, a grade 4 or below physical science department is highly problematic for universities when there are other departments which are cheaper to run that are also making demands on limited resources', the RSC finds. A fundamental review by HEFCE of the cost of teaching and the way funds are allocated is not expected to report until 2008. 'It appears', the RSC states, 'that there will be no genuinely new money until at least 2008; this will be too late'.

The RSC also calls into question HEFCE's practice of funding teaching according to a small number of bands, which leads to subjects like pharmacy, biosciences, Earth and environmental sciences, and engineering receiving the same 'weighting' and thus the same money per student. A more granular approach would, the RSC says, more closely match subject income to expenditure, reducing under funding or, in some cases, over funding of subjects. Dr Tony Ashmore, registrar of the RSC, explained, 'What we would like to see is teaching and research each standing on its own merits. A department that sees teaching as its main mission should be funded by HEFCE. And a strong research department should get more income from the research pot, resulting in more favourable student-staff ratios, and more time for the staff to do research'.

However, according to the RSC, as long as the dual-support system for funding remains, any further loss of 4-rated departments to fund higher rated departments is likely to lead to the closure of both teaching and research provision. (A 4-rating reflects national excellence in virtually all of the research activity submitted, and some evidence of international excellence.) If the current trend continues, the RSC believes that there will come a point when the remaining departments will be unable to absorb the additional students. The chances are that these students will opt to do other subjects. Moreover, closure of provision could lead to 'regional deserts' of the chemical sciences, which will affect the ability of students to study chemistry locally. In an era of increased student debt, the RSC says, the financial attraction of living at home will be strong for many students and their subsequent choice of subject will be determined by what is on offer at their local university. Such regional deserts would also affect industry, who use local universities to develop specific skills or to do specialised research. According to the RSC, a potential student should be able to study chemistry at a 'local' university, not necessarily the nearest university but one which is accessible in a reasonable commuting time. Industry should also have such access to 'local' provision.

So does the RSC think its time that the Government should intervene when it comes to subjects of national importance? After all decisions to close some of our most prestigious 4-rated chemistry departments - at King's College London; Queen Mary, University of London; and Exeter University - came down to vice chancellors needing to meet short-term financial targets, rather than student demand which was buoyant in all of these departments. Ashmore told Education in Chemistry, 'In the short term we would want to see the Government providing financial incentives to universities to retain strategically important subjects, like chemistry, while the overall problem of funding was tackled. Alternatively, Government could remove financial incentives that make universities want to dispose of their chemistry departments'.

Yes chemistry is expensive, but recent data confirm that it gives good returns. An independent report from financial consultants at PriceWaterhouseCoopers revealed that money spent on science courses leads to increased returns to the state and the individual; looking only at short-term cash cost, the report finds, will neglect the long-term gains that the Government will receive and the future economic needs. The report was commissioned by the RSC and the Institute of Physics. 'This evidence must be used to guide how Government and the Funding Councils allocate resources', says the RSC.

Kathryn Roberts