British Research Funding: One Good Cut Deserves Another

Sometimes even your best isn't enough, as some British life science laboratories are finding out, the hard way. Many are scrambling to change priorities and seek other funding to compensate for cuts by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The council distributes money according to each university's quality rating on the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which is based on a seven-point scale (1, 2, 3b, 3a, 4, 5, 5*) with 5* being the highest rating. But even institutions awarded the 5* rating will face funding cuts from the HEFCE. To cushion the blow, HEFCE will taper funding gradually. The University of Greenwich medical department, with an RAE rating of 3a, will receive £1.18 million in cuts. Parliament elevated the former Polytechnic Institute to university status under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 as part of a national campaign to increase competitiveness. "This decision makes it difficult to nurture new, up-and-coming universities. ...If you strangle research funding at an early stage, what's the chance of developing into a higher grade?" asks Carl Smith, Polytechnic University's press officer. Smith says administrators plan to distribute the cuts so that no one center receives the brunt. "Fortunately we also have other avenues of income to draw from." The HEFCE funding reductions follow an unprecedented improvement in overall RAE quality ratings and a 10% boost in overall funding that will lift the total life science research budget from £231 million in 2001 to £254 million in 2002. But because so many departments received high ratings, funding for each has been trimmed. "The government gave HEFCE £30 million more than we were told we would be getting," says Mario Ferelli, head of HEFCE funding and analytical services. "But the crux of the matter is we don't have enough money to go around." Perfection and Penury Despite an HEFCE promise to maintain funding levels at the highest-ranking institutes, even labs with 5* ratings on the RAE are experiencing cuts. Two departments at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), for example, received a 5*. Yet, while the ICR expects a 1.4% boost in overall funding, cancer research monies will be trimmed by 8% to 10%, or by about £1.25 million, according to Stephen Neidle, ICR academic dean. Neidle asserts that the distribution of funds contradicts the government's stated policy of emphasizing cancer research. "It appears that we're a victim of a rather mechanistic, formulaic system when we can't maintain funding even though our indications of quality are as good as they ever have been," he says. Andrew Haines, dean of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is also perplexed by what he considers a subjective evaluation. The school, ranked 10th in the country according to a survey by The Guardian,1 was targeted for reductions. "One could debate the RAE and how the funding decisions were subsequently made in the absence of sufficient money to fund all the improvement in quality," Haines says. "But I think there is a general appreciation that we have been hit as a quirk of the system." RAE examiners, who completed their evaluations in December 2001, reported that the quality of research had risen across the country. "We were expecting an improvement, but this was certainly higher than what our projections assumed," HEFCE's Ferelli says. He estimates, however, that the agency would have to spend an additional £200 million to maintain previous levels and fund the improvements in top-rated programs. Vasanthi Mahesan, a senior analyst who manages data at HEFCE, states that schools rated 5* will maintain their funding in real terms. The average contribution per research staff member has increased 2.6% from £28,521 in 2001 to £29,261 in 2002. The number of researchers in a department and the average departmental cost differentials (which are generally higher than average for life sciences than for other disciplines) determine the funding rate, Mahesan explains. HEFCE defines a researcher as someone who is funded by the institution and has four peer-reviewed publications in five years. Mahesan says a decrease in a department's researchers can offset the increase in funding per member. Figures from the ICR show that the number of institutionally funded researchers has increased by 11.4% in 2002 from 83.9 to 93.5, he says. Ferelli explains that the ICR didn't get an increase because the proportion of total funding to sciences as compared with other fields is fixed. "The RAE is not designed to be an equitable commitment of funds," he adds. "Our commitment is on a national level, not an individual one." Future Funding The HEFCE has launched a comprehensive spending review that could result in additional funding, Ferelli says. He advises departments to use discretion in making budget cuts because the agency may be able to restore the funding to expected levels. Other key research-funding organizations, such as the Medical Research Council (MRC), do not plan to change distribution plans in response to the HEFCE cuts. Internationally peer-reviewed panels will continue to distribute the £175 million in grants slated for medical schools and universities, MRC chief press officer Carolan Davidge says. "We want to fund the highest quality and strategic research," she adds. "We're not here to fill in any gaps." Under the RAE, a panel of about 10 experts, chosen from specialist organizations and universities, evaluates departments according to 68 benchmarks. The life science panels examined external research income, research grants received, publications, degrees awarded, and invitations to speak at seminars. In an atmosphere of such demonstrated excellence, funding shortfalls can only intensify brain drain from Britain, ICR's Neidle predicts. "A good number of people will choose to vote with their feet," he says. "And go to places like the United States where funding is easier to get and more stable." Hal Cohen can be contacted at hcohen@the-scientist.com 1. education.guardian.co.uk/researchratings/0,11227,616612,00.html

British Research Funding: One Good Cut Deserves Another

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of