"Further work"

by Brian Owens

The phrase "we will need to undertake further work..." crops up several times in HEFCE's consultation document on the new Research Excellence Framework.

The biggest area that is still up for debate is how to deal with the arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and statistics. For these, HEFCE will "develop a quality assessment regime involving a light touch form of peer review informed by quantitative indicators". But, so far, "we have not undertaken significant development work on this," says HEFCE. The consultation is seeking preliminary input on how this system should work. The time line for this is not as tight though, it only needs to be in place by 2013, to inform funding from 2014.

Other areas that are still under development include how researchers should be assigned to institutions and subject groups, the algorithm to produce the quality indicator based on citations, and indicators of research income and numbers of research students will be used. HEFCE is also looking for suggestions for quantitative indicators that can be used to capture user value and the quality of applied research.

HEFCE has commissioned further technical advice, to report in early 2008, on some of the data and methodological issues, and will run a "substantial" pilot exercise next year.

All this shows that the REF is still very much a work in progress, and although the general framework has been decided, there is still room for academics to tweak it here and there to try and deal with the problems that are bound to crop up.

But the timetable is tight, as HEFCE acknowledges:

November 2007 to February 2008 - Consultation on key elements of the framework and on bibliometric indicators. In parallel, further work on developing bibliometric techniques.

March to August 2008 - Substantial pilot of proposed approach

Autumn 2008 - Further consultation and decisions on the framework and indicators to be used for the science-based disciplines

Early 2009 - Launch of full bibliometrics exercise for science-based disciplines

November 2009 - Output of bibliometrics exercise available for use in funding; decisions on new funding approach to be phased in from 2010

From late 2009 - Consult on light touch peer review to run in 2013

The science-based disciplines

by Brian Owens

Here are HEFCE's proposed subject groups for the science-based disciplines for the new Research Excellence Framework. The six groups map to Main Panels A to E and G in the 2008 RAE, except for Unit of Assessment 23, Computer Science and Informatics, which has been taken from Panel F and combined with the engineering subjects covered by Panel G. The rest of Panel F, mathematics and statistics, will be assessed with the light-touch peer review system being developed for the arts and humanities.

Subject group	RAE 2008 units of assessment	HESA cost centres
Clinical Medicine (RAE Panel A)	1 Cardiovacular Medicine 2 Cancer Studies 3 Infection and Immunology 4 Other Hospital based Clinical Subjects 5 Other Lab based Clinical Subjects	1 Clinical Medicine (part)
Health Sciences (RAE Panel B)	6 Epidemiology and Public Health 7 Health Services Research 8 Primary Care and Other Community Based Clinical Subjects 9 Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Clinical Psychology	1 Clinical Medicine (part)
Subjects Allied to Health (RAE Panel C)	10 Dentistry 11 Nursing and Midwifery 12 Allied Health Professions and Studies 13 Pharmacy	2 Clinical Dentistry 5 Nursing and Paramedical Studies 6 Health and Community Studies 8 Pharmacy and Pharmacology (part)
Biological Sciences (RAE Panel D)	14 Biological Sciences 15 Pre-clinical and Human Biological Sciences 16 Agriculture, Veterinary and Food Sciences	1 Clinical Medicine (part) 3 Veterinary Science 4 Anatomy and Physiology 8 Pharmacy and Pharmacology (part) 10 Biosciences 13 Agriculture and Forestry
Physical Sciences (RAE Panel E)	17 Earth Systems and Environmental Science 18 Chemistry 19 Physics	11 Chemistry 12 Physics 14 Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences
Engineering and Computer Science (RAE Panel G, with part of F)	23 Computer Science and Informatics 24 Electrical and Electronic Engineering 25 General Engineering and Mineral & Mining Engineering 26 Chemical Engineering 27 Civil Engineering 28 Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering 29 Metallurgy and Materials	25 Information Technology, Systems Sciences and Computer Software Engineering 16 General Engineering 17 Chemical Engineering 18 Mineral, Metallurgy and Materials Engineering 19 Civil Engineering 20 Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering 21 Mechanical, Aero and Production Engineering

The utter pointlessness of Nick Clegg

by Brian Owens

The latest developments in the ongoing saga of the National Institute of Medical Research:

PART 1 Like all other important decisions on science in the UK, the future of the National Institute for Medical Research now lies with the Treasury. It’s weighing up whether to allow the MRC and chums to buy the three acre site behind the British Library near St Pancras station so that they can construct the world’s biggest biomedical lab around a relocated NIMR. No one can move until the men in charge of Northern Rock give the nod. But of course, our economic overlords won’t be taking responsibility for the decision or answering any questions about it. So the unaccountability of the UK
government grows.

PART 2 The land is actually owned by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which bizarrely—but totally consistently in the case of the celebrated anti-science department that still has no chief scientist—has tried to put the land on the open market. It’s the Two Cultures in action—it’s like something straight out of CP Snow’s The Corridors of Power.

PART 3 The site is in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency of Labour’s Frank Dobson. He’d prefer a local use but says the backing of Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust will make the development very difficult to stop. So rather than lead Somerstown on a hopeless charge, he’s pushing for planning gain on the previous, smaller Temperance Hospital site bought by the consortium nearby on Hampstead Road.

PART 4 The site is also within the London Borough of Camden, now controlled by the Lib Dems with the aid of the Conservatives. Its borough plan has the site zoned as a mixture of local housing and other local-friendly amenities. Both Ming Campbell and Nick Clegg have been along to tell locals that the site must be saved for local use.

