UCL wedding off

It was a short engagement, about five weeks to be precise. Now plans for a marriage of convenience between University College London (UCL) and Imperial College, two of Britain's most respected universities, have been scrapped for the time being, after an unprecedented revolt led by academics.In a tersely worded statement earlier this week, Sir Derek Roberts, acting provost of UCL, announced that a formal merger was off but that "a number of areas for future collaboration" had been identified.Another version of Roberts' views appeared in the Guardian newspaper on Monday, in which he was quoted as saying: "An enormous amount of antipathy and ill feeling has been generated by various groups. I am quite disgusted and amazed at some of my colleagues."But several academics accused of spoiling plans for what was touted as Britain's first "super-university" have told The Scientist why they opposed the merger. It seems their resistance mainly reflects concerns that the plans had been poorly thought-out, rather than any ideological opposition to the move.When the merger was first proposed in mid October, Roberts insisted the intention was to create the world's number one university, one that would put Oxford and Cambridge "way, way behind" and the new institution "in a strong position to rival Harvard."But it soon became apparent that hundreds of staff and researchers within UCL saw the move as an "Imperial takeover." A Committee for UCL sprang up, supported by an anti-merger website, and quickly gathered support from hundreds of people, including everyone from senior academic staff to students. A separate website, Save UCL, was also set up to fight the merger.Such is the sensitivity of the issue that some senior academics at UCL are still reluctant to be seen publicly criticising the plans. But one, a specialist in neurophysiology, told The Scientist: "I attended the meeting about the merger held by the Provost for all the senior academics. Afterwards I was left still wanting to be convinced about the strength of the evidence that it was for the benefit of UCL. "It was not clear to me, after reading all the information we'd been given, that this was the case. There was no justification for it. "UCL has a good reputation around the world and it's not the case that bigger institutions would be any more able to attract funding. "There's no question we should be fostering relations with Imperial but as to a merger, the answer's no."Another anonymous opponent from UCL, a very senior figure in molecular biology, expressed a similar view: "It's not that we were opposed per se but there was no information provided as to how we would benefit. "These are two great institutions but the perception was that it was a takeover by Imperial. We heard rumours there would be job losses at UCL. I don't know whether that's true or not and that's not why I made my decision. I did that because I could not see how it would benefit my students. And bigger is not necessarily better. "I think everyone is relieved now but we're not pretending the matter will not arise again. But next time they'll know to talk to their staff first. After all, people in universities are independent, free thinking and work very hard for the little money they get."Not all the opposition came from with UCL, however. Some academics at Imperial also shared the concerns.Dr David Leak, from the department of biochemistry at Imperial, says he too failed to see what advantages there were in the move. "It needed to be justified on education and research grounds and nobody had done that. If somebody had come back and given us more good reasons I would not have been against it."Like others, Leak believes it may be more fruitful to explore the potential for informal collaboration, rather than combining two giant institutions. But job losses among colleagues in biological sciences were a concern too "Looking at greater research collaboration would have a lot of advantages," he said. "But I could not see what the advantages were in a merger."One scientist who did support the merger in principle was Brian Butterworth, professor of cognitive neuropsychology at UCL. But as time wore on, doubts began to grow. "I originally thought it was a good idea. The idea of a super-university was an exciting one and I thought there could be many interesting ways in which teams at UCL and Imperial could collaborate. "I was hoping that there would be information about all the benefits that would ensue but we never got that. They were never spelled out. "I kept waiting for the Provost to tell us why we should be behind this move and I never got an answer."Butterworth believes one reason the plan failed to win support among academics was because its instigators failed to understand an important factor; that as scientists, they needed evidence it would work before they could sanction it.And the fact that the merger was partly driven by Imperial College rector Sir Richard Sykes — who presided over the redundancies resulting from the merger between Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham — did little to calm fears. "These are people who come from a culture where mergers are often beneficial. So they would see this as a chance to merge companies and rationalize facilities. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time."For now, the merger is on hold. But few are betting against it surfacing again in future. Indeed, the UCL statement confirming the U-turn hints that more may be to come when a new Provost is appointed from October 2003. "Once in post the new Provost and the Rector for Imperial College may well continue discussions on developing the opportunities for collaboration identified in the last five weeks."

UCL wedding off

Worried academics revolt against a merger between two of Britain's most prestigious universities.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of