HE chemistry - a radical solution?

The House of Commons science and technology committee, chaired by Ian Gibson, MP, welcomed oral evidence on its inquiry, Strategic science provision in English universities (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(2), 30), in March. Undergraduates, vice chancellors, representatives from regional development agencies (RDAs), research councils and the learned societies – the Royal Academy for Engineering, the Institute of Physics, the Biosciences Federation, the London Mathematical Society, and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) – gave evidence. They were asked about their reaction to the recent closures of science departments, for example Exeter’s chemistry department, for the reasons, did it matter and if so, to whom? How many science, engineering and technology graduates are ‘desirable’? And should the Government be doing more to stop such closures, and if so what should it be doing? 

The evidence given was conflicting. To the undergraduates, yes such closures did matter. Feedback from the students suggests they don’t choose a course based solely on location, but rather on the characteristics of a course and department to suit their particular needs and personalities. It takes up much of their time and effort, and to be forced to consider this process again once they’ve started their course was devastating. To the RSC and the learned societies, pushing for a national strategy for the provision of strategically important subjects, it mattered. Dr Simon Campbell, president of the RSC, giving evidence said, ‘The Government has stressed that it sees science and technology as the future for the economy of the country and therefore it does matter because we need trained scientists’. But for others, notably Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, the closures were a fact of life, owing mainly to a lack of student demand, a notion contended by the RSC which sees them as cost driven and random. But what did Ian Gibson and his committee make of the evidence?

Gibson talks to Education in Chemistry
Prior to the publication of the committee’s report, Ian Gibson spoke to Education in Chemistry. ‘Graduates in science, engineering and technology (SET subjects) are at the heart of our political and economic agenda. We need them to drive innovative R&D, support financial services, underpin policy-making and we need teachers to inspire future generations of scientists. But the numbers of students taking SET subjects has been in decline for several years and one of the symptoms of this is the closure of departments. If this carries on the system won’t be able to cater for future increases and uptake, which are fundamental to the realisation of the Government’s ambitions’.

 ‘In the past the problem of falling numbers has been addressed through interventions to secure the supply of university places, but such measures are short term and they only patch up the system that continues to deteriorate. We have to address the root cause of the problem. We need to inspire our students in schools to study science, employ teachers who can teach creatively and enthusiastically, change the school science curriculum to make science more relevant, and increase the proportion of school science that is practically based’.

 ‘In the short term’, said Gibson, ‘we will recommend that the Government gives bursaries to students to study science at the undergraduate level. We also think the problem of low and declining demand in SET subjects has been compounded by the funding arrangements for research and teaching. HEFCE and the research councils fund research on the basis of excellence, the result of which is a concentration of research in a small number of departments. 
This is okay from an international, competitive perspective, but it leaves other departments struggling to cope. The financial problem is compounded by the high costs of teaching science, a cost that is not recognised in the teaching funding formula used by HEFCE. We will recommend to HEFCE that the weightings applied to the various subjects be changed to reflect the cost of teaching subjects. Teaching funds should meet the costs of teaching without the need for cross-subsidies from research – this has not been properly taken on board’.

 ‘We know that the research funding formula in 2008 is likely to change, which may help to reduce the funding differential between 4-, 5- and 5*-rated departments, but this won’t help struggling departments now, nor will it address the problem that too many departments are competing for limited funds. Unless the Government increases the total money in the system, which is unlikely, you can’t tinker with the current allocations and ensure that all departments will become financially justifiable on the basis of the research income, and we would end up jeopardising departments that are our strongest assets’.

So what’s the solution?
According to Gibson, his committee has come up with a radical solution. ‘Instead of allowing 130 units to compete on the same basis for research and teaching to the benefit of the few and the detriment of many’, he said, ‘we want to create a system in which each institution plays to its strengths. We will therefore recommend a “hub and spokes” model, coordinated on a regional basis by a new regional affairs committee involving HEFCE and the RDAs. Each region would have one major research centre in each of the core disciplines, and departments could bid for this. Other departments would then determine their own focus on the basis of their strengths – research, teaching, knowledge transfer – and bid for funds accordingly’.

 ‘The job of teaching students’, he continued, ‘would be shared within each region between research and teaching departments as appropriate. Instead of all HEIs competing for the same number of limited prizes, institutions would collaborate and pool their strengths to provide the best possible experience for all students. The Government is passively pursuing a policy of research concentration that will inevitably call the financial viability of some institutions into question. We need an active policy to encourage diversity within the university sector and provide the means for this to happen’.

But just how much should the Government intervene, can it really stop vice chancellors from closing nationally important science departments? Gibson said, ‘Government should intervene. Students need to know that if they start a course, they will be able to finish it, and that it won’t close half-way through. But first the Government needs evidence on how many students it needs for its “innovative” policies. We need a national strategy of how many chemists this country needs to be a world leader in R&D. And monies should be given to universities based on regional needs’.

‘Basically’, he concluded, ‘vice chancellors are too focused on the research assessment exercise (RAE); if the RAE were removed as a yardstick, then they would have a whole different way of looking at how science is taught in universities. The Government needs to be much more hands on with universities, and tell vice chancellors what the broad standards must be as it does, for example, with the food industry’.

As Education in Chemistry went to press the committee’s report had 
been presented to the House, and was awaiting publication. What recommendations are eventually taken forward will depend on the outcome of this month’s election.      Kathryn Roberts