PART 5 Now that he wants to be Prime Minister, we called Clegg to find out what he thought should happen to the NIMR and why it was right in this case to put local concerns ahead of the future of a large chunk of Britain’s medical research. We phoned and phoned. We emailed. We left messages. Nada. Oops, could that be the embarrassed silence of a tinker toy politician we hear, one who thought it would be nice to play to the local gallery and wasn’t interested in the bigger questions?

Medical research is of course only one of a multitude of issues any leader has to deal with. But that’s why this story is telling. It’s not a case of vision and spin. It’s a matter of making a decision. The most damaging accusation levelled at Lib Dems has always been that they’re irrelevant. But Clegg is in a different league. The man who wants the keys to Number 10 is making an art out of evasive pointlessness.

Science at the top

by Brian Owens

Science and innovation was given a fairly high profile in today's announcement of the 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review. After outlining spending on defence and law and order, science came next. Although those devoted to basic research may be slightly concerned about the Chancellor's choice of words.

"I can confirm investment in science and university research will rise to over £6 billion a year in three years time, helping ensure British research and industry are brought closer together to develop the new products and services the world wants to buy," he said.

He also promised to fully fund the recommendations in the Cooksey Review, giving OSCHR £1.7bn by 2010. A new Environmental Transformation Fund will get £1.2bn over three years to develop new energy technologies.

And although Alistair Darling "borrowed" several ideas from the Tories, including a green levy on air travel and reforms to inheritance tax, he steered clear of their plans to improve the R&D tax credit, which he failed to mention in either the science and innovation, or tax sections of his speech.

You can read his speech for yourself here. And, if you're a real glutton for punishment, the full PBR and CSR is here.

Carving up the pie

by Brian Owens

DIUS will be announcing each research council's allocation of funding and other spending for the science budget after the chancellor's speech this afternoon.

Coming soon

by Brian Owens

Alistair Darling will announce the outcome of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and the Pre-Budget Report at 3.30pm today. Check here for up-to-the-minute coverage.

Yet more responses

by Brian Owens

Responses to Sainsbury continue. Here's the CBI, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, Universities UK, the Campaign for Mainstream Universities, and the Regional Development Agencies (DOC).
 

Responses continue

by Brian Owens

Another batch of responses to Sainsbury:

Institute of Biology Download IoB.doc

Design Council Download design_council.doc

Technology Strategy Board Download TSB.doc

University and College Union Download UCU.doc

Tomorrow's papers

by Brian Owens

The BBC website has gone with the science education campaign as the most important aspect of the Sainsbury Review. That seemed to be the consensus of the science correspondents at Number 10 this morning, so expect to see the same angle in the major papers tomorrow.

TSB money

by Brian Owens

The government has clarified what exactly the Technology Strategy Board's £1 billion consists of:

• £700 million to Technology Strategy Board - this is the TSB's CSR settlement money for the next three years which would have been announced as part of DIUS's overall CSR settlement next week. It is separate to the ring-fenced science budget, which was the subject of an early CSR settlement.

• £120 million is money committed by the research councils earmarked to be spent jointly with the TSB. This money is part of the ring-fenced science budget's CSR settlement, which was announced in March. The funding is over three years.

• £180 million is money which will be earmarked by the RDAs to spend jointly on projects with the TSB. This is money that is part of the RDAs CSR settlement (being announced on Tuseday) and will be spent over three years.

More responses

by Brian Owens

And here are responses to Sainsbury from The Royal Society, the Bioindustry Association (PDF), the  Campaign for Science and Engineering (PDF), and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (PDF).

"Get on with it"

by Brian Owens

So David Sainsbury's review is here at long last. The government has accepted his recommendations and even plans to implement some of them right away.

First off, the Technology Strategy Board will get £1 billion over the next three years, with £120 million coming from the research councils and £180 million from the Regional Development Agencies. Further details will be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review, expected early next week.

Secondly, The number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships will be doubled to boost research-business links.

Third, the government will launch a “major campaign” to improve the teaching a learning of science in schools. This will include boosting investment in the training of specialist science teachers, improving careers advice and doubling the number of school science and engineering clubs over the next five years.

And finally, government departments will be encouraged to improve their use of procurement to drive innovation. The Small Business Research Initiative will be reformed and administered by the TSB.

The Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills will develop a new science and innovation strategy, which will include plans for implementing the rest of the review’s recommendations. DIUS will also produce an annual cross-government innovation report.

The selection of VIPs who were chosen to discuss the review with Gordon Brown this morning included representatives from the research councils, TSB, RDAs, industry, universities and other research funders such as the Wellcome Trust. Here are links to responses from HEFCE, Nesta, and RCUK. They all broadly welcomed the review, and the government's response. Brown invited them to return in a few months to review the government's progress on implementing the recommendations.

There is not much that is earth-shatteringly new in the review. Much of it, particularly the recommendations on using government procurement more effectively to stimulate innovation, has been said before. In fact, Labour's own Kitty Ussher, before she joined the Treasury, had a private member's bill to that effect die on the order paper last year. All that remains is for the government to go ahead and actually implement the changes they've been talking about for months.

To that end, Richard Sykes, rector of Imperial College London, had perhaps the most useful advice for Gordon when he told him to "just get on with it!"