The ScotCHEM model - a way forward for university funding?

In September 2005 I was privileged to be involved in the formal launch of ScotCHEM at an all-day conference in the Royal Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. We were surrounded by fascinating natural history exhibits but had little time to examine them as a galaxy of leading chemical scientists gave lectures demonstrating that chemistry is far from fossilised 

Pooling resources

So what is ScotCHEM? Essentially, it is a major collaborative venture to pool and enhance the chemistry research resources in Scotland. There are four major partners, arising from two main pairings of chemistry departments - WestCHEM (Glasgow and Strathclyde) and EaStCHEM (Edinburgh and St Andrews). A Heriot-Watt initiative is also funded, and indeed the ScotCHEM Advisory Group is chaired by Prof Ken McKendrick from Heriot-Watt. 

Although Dundee and Aberdeen are not funded directly, they will benefit indirectly through the enhanced networks that are expected to be developed and through access to the pooled research facilities. 

So what is special about this? First of all, it is a bottom-up initiative. We are not looking at an imposed, government solution. The lead came from the chemists themselves. They have recognised the value of building on mutual or complementary strengths to create the essential critical mass which will enable Scotland to compete on the world stage. Secondly, it is a realistic initiative. Underpinning it is a recognition that the growing costs of cutting-edge research, in infrastructure and equipment capital, puts all but the very largest and wealthiest universities in a challenging financial situation. 

Within the ScotCHEM scheme, direct competition can only be to the overall detriment, bearing in mind the limited money available. So each institution will build on their own strengths to complement strengths of other institutions rather than competing in all areas. 

The pooling and sharing of resources only takes place at the research level - a healthy competitive environment remains when it comes to attracting sufficient numbers of undergraduates. Thirdly, it is a pragmatic initiative - there is no strong ideological driver behind this. There is no push to further concentrate everything into one excellent research university as some have advocated. Rather, as David Gani of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council (SFC) has put it: 'SFC wants to support the best researchers regardless of where they are located.we want to support excellence wherever it is and have it led by the highest quality leadership'. 

Funding 

So how much funding has gone into Scot CHEM? I mentioned earlier that this was put together very much from the bottom-up. In fact, the five universities have put in around £9.7m and a further £9m from SFC and £4.6m from the Office of Science and Technology (OST) makes a total of £23m for the first four years of operation. Although not a vast amount of money, it is sufficient to make a difference. 

So will ScotCHEM work? As the partners would be the first to admit, the jury is still out, but the will is present and there is a distinct change in the mood of chemists north of the border. But could it work elsewhere, in England or Wales? Scotland has the advantage of scale and this has meant that their funding council has been able to focus resources and provide more and new money for this scheme. SFC is also funding a similar programme covering physics departments, called the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA). 

A solution for England?

So could such a scheme be implemented in England, where the number of university chemistry departments is around five times greater? Some ideas for regional clusters have been examined. This has been a driver behind the Westminster government putting so much emphasis on the role that Regional Development Agencies might play and also why the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology proposed a regional hub and spoke model in its recent report, with larger central research universities linked to others focusing on teaching. 

It is difficult to see how HEFCE could easily follow the SFC example - a bottom-up approach across the whole of England which then links to HEFCE and the OST looks to be a near insuperable task. 

However, HEFCE is working in different ways. It is supporting chemistry through its Aim higher initiative - to encourage university attendance from more students without a heritage of higher education. HEFCE are the financial backer of Chemistry: The Next Generation an initiative which is being coordinated by the RSC. It is a two year pilot project to promote an excitement in the chemical sciences as a subject and demonstrate good career opportunities to school and college students that are under represented in higher education. 

And Wales?

And what about Wales? In October, together with David Knight from Cardiff and John MacDonald from Bangor, I was privileged to give evidence to the Welsh Assembly Committee on Enterprise and Transport, where a central issue was the future of the science and engineering base within Wales. In terms of chemistry, investment to help it grow and flourish would be well spent. 

We pressed this point strongly to the Committee but also pointed towards the example set by ScotCHEM. A similar scheme could be implemented in Wales, with Cardiff and Bangor taking the initiative. With support from the Higher Education Funding Council of Wales and the OST this seems an entirely practical and rational way forward.