RSC's Submission for Chemical Sciences to the Comprehensive Spending Review: Appendix

Background

1. The pivotal role of chemical sciences within the innovation culture

   1. It is essential that a vibrant, sustainable and internationally competitive science and technology community flourishes within the UK and across the EU to meet the scientific, economic, social, technological, and challenges of the 21st Century. The Government's ten-year plan for Science and Innovation and its commitment to increase investment to science and engineering by 35% in real terms by 2005/6 is welcomed and builds upon the substantial efforts in recent years to support the UK's SET base. Recent investment in SET is beginning to make significant improvements in the long neglected HE asset base of research facilities through the JIF and SRIF schemes. The future success of the ten-year framework depends on increased innovation in sciences in our schools, universities and industries.

   2. Chemical sciences provide the underpinning core expertise for most scientific and technological developments and continue to make enormous contributions to social, cultural, economic and intellectual advances. They are key to underpinning industrial sectors such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology that make significant contributions to the trade balance, national prosperity and quality of life. 

   3. The chemical sciences have made enormous contributions to social, economic and intellectual advances over the past century. For example, chemicals and pharmaceuticals are one of the UK's largest manufacturing industries that in 2000 had 235,000 direct employees, a turnover of £50bn, £5bn trade surplus on sales of £33bn, capital expenditure of £3bn and R&D investment equivalent to 10% of sales. It also provides a tax and national insurance contribution of nearly £5bn a year to the UK national government and local authorities. UK biotechnology is second only to the US, and creative chemical sciences have been a key driver for the foundation of many start-up companies. Indeed, the 2003 DTI Company Scoreboard highlighted pharmaceuticals and biotechnology as two of the few internationally competitive sectors in the UK and the Prime Minister recognised the value of industries with high levels of investment in R&D in his Foreword to the DTI Innovation Report.

   4. The output of the chemical sciences is a vital component of downstream businesses both large and small including food, consumer products, energy and mining, high technology, and the environment. Innovations in chemical sciences, in the form of successful exploitation of new ideas, drive most aspects of everyday life, from new medicines to materials to foodstuffs to fuels, and are essential to sustain the world, as we know it.

   5. The human genome has now been sequenced using techniques developed by chemists but we are all now just beginning to realise that genomic information, controlled by subtle and complex molecular processes, is stored, expressed and utilised in ways that are barely understood. Thus it will continue to be advances in understanding how molecular  processes control fundamental cellular pathways that will lead to, for example, new medicines that will treat and cure many diseases. Chemical sciences will be at the forefront in translating this priceless information into an understanding of the molecular mechanisms that regulate complex biological pathways. Similarly, better understanding of natural phenomena coupled with novel synthetic procedures will improve our environment, conserve precious natural resources and help generate new energy sources. Advanced materials and new insights into molecular processes will stimulate commercial exploitation of new technologies, including nanotechnologies, with significant savings in energy, consumables and side products.

   6. The chemical sciences will be at the heart of multidisciplinary initiatives in the 21st Century since understanding events at the molecular level is key to future invention and innovation. It is critical to sustain and reinforce the core chemical sciences, but also to stimulate research in areas where the UK is not yet internationally competitive. The recent EPSRC-sponsored international review of UK chemistry highlighted outstanding scholarship in chemical sciences research and encouraged increased support of longer term, multi-disciplinary projects, to promote discovery and innovation. 

   Determination of Short Term Funding Needed

2. Securing the future of the Chemical Sciences in the Higher Education Institutions

   1. The RSC welcomes the ten-year initiative for Science and Innovation¹ and the proposal for a ten-year plan of sustained investment. We also welcome the funds identified by Government for implementation. However, we believe that the current financial planning does not take account of the shorter-term challenges faced by SET departments. Indeed, we believe that without some sort of short-term financial support, many strategically important but currently not world-class SET research and teaching centres are likely to close over the next three to five years, and undermine the goals of the government's plan. Without a viable base, the UK risks jeopardising its current position at the forefront of world-class research capability and provision of trained personnel. 

   2. The RAE 2001 funding settlements have exacerbated the serious shortfall in funding for a number of chemistry departments that is already leading to the closure of key chemistry centres. This is becoming a critical issue to address. When a department is closed, its research, teaching and innovation potential is lost forever for a variety of reasons (including the synergy between teaching and research and provision of infrastructure). Moreover, although these problems are currently particularly affecting chemistry departments, other physical science and engineering disciplines are also affected.

   3. HEFCE has announced a detailed review to establish the full economic costs of teaching to inform decisions on the differential weighting of subjects in the calculations of Universities' block grant allocations. This will go some way towards resolving the issue of the underfunding of university chemistry. However, the study is not due to report until 2007. In parallel, the English and Welsh higher education funding settlements have taken money away from those cost centres graded 3a, and maintained level funding to those graded 4 (in reality a funding cut of a fifth relative to 2000/01). This allocation took no account of strategic relevance or demand for the "products" of those departments. In turn, this funding decision has already led to closures.

