Summertime brought mixed blessings to chemical scientists anxious about the provision of their subject in the UK in the foreseeable future. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published the final report of its advisory group, chaired by Professor Sir Gareth Roberts, on Strategically important and vulnerable subjects, which will underpin what HEFCE will and will not be doing to protect the provision of chemistry in HEIs across the UK. The report also forms the basis of HEFCE’s response to the Secretary of State’s request in December 2004 for the Council’s view on ‘whether there are any higher education subjects … that are of national strategic importance, where intervention might be appropriate … and types of intervention’. 

A healthy science base 

According to the report, and citing evidence from the Science and Technology Select Committee (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(3), 58), ‘it would be exaggerating to say that university science departments are in crisis. Nevertheless there are risks and opportunities in the future that need a response’. With no additional funding likely to be made available, HEFCE, supported by the Roberts’ group, will not be attempting to prescribe where subjects should be provided, or interfering in institutional decisions about their strategic direction. The status quo remains. HEFCE still has no planning powers over universities, so university autonomy remains unscathed. 

Evidence collected by the Roberts’ group revealed that between 1999/2000 and 2003/04 there was an increase in the number of full-time equivalent students (FTEs) by 9700 in medically-related subjects against a fall of ca 2100 in chemistry, biosciences and physics. The group suggests that this might imply that students are not shying away from ‘harder subjects’, but rather looking for a ‘more obvious vocational output’. Speaking at the launch of the report in June, Sir Howard Newby, chief executive of HEFCE, suggested that the recent science department closures were part of the ‘day-to-day natural adjustment of universities’, and ‘were no reason to engage in moral panic’. Increasingly, he said, research and teaching are crossing subject boundaries. HEFCE seems to be taking the view that because a lot of science is interdisciplinary, then the education of students will and is following a similar pattern. But, according to Dr Tony Ashmore, registrar of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), ‘A lot of science is being developed in interdisciplinary areas, but is being tackled by people with real expertise in the fundamental core sciences, working in multidisciplinary teams. And I don’t think HEFCE has taken this on board’. 

While the group recognises the importance of accessibility, it does not see a need to have departments in all subjects in all regions. Professor Roberts told Education in Chemistry, ‘We argued that HEFCE might share the risk of providing some support for a time-limited period to see if the market changed. What we did not support was the simple suggestion that if all subjects were provided in all regions, then the solution of access would be solved. It is more nuance than that’. Student mobility and new opportunities for the Open University (OU), for example, should not be underestimated, the report finds. This will come as some disappointment to the RSC, which argues that strength in the fundamental core sciences should be distributed around the country so that students and employers have reasonable access to them. While the RSC accepts that the OU has a valuable contribution to make here, the distance-learning option cannot completely solve the regional issue because it has a restricted range of provision, especially in terms of delivering the practical side of the subject. 

Teaching funding also came under the scrutiny of the group. That the group comments ‘simply altering [subject] weightings will not provide an effective solution’ suggests that this fundamental issue has not been adequately addressed. According to Roberts, ‘We looked at student activity by institution, taking account of RAE (research assessment exercise) scores in relevant units of assessment and did see a shift in student activity towards more highly rated units of assessment. However, we noticed, too, that some institutions managed to maintain healthy teaching activity without an RAE rating and with, apparently, little research income. I understand that some will be disappointed here – people were hoping for an influx of funds – but the reality is that all teaching is underfunded and no new money is available’. The group also rejected the imposition of the Science and Technology Select Committee’s ‘hub and spoke’ solution (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(3), 58), in particular the notion of ‘competitions to select a regional centre of research in every main subject area’. Rather the group recommends that vice chancellors and principals should continue to allocate HEFCE monies and to make strategic choices in their institutions. 

However, the group ‘wonders’ whether chemistry departments, for example, might focus on courses ‘to meet technical skills gaps or courses to meet high-level research needs’. The group also supports departments pursuing additional funding from industry and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) as a way of addressing teaching funding deficits. Another option, the group suggests, might be for science students to spend the first two years of their course in a less research-intensive HEI, before being selected to move to a more research-intensive HEI for the final two years. The group recommends that HEFCE should pursue this option by funding a few pilots. While such a model might concentrate funding on future professional practitioners, how it would work within the current funding model is not clear. 

And the good news? 

That all said the group did acknowledge that chemistry, along with the other sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics, is a ‘strategically important and vulnerable subject’. Strategically important to the economy and to society both now and in the future. Vulnerable, in the case of chemistry, in that there is a misalignment between provision and regional subject priorities. So what should HEFCE be doing? Encouragingly, the group recognises the need for HEFCE to work in partnership with professional bodies, such as the RSC. The group cites the Aimhigher programme as one way HEFCE can influence and inform student demand for such subjects in HE. Chemistry, the next generation, a partnership between the RSC, 12 HEIs, three multinational pharmaceutical companies and two sector skills councils (see Educ. Chem., 2004, 41(5), 115), for example, is praised as a way of developing materials and activities to raise the aspirations of students who would not normally consider HE, to take up university courses in the chemical sciences. In its response to the Secretary of State’s inquiry, HEFCE emphasises that it is keen to build on its involvement with the RSC and other professional bodies in this way. 

The group also recommends that HEFCE should continue its support for teaching excellence in strategically important subjects. The Higher Education Academy’s network of subject centres is hailed as good practice as are the HEFCE-funded Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs). The group suggests that HEFCE could build on the 74 CETLs established this year (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(2), 31), which cover science and engineering subjects, including chemistry. 

For the immediate future the group recommends that HEFCE should invite the relevant learned societies or relevant subject body to provide further evidence relating to the ‘case for intervention’. Dr Simon Campbell, president of the RSC, told Education in Chemistry, ‘We look forward to working with HEFCE to explore bespoke interventions that address pressing issues and we will be looking to develop a specific business case for intervention’. 

The RSC will take some encouragement from the report and HEFCE’s willingness to cooperate with them. According to Ashmore, ‘We hope to build on the Aimhigher initiative. We are talking to HEFCE to see if it is prepared to provide further funding for universities to look at their course provision to make them more self sustaining’. Neville Reed, head of communications at the RSC, hinted at an additional direction for the Society’s Campaign for the Chemical Sciences: ‘There is inevitably some disappointment in that the group doesn’t seem to have appreciated the magnitude of the problem that is being faced by HE chemical sciences. The group and HEFCE seem to be focusing on a market economy, and actually HE is not like any other market. We are currently reflecting on how we can work within the rules of the system. There is a real need now for the chemistry community to look at how it can operate inside the strictures in which it finds itself’.  Kathryn Roberts