In March the proposal to cease teaching a chemistry degree from 2007 at the University of Sussex and ‘refocus’ the chemistry department’s work into organic chemistry and chemical biology alarmed the chemistry community. The news led the House of Commons science and technology select committee to call an emergency hearing at which Sussex vice chancellor Professor Alasdair Smith, head of chemistry Dr Gerry Lawless and Steve Egan, acting chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) were invited to give evidence. Although billed as a meeting on ‘changes to chemistry provision at the University of Sussex’, the panel of MPs took the opportunity to follow up on its previous review of the supply and provision of strategically important and vulnerable STEM subjects (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(3), 59). 

Supply and demand 

Outlining the background to the Sussex proposal Professor Smith told the committee that HEIs are under increasing financial pressure and face a critical period of strategic planning. The introduction later this year of tuition fees, the build up to a research assessment exercise in 2008, and implementing full economic costing of research mean that ‘universities have to look at their provision of subjects and the related student demand’, according to Smith.  

Facing a further loss of chemistry provision, Egan denied the claim made by the chair of the committee, Phil Willis MP, that HEFCE had ‘done nothing’ to support and protect strategically important and vulnerable STEM subjects since being asked to act in 2004 by the then secretary of state for education Charles Clarke. The approach HEFCE has adopted for chemistry, through collaborative initiatives such as Chemistry: the next generation and Chemistry for our future, is to ensure there is student demand for the subject in the future. However, Egan admitted that HEFCE is now ‘seriously concerned’ about the provision of chemistry in England, but told the committee that the Council must respect the autonomy of universities. ‘Institutions have the right to decide themselves what subjects they provide’, he explained, ‘this autonomy is an important part of achieving a "healthy and vibrant education sector" as put forward in Sir Gareth Roberts’ report on strategically important and vulnerable subjects’, (see Educ. Chem, 2005, 42(5), 114). However, when pressed by the committee, Egan indicated that HEFCE did want more power, in certain circumstances, to control the provision of science subjects offered by HEIs.  

Funding for chemistry 

With reference to a report commissioned by the RSC, which shows that eight chemistry departments, rated from 3b to 5* in the 2001 RAE, all ran at a deficit for 2002–03, Dr Brian Iddon MP put it to Egan that the expense of providing safe, modern facilities and equipment, and staff resources for teaching a lab-based subject like chemistry is not appropriately funded through the dual funding method. Egan agreed that several subjects are underfunded by the method used to allocate teaching funding, but pointed out that this system is under review.  

In its current teaching funding method HEFCE provides 1.7 times the amount for chemistry than for non-laboratory based subjects. In its outcomes from first-cycle consultations on the review of the teaching funding method published in March, HEFCE has committed itself to developing a more cost-informed method for deciding the group weights for subjects using a similar transparent approach to costing (TRAC) principles to those used in the RSC study. First suggested in 2003, the RSC is concerned that this long-awaited TRAC study is still not likely to bear any fruit in the form of HEFCE decisions on group weightings until 2008–9. 

Underfunding of teaching physical science degrees was also on the agenda of a meeting in March, again prompted by the Sussex announcement, between education minister Bill Rammell MP and the RSC. Presented with the RSC’s study on the cost of chemistry departments, Rammell has asked the Society to provide more detailed information on how much money would be required to support adequately an undergraduate chemistry department. 

The report, Study of the costs of chemistry departments in UK universities, is available from the RSC website.

James Berressem