The Saving of Sussex

 

Sussex University was established in the 60's and quickly attracted a number of high quality academics. The chemistry department grew and flourished with chemists such as Colin Eaborn, Mike Lappert and John Murrell and housed three Nobel laureates.

Sussex chemistry continued to flourish with Harry Kroto's discovery of buckministerfullerene in the mid-80's for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1996.  Sir Harry partially retired from Sussex in 2004 (now spending only 3 months each year in the department).

By the time the story of the university's plans to close chemistry broke, the number of academic staff at the chemistry department had been allowed to fall to 12. Undergraduate recruitment was around 20 students a year, which reflected a recent change in policy to recruit quality rather than quantity.  

However the department retained the 5 research rating earned in the 2001 research assessment exercise (RAE) and felt its student body was of high caliber and likely to increase in number and quality in the future.

Parliamentary intervention

Following considerable publicity surrounding the confirmation of the management's intention to close chemistry at Sussex and focus on the biological end of the subject, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee ordered an evidence session. 

The head of Sussex chemistry department, Dr Gerry Lawless, made it clear that he felt that the department had been deliberately run down. Senior people who had moved on had not been replaced at the same level of seniority, which would make it difficult for the department to retain its high RAE grade. This would have serious financial implications for the department.  

The Select Committee concluded that: "Financial management has played a role in the declining fortunes of chemistry at Sussex-historical levels of investment in the department will inevitably have impacted in its attractiveness to both staff and students. The small size of the department (in terms of both faculty and students) is now singled out as a significant factor in determining its future. However, responsibility for the shrinkage of the department rests squarely with the Vice-chancellor, who has made no attempt to replace key staff." 

The Committee's report was extremely critical of senior management at the University for handling a "seriously flawed" process "particularly ineptly". However, the report did accept that any internal changes are ultimately a decision for the institution itself.

In the end Sussex University Senate and Council rejected closure plans and instead voted for the creation of a new department of chemistry and biochemistry.

Sussex and Exeter: a comparison

So why was the chemistry department at Sussex saved when the chemistry department at Exeter was closed a year earlier despite a similar level of press coverage?

I think there are several main factors that explain the differing outcomes. Firstly credit must be given to the students and faculty both at Sussex and at Exeter. Both were highly committed to chemistry and worked hard to save the department. 

At Sussex the campaign included lobbying local MPs, interviewing the Vice-chancellor and Dean, working with the student union and Association of University Teachers, and appearing on local TV.  A department advisory board of leading industrialists and academics, set up several years prior, also played a part and lobbied hard on behalf of the department. Of particular help were David Lathbury from Astra Zeneca, Trevor Laird and his team from Scientific Update and Alfred Bader CBE, former CEO of Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company.

Like Exeter, huge support was mobilised for chemistry at Sussex ranging from alumni to prospective students and the parents of present students. Des Turner MP, whose constituency includes the university, was very supportive, as was Brian Iddon MP - a long time supporter of the RSC.  

Thousands of emails were sent and a "Save Chemistry at Sussex" website was set up by former student Nigel Treweeke, which was instrumental in focusing international as well as local support.

However despite the campaigning, there were several other differences between the plans to close Exeter and Sussex chemistry departments. Sussex chemistry started from a better position - with a 5 RAE rating whilst Exeter was rated only a 4. 

Exeter's Vice-chancellor Steve Smith presented his university governing body with detailed plans. They were presented as part of a strategic plan for the whole university and were seen as crucial to the University's future. This was not the case at Sussex where the plans where appeared to have been less well researched.

Lastly, the work that the RSC had done in its campaign to save Exeter chemistry department had laid the foundations. Our effort meant that the issue was already on the media's radar. 

Closure at Exeter

When Exeter Vice-chancellor Steve Smith announced his plans in 2004, his proposed closure of chemistry was part of a whole-university plan to concentrate on fewer disciplines.  

Steve Smith maintained that 4-rated departments do not bring in enough money and that strategic decisions had to be made as to whether to invest in them or not.  In the case of chemistry, as it was an expensive subject anyway, the decision was made to close the department completely.  A decision which was supported by many other departments.

Despite intense pressure including coverage on the BBC's six o'clock news, the closure was confirmed and implemented. 

The fight for Sussex

Sussex chemistry was the first 5 research rated department to be threatened with closure.  Until Kings College London all closures had been of departments with 3 ratings or lower.  Although Sussex Vice-chancellor Alasdair Smith argued that chemistry at Sussex was unlikely to maintain its rating, the symbolic nature of closing a department currently 5-rated was powerful.

From the outside, the plans for Sussex chemistry seemed to lack overall coherence and had not been widely discussed. Certainly the chemistry department itself and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) had not been informed until plans were well advanced.  

The plan to close chemistry and concentrate on chemical biology also had no support from the university's other science departments. The issue of the department apparently having been run down further weakened the Vice-chancellor's case.

The RSC position

The RSC had not been able to prevent department closures, such as the closure of the chemistry department at Kings College London in 2003. Around that time the RSC launched a strategy of evidence-led campaigning coupled to a clear policy of supporting regional provision of undergraduate chemistry degrees. We argue that there should be the provision for an A-level student anywhere in the UK to go on and study chemistry at a university in their local region. 

The RSC collected evidence to demonstrate the value of chemistry and to show that university chemistry is under-funded.  Exeter was significant for the RSC as its closure reduced the opportunity to study chemistry in the South West. Clearly the closure of Sussex would have had an impact on chemistry teaching provision in the South East.  

Although chemistry at Exeter was closed, the media storm surrounding the decision raised the issue of the supply of scientists. HEFCE convened a strategic and vulnerable subject's advisory group chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts which reported in June 2005. The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee held an inquiry.

When the plans for chemistry at Sussex broke many parties, including the media, were already primed on the issues.  Like Exeter, Sussex was serving an area relatively lacking in chemistry provision but the situation was different due to the 5 RAE grade and the groundwork that had been done following the closure of Exeter.

The chemistry department at Sussex was not the first to be threatened with closure, but it was the first with such a highly rated research department and at a time when the media was alive to the issues.

Is UK chemistry safe?

Chemistry provision at Sussex looks safe. Positively, HEFCE have agreed to an increase in chemistry student numbers at Sussex and the department has now exceeded its target intake for this year. 

The university is now working closely with the department on a student recruitment drive to attract those interested in studying chemistry to Sussex. The department wants to attract larger numbers of students without losing its ability to offer them time and attention - the very ethos that has created such a loyal student body at present. The Vice-chancellor has also agreed to fund four new posts in the department.

Will there be more closures?  Are other 'at risk' departments now safer? Under the present funding formulae applied by funding councils, chemistry will always appear vulnerable. The real costs of teaching chemistry are greater than the funding HEFCE allocates and many departments run at a deficit. Until this problem is resolved, institution heads will always be able to make the case for closure on financial grounds.  

At the RSC, we will continue to press HEFCE and the other funding councils for a change to their funding formulae to make chemistry provision more secure.  Numbers entering chemistry courses have been rising recently which will help, and applications are up again this year. 

The RSC has also begun to build a positive relationship with HEFCE's new chief executive, David Eastwood, and has held a number of constructive meetings with Steve Egan, HEFCE's finance director, who was acting chief executive until David Eastwood took up his post on 1 September.

Along with others, the RSC played a significant part in Sussex's decision not to close chemistry by raising issues such as the need for more government funding.  It is hoped that the survival of Sussex has drawn a line in the sand. Chemistry is a core discipline which is vital to UK plc. The issue now has a high profile and any Vice-chancellor will need to think hard before attempting to close a chemistry department.