Bargain-basement research

LONDON — No-one could accuse Dr Ian Gibson of mincing his words. The Member of Parliament chaired a House of Commons committee that has just completed a through investigation into the funding of British science research. He is unequivocal in his criticism of the system and the harm he believes under-funding is doing to Britain's standing. "The nation's scientists have proved to be among the best in the world but world-class research cannot be maintained on bargain-basement funding," he said. Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, believes the Labour government needs to end decades of under-investment in research when it undertakes a major review of future spending later this year. The report, by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, focuses on the system used to decide which universities qualify for the most funding, known as the Research Assessment Exercise. The RAE was introduced in 1986 as a means of ensuring that the institutions doing the best research got the most money. Carried out every three to five years, it measures how each university is doing, mostly on the basis of how many staff are involved in research, the number of journal articles they have published, conference contributions and patents. But in recent years there has been concern about the effects RAE has had on some universities, with fears that the efforts put into 'playing the funding game' have distracted some from their main responsibilities. The issue hit the headlines after the 2001 exercise appeared to show an unprecedented improvement in the quality of British academic research. It showed 40% of departments submitted for assessment were awarded a level 5 or 5* — the highest ratings possible — with no fewer than 55% of 'active' researchers reportedly working in these departments. The results suggested academic departments had put in a massive effort to improve their ratings, yet because of budgetary restrictions on government research funding were unlikely to get the financial rewards they deserved. As a result, MPs on the Science and Technology Committee undertook their inquiry with two main objectives: to see if the 2001 results reflected a genuine improvement in the quality of British research, and to assess the need for a change to improve funding. Their report, released on 25 April, is packed with criticisms of the way things are currently handled as well as recommendations for change. First, it concluded that despite what it calls "some gamesmanship," the 2001 RAE did indeed reflect a genuine improvement in the quality of research. But the Government, it said, failed to recognize this in the funding allocation for 2002–2003 and awarded only an extra £30 million instead of the £206 million that's really needed. The committee also decided that the much-criticized RAE had brought some benefits, principally by stimulating universities into managing their research and ensuring funds were targeted at areas of research excellence. But it added: "The RAE has undoubtedly brought benefits but it has also caused collateral damage. It stands accused of distorting research practice, ruining academic careers and contributing to the closure of university departments. It has also imposed a huge administrative burden on those assessed. The RAE in its present form is generally agreed to have had its day." Its key recommendations include: • A new type of RAE, one with a "broader funding strategy" without all the side-effects and disadvantages of the current system; • A fairer system, one that ends the "divisive and demoralizing practice" of excluding some academics from the process; • The Government to establish a 'seedcorn' fund to stimulate the development of research in new departments; • A more sophisticated weighting system for funding, one that reflects the high costs of research in certain scientific subjects. Yet without the money to make them work, the recommendations are futile, it added. "Discussions about the mechanism for the allocation of research funding are largely meaningless unless the under-funding of university research is addressed. There is a strong case for a substantial increase in the higher education research budget - not less than £200 million a year." Leading interested parties voiced almost universal approval for the report. Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, welcomed the verdict that research quality really had improved. Chief Executive Diana Warwick said: "It supports our position that the decision not to fund fully the results of the RAE was demoralizing for those who worked hard for these results." The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the body that oversees the RAE and which came in for some criticism in the report, said it had already looked at many of the issues raised by the Science and Technology Committee. It said it would argue the case for more money and stressed a survey it carried out two years ago revealed strong support remains for a system that funds only the best research. "There was overwhelming support from all respondents that the HEFCE should continue to fund research selectively on the basis of quality. And 98% expressed support for retaining a process of research assessment based on per review." Peter Cotgreave, director of the lobby group Save British Science, said he agreed with the report's conclusion that the RAE had "done its job." "Even its wildest critics would admit it has had some positive effects. But now it's reached its limit to do anything useful." Cotgreave believes it's time to change the funding mechanism, not least because universities have become adept at playing the game to secure as much cash as possible. Yet he concedes that the same thing is likely to happen to whatever replaces RAE. "These are university professors and they are very clever people. They will work out what the formula is in order to play the game. Any sensible person will realize it's all about doing high quality research, competing for external funding and having papers published in leading journals."

Bargain-basement research

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Pat Hagan

Related Research Resources

Why Do Some People Get Drunk Faster Than Others?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Sex Differences in Neurological Research

New Frontiers in Vaccine Development

New Approaches for Decoding Cancer at the Single-Cell Level

Organoids as a Tool for Tissue Regeneration Research

Products

Product News

Understanding the Nuts and Bolts of qPCR Assay Controls

Takara Bio USA Holdings, Inc. announces the acquisition of Curio Bioscience, adding spatial biology to its broad portfolio of single-cell omics solutions

Sapio Sciences Announces Enhanced Capabilities for Chemistry, Immunogenicity, GMP and Molecular Biology

Biotium Unveils the Most Sensitive Stains for DNA or RNA with New EMBER™ Ultra Agarose Gel Kits