   4. Without access to short-term support, we believe that this situation will develop into an escalating trend. Coupled with the absence of any clear strategic thinking at a national level, this is likely to lead to serious damage to the longer-term viability of SET departments in England.

   5. We are already witnessing the closure of Chemistry departments in England and Wales, not through lack of student demand, but because of strategic issues. Recent closures include in London, Kings College and Queen Mary chemistry departments, and outside London, departments at Salford and De Montfort. Additionally, the chemistry department at Swansea is currently threatened with closure.

   6. Our calculations show that without some form of short-term support, nine additional departments are currently at risk; the worst position being survival of only the 5 and 5* departments.

      Table 1	Figures as of RAE 2001 submission	Figures if only 5/5* cost centres survive
      Total number of Chemistry cost centres	45	19
      No. first degree graduates 2001/02	3202	1478
      No. MSc students 2001/02	359	99
      No. PhD students 2001/02	912	632
      No. other students 2001/02	435	105

       

   7. Such closures will not only impact on training provision and research capacity, but also affect opportunities for innovation and knowledge transfer with business and industry. As Table 1 shows, if there is no strategic investment, we risk losing over 50% of trained personnel in years to come. An additional £35.5m earnings in research income could also be lost. Furthermore, this table only shows the differences in 2001/2002 terms. It cannot give any indication of growth potential. Neither is it possible to include the leverage such outputs provide for new business ventures. Closure may also led to regional deserts where access to chemical science training is very limited or completely absent. Closure of all but 5 and 5* chemistry departments would leave Wales and Northern Ireland without a distinct university chemistry department.

   8. Building on the outcomes from the Lambert review, it is also vital that departments with strong links with business are not closed as a consequence of a short term funding crisis. If immediate access is not available, businesses will take their R&D activities out of the UK. It is unrealistic to close departments and expect market forces to revive such resources. We believe that it would be a prudent investment of limited government resources to allow threatened departments the opportunity to fully demonstrate the improvements set in motion following RAE 1996, and the full extent of their links with business and industry. 

   9. We therefore suggest that funding of £300m is needed for physical science and engineering between 2005 and 2007 in universities, with £90m of those funds required for chemistry. This should provide the necessary financial breathing space needed by Vice-Chancellors to draw up long-term plans which integrate across institutions. The three-year window coincides with the HEFCE study into the cost of teaching which is not due to report unit 2007.

   10. This estimate has been arrived at using the additional teaching funding that the chemistry cost centre would have received were the funding proposals set out in the HEFCE document "Developing the funding method for teaching from 2004-05" (HEFCE, August 2003) to have been implemented is around £12m. These funds were for England alone and therefore taking into account the needs of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the needs of research, a sum of around £30m per annum between 2005 and 2007 would seem appropriate. 

   11. Our calculations suggest that for all SET departments to have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their strategic worth, a figure of £300m across the three-year window is needed. We recommend this investment to underpin the Science and Innovation long-term plan.

3. Providing the best facilities to train and inspire scientists of the future

   1. As one of the SET subjects, Chemistry is vital to the nation's economy, yet it is currently under threat because of the dilapidated state of many school laboratories. 

   2. The major capital injection of £60m from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Capital Modernisation Fund was allocated to LEAs for the improvement of obsolete school science laboratories in 2000/01 and 2001/02, and has benefited more than 900 schools throughout England. Although this investment is relatively recent, there are pleasing signs that it is already starting to lead to improvements in performance in Key Stage 3 science² , and we believe that this trend will escalate over time, meeting government aspirations. However, this will only happen if investment is restarted. Despite the recent DfES support, there remains a major proportion of schools which still do not have adequate facilities.

   3. Results from an RSC survey³ looking at the provision of science in English secondary schools in January 2004 concluded that, despite this DfES support, 65% of school laboratories are, at best, basic. Of these, 25% were considered to be either unsafe or unsatisfactory for the teaching of science. For example, extra fume cupboards, which are essential for carrying out chemistry experiments and skills learning by pupils at higher levels are needed in 63% of all schools for teaching at key stages 3 and 4. Also, only 36% of preparation areas are described as good or excellent, with 21% considered poor.

      Table 2: Standard of laboratory provision 

      % schools	Standard of laboratory provision4
      5	Excellent
      30	Good
      41	Basic
      25	Unsafe/unsatisfactory

       

   4. Based on independent calculations by CLEAPSS, a figure of £1,380m is needed to raise all English school laboratories to the minimum standard of good. Table 2 sets out how this figure is broken down across the categories. Additionally, their calculations show that a further £51m per annum is required to provide the necessary teaching materials.

   5. In considering the whole of the UK the RSC estimates that £1,900m is needed to raise all school laboratories to a minimum standard of good and £70m per annum for resources.

