The Future for UK Chemistry Departments

Funding councils

The major cause for the closure of university chemistry departments is the policies of the funding councils,  especially those of the Higher Education  Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Recent closures have not just been due to declining student numbers as is often assumed. 

HEFCE fails to recognise the true costs of training and educating students in laboratory based subjects. Funding is calculated using a rigid formula based on student numbers and subject type. The formula does not take into consideration the particularly expensive nature of chemistry. Laboratories need to be maintained and chemicals constantly replenished making chemistry one of the most expensive subjects to teach.

The HEFCE funding formula is damaging and urgently needs reviewing. Unfortunately, the problem has been exacerbated by the recent HEFCE 2005-6 settlement for research funding. This has further damaged the viability of chemistry and chemical engineering faculties. 

Lobbying government

The RSC continues to lobby hard to persuade government of the importance of chemistry to the UK and the need for it to take action to prevent further closures of university science departments. 

Over the last few months staff and members have met with Government Ministers (Charles Clarke, Kim Howells, Lord Sainsbury) and MPs; the heads of research councils and funding councils; and with a number of vice chancellors, including Michael Stirling, vice chancellor of Birmingham University and the current chairman of the Russell Group of research intensive universities. 

Chemistry is vital

In all the meetings the message is consistent: chemistry is vital for the UK's future. Developments in areas such as health, biotechnology, materials science, 10 RSC Policy Bulletin sustainable energy, crime prevention and information technology all rely heavily on the molecular sciences. Chemistry is at the core of future scientific advances and is key to future wealth creation in any modern society. 

This has been explicitly recognised by the European Commission and has been highlighted in the current priorities for the new European research programme, Framework Programme 7 (FP7). Sadly, the importance of the chemical sciences has not yet been adequately recognised by the UK government. We continue to campaign vigorously to obtain this recognition.  

Students demonstrate at the closure of Exeter Chemistry Department

Students demonstrate at the closure of Exeter Chemistry Department

Universities under pressure

In discussions over departmental closures, the Government has been keen to stress  that universities are autonomous bodies over which they have limited power. They say they do not have the power to stipulate which departments should stay open or which should close. 

Government must respect the academic freedom of universities - however, government also has a responsibility, on behalf of the nation, to ensure  that publicly funded educational institutions produce graduates with the balance of knowledge and skills the country needs. This means a role in ensuring that there is sufficient provision in all science subjects. 

The government emphasises the importance of student choice and market trends and this has been used as a defence for several departmental closures. But this fails to understand that the government can "buy in" to the market strategically by stimulating the demand for the output of science departments. 

There is also a current trend to try and measure just how many chemistry or physics students are "needed" by industry. This supposes that there is a simple relationship between the number of graduates and postgraduates produced and the needs of industry. It fails to recognise the importance of having people educated in science in all sectors of our society. 

Today, vice chancellors are under considerable pressure and the blame for department closures cannot be placed at their doors alone. The RSC believes that it is the responsibility of the Government to work with universities to develop a national strategy for England and Wales. 

So far the Westminster Government has reneged on its duty to protect the country's science base. It seems to expect Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England and Wales to do this on its behalf. RDAs were set up to drive regional economic development and whilst some have sought to address wider issues, they cannot act in place of government. 

Hub and spoke model

In April, the Commons Science and Technology Select committee published a report on strategic science provision in English universities which discussed the concept of setting up science cities and a 'hub and spoke' model. 

This could mean that HEFCE would ensure a high level of research funding for at least one university chemistry department in every English region. Other universities in that region could specialise in areas such as teaching or knowledge transfer, according to their strengths and would receive extra funding related to these activities. 

Undergraduates studying at one of these 'spoke' universities would be able to gain research experience at their local hub and in return some hub universities may want to contract out teaching to other institutions. 

There are still many issues regarding the workability of such a proposal. However, the RSC welcomes the recognition that government must intervene to ensure science research and teaching has a future in all regions of the country. We will continue to make sure the voice of the chemistry community is heard in any future move towards this model. 

Erosion of the UK's Science and Technology base

In 2004 the UK Government set an R&D investment target of 2.5% GDP by 2014 in its 10 year science and innovation framework. This target assumed that UK-based industry increases its research investment by approximately 50% over the 10 year period. 

Unfortunately, not just in chemistry, but in all sciences, the UK science and technology base is being eroded fast, with decreasing numbers of trained scientists and engineers each year. If this trend is not reversed it will make it impossible to deliver government R&D targets. The Government needs to intervene, starting with action on science department closures. 

Yet, despite its talk of the importance of technology for future wealth creation, the Government currently seems either unwilling or incapable of intervening to help. 

It is not acceptable for the government, of whatever political complexion, to 'wring its hands' and hide behind university autonomy whilst passing the buck to the Regional Development Agencies. 

In the absence of a coherent, government-led national science, engineering and innovation strategy, the RSC will continue to campaign against all closures of science departments by every proper means available to us. We will fervently lobby government to take its responsibilities seriously.