Dr Richard Pike

In recent weeks, two apparently disparate examples have highlighted the challenges and opportunities facing the chemical sciences over the next fifty years. Firstly, the energy debate: to some, the importance of the chemical sciences to our energy future is not immediately apparent, but the RSC intends to challenge this view. In our submission to the DTI’s Energy Review, the RSC robustly argued the importance of the chemical sciences in providing innovative energy solutions for the future. 

Much of the wider energy debate is ill-informed, which is hindering progress towards pragmatic solutions. The RSC, in collaboration with other organisations, can play a key role in addressing this. 

The energy sector is highly compartmentalised and confused by different units, definitions and conventions. This means that few people understand the whole picture. In particular, most analyses fail to examine the full life-cycle process in looking at the efficiency of alternative fuels. This means that the energy required in manufacture or decommissioning is not always recognised. 

In this issue carbon capture and storage are discussed following the RSC’s submission to the recent House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report. Issues of full life-cycle analysis are key in looking at the favourability of this technology in comparison to other clean-fuel technologies. 

Against this backdrop is the second example: the management of education itself. At a time when energy, sustainability, the environment, health and food feature as major strategic issues, all underpinned by the chemical sciences, university chemistry departments face an uncertain future. The reasons and solutions are clear. As discussed in the previous issue of this Bulletin, all UK chemistry departments operate with a deficit, even the largest and most successful. In planning for the future, more effective ways of funding are needed. 

The current situation was reached by allowing an imperfect market to dictate the popularity of subjects and the allocation of funds from a largely fixed pot of money. This short-term view must change, with the recognition of the longer-term importance of chemistry to the country. 

The RSC continues to engage government on these issues and has been vigorous in challenging the proposed closure of the existing chemistry department at the University of Sussex. The support for more science teachers announced in the March Budget statement is a great boost, as is the announcement that the RSC has secured £3.6m funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for Chemistry for our Future – a collaboration with other institutions to ensure a strong and sustainable presence within higher education. We must continue to press for a wider, integrated understanding of chemistry and the business and career opportunities the field presents. 

An interesting model for university chemistry provision is that found at a major university in the USA. Of a total annual intake of 1,000 undergraduates at Columbia University, at least 400 study chemistry in their first year. Lawyers, scientists and language students unite in a common cause, in an institution where science is part of the culture. Should the UK be looking to adopt a similar model? At a minimum we could adopt their ethos that science is an integral part of an education. 

Dr Richard Pike, Chief Executive, RSC