      Table 3: Estimated Costs to all schools' laboratories to "Good" standard in England

      Laboratory quality	Estimated cost to raise to "Good"  standard (A) in England
      To upgrade all unsatisfactory/unsafe to good standard	£361m
      To up-grade all basic laboratories to a good standard	£321m
      Build new laboratories where necessary	£510m
      Provide sufficient fume cupboards	£41m
      Upgrade all preparation areas to a good standard	£89m
      Extend preparation areas	£24m
      Provide sufficient dishwashers	£6m
      Minimum cost of lift provision	£28m
      Total	£1.38bn

      (A)	Additional notes to table 3:
      1.	DfES statistics show that at the end of August 2002, there were 2.9 million pupils in English secondary schools in compulsory education
      2.	The statistics further suggest that about 160,000 students will study science post-16.
      3.	The cost of essential equipment has risen from £11.38 per pupil aged 11 to 16 in a class of 24 pupils in 1997 to £22.08, while the cost of providing desirable equipment for 11 - 16 age range is £31.24 per year.
      4.	The actual figure allocated to science departments for this age range is £8.78 per pupil, but the real spend varies from £71.43 at one extreme to 64p at the other.
      5.	The costs of building new laboratories or refurbishing existing ones have been reported in the DfES "Science accommodation in secondary schools 80" revised 1999. These costs have been further updated here by applying a correction from the RPI.
      6.	The cost of building a new laboratory is therefore taken to cost £145k, while refurbishment costs for a 90 square metre laboratory is likely to be in the range of £36 - 55k. Table 3 sets out the costings for all laboratories to a minimum standard of "good" or better.
      7.	RSC commissioned CLEAPSS, specialists in this field to conduct the survey and prepare the figures.
      8.	Questionnaires were sent to half of all maintained secondary schools in England (including middle deemed secondary), and resulted in a return rate of 42%. Analysis of responses show a high degree of consistency across the subgroups below:    Schools in high, medium and low spending local authorities     Comprehensive, grammar, secondary modern, specialist science, specialist (non science)     Community, foundation, voluntary controlled, voluntary aided; and     Age ranges: 11-16, 11-18, 14-18, middle deemed secondary

    

4. Providing the best chemical sciences education in schools

   1. The RSC welcomes moves by the government to address teacher shortages, but we remain concerned that there is still some way to go before there is a sufficient number of high quality teachers of chemistry and physics to provide a balance to the science teaching force. 

   2. Government surveys, in which "chemistry teacher" is defined in two ways: by subject taught and by qualification, highlight the problem. The data has been analysed in an RSC report⁵ and concluded:

      	on the basis of subject taught, the number of chemistry teachers has more than halved since the surveys began in 1984. There has been an equally worrying drop of some 40% in terms of qualification between 1984 and 1996. No figures are available for 2002;
      	starting from the assumption that there should be a balance of expertise in science teaching at Key Stage 4, there is a requirement for some 8300 plus chemistry teachers to cover KS4 and A-level. The 2002 Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey found that there were, in maintained schools, 4680 teachers with a degree, BEd or PGCE in Chemistry. There is, therefore, an estimated shortfall of 3670 (or 44%) to be met by other teachers;
      	over the past twenty years, government-set targets for recruitment to science teaching have only been met in the three years between1991 - 1993. The allocation of science places is uneven, with the majority of places allocated to biology and combined sciences. The net effect is that since 1984, the proportion of science teacher trainees with a chemistry qualification has fallen from 30% to 18%;
      	science teachers are not only more likely to be nearer to retirement than other teachers, but also more likely to be attracted away by independent schools and to government schemes (such as the KS3 science strategy). Resignations from chemistry posts rose by 137% in the period 1994 - 2001.

   3. There are a number of actions that can be progressed to monitor and improve the situation. We believe that these actions must be underpinned by a clear government commitment to improving the number and quality of teachers of the physical sciences. In particular, the government must do more to address the underlying need to attract and retain chemistry and physics teachers. 

   4. The Government needs to give a clear commitment to setting teacher training targets according to demand not supply. Furthermore, increasing the number and funding for both institutions and students on chemistry and physics enhancement courses would also show a commitment to addressing the issue.

   5. We welcome the introduction of the package of incentives available to new teacher training recruits, but believe that there is scope that these should be extended further. We believe that the Repayment of Student Loans pilot scheme should be confirmed for training recruits teachers, and continue to cover the costs university fees. Such action should already be accommodated in the DfES budget and therefore should not increase demands on it.

   6. There is also a need to retain those qualified teachers already in post and ensure that they have the means to participate in continuous professional development to remain at the cutting edge of developments in science education.

   7. In 2002, there were 45,400 full-time science teachers in maintained secondary schools in England. The RSC believes that around 5 days CPD on an annual basis is needed to ensure that these science teachers are kept up-to-date with developments in education, and that this training should be an entitlement. Government provision of around £70m per annum to cover the costs of courses and supply cover will be a major incentive in retention of these staff.