Telling the world why Universities matter

Demonstrating the impact that Universities have on the economy and society is high on government agenda: RCUK have introduced impact plans to encourage academics to think about their impact at the outset of research and Hefce are introducing an assessment of impact into the Research Excellence Framework (which will replace the RAE). Measuring research impact is fundamentally fraught with problems - research can take decades (if not centuries) to reach its tangible impact, types of impact vary hugely depending on discipline and do not necessarily have a monetary value. To start tackling the many issues, Hefce are piloting their proposed impact assessment in the coming months to inform how impact could robustly be assessed as part of the REF. In parallel to the impact pilot, Hefce and UUK are also piloting ‘Wellings Benefit Statements’ that could also shed light on the issue of impact assessment.

In 2008, Professor Paul Wellings, Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University, published a report commissioned by the Secretary of State which reviewed the area of intellectual property and research benefits. The review highlighted the need to demonstrate how Universities contribute to a broad range of benefits to the economy and society, through maximising the impact of their research. He suggested that statements of beneficial economic and social outcomes could build the confidence of society in the value of HEIs. These Wellings Benefit Statements, as they are now called, could be a tool to demonstrate to the taxpayer, funders, industry or students that money put into Universities is put to the best possible use in the interests of all in society. Depending on the success of the pilot and the views after the next general election, it is possible that the Benefit Statements will become compulsory for all Universities in 2011.

Over 25 Universities, including my own institution Oxford, have volunteered for pilot exercise. It is certainly going to be a challenge – the contributions to society from the higher education sector are so rich, complex, wide-reaching and difficult to distil into key messages, especially at larger institutions. A summary of all our benefits to society could be a 100 page volume in itself – and I’m sure no politician would read that. Hefce have asked us to focus our messages by choosing audiences to target (perhaps the general public, policy makers, local community or businesses) and types of benefits to showcase. A typology for knowledge based benefits to society is emerging - it includes categories such as supporting society to debate, knowledge access, stimulating economic or social development, supporting public policy, HE-community research and student community volunteering. A representative from BIS has already describe the draft typology as ‘excellent, inspiring even’ while still encouraging Universities to think openly and broadly about their benefit to society. Choosing which audience to target our message will also be key and we are being encouraged to choose the audience we currently find it most difficult to engage with.

The ultimate plan is that Hefce and UUK will assimilate the pilot institution contributions into a few overarching key messages that can be fed back to Treasury with supporting case studies and metrics. Meanwhile the pilot institutions will be left to convert their Benefit Statements into some sort of communication back to their intended audiences. Universities, and the sector as a whole, still have a lot to learn about communication with the outside world. Newer Universities seem be a lot more active in their marketing (I recall the sign at Cambridge Railway Station that reads ‘Cambridge – Home of Anglia Ruskin University’) whereas here in Oxford much of the local community have no idea that the museums and botanic gardens are even Oxford University facilities. The Benefit Statements initiative will hopefully give us the support to communicate in an effective and appropriate way and the flexibility to target the groups who matter to us.

There is also a danger that Universities concentrate on showcasing benefits that are easy to describe, like public engagement. We run the risk of Disneyfying University research and doing more harm than good in an attempt to communicate more effectively with the public. The biggest impact that Universities have are not straightforward stories to tell.  

There are many challenges ahead - balancing depth of case studies with range of activities while keeping the document short and engaging, understanding the breadth of knowledge based benefits, providing useful metrics and communication channels. Some of these are similar obstacles facing the REF impact assessment so it would not surprise me if some of the findings of the Benefit Statements pilot also feed into how the REF will work in practice.

Why everyone was wrong about David Nutt

I've published two pieces today on the David Nutt affair, a long one in Prospect and a short one in Research Fortnight (both paid-for sites). Both run counter to the general flow of opinion from the scientific world in that I think Nutt-ism is the problem not the solution - and, I argue, in a tragic twist, those who are keenest to champion the cause of evidence-based policy have actually done it the greatest damage in this affair.

The core of the argument, as explained in detail in Prospect, is that:

* Nutt has framed his dismissal as a conflict between politics and science

* This frame has been adopted uncritically by most of the media and scientific community

* But science does not really say nearly as much about the classification of drugs as Nutt suggests it does

* Nutt's failure to clarify the distinction between what the evidence does and doesn't say has undermined the role of all scientists advising government, and the cause of evidence-based policy in general

* To back Nutt in this dispute ostensibly because he is standing up for science is at best a gross mistake, and at worst a closing of ranks by scientists around one of their own.

In the Prospect article I look at the general consequences of this; in Research Fortnight I look at the specific issues it raises for the scientific community. Here, I'm briefly going to tackle the media issues.

The general problem of the uncritical acceptance by the media of the frame that Nutt provided them with troubles me. It is not a case of journalists misreporting what scientists tell them; it is a case of journalists failing to question what they have been told by a scientist. How bad the reporting has been is exemplified  by the misleading way Colin Blakemore was presented in this story (for which, I should add, I see no reason to blame him).

Blakemore has appeared widely in the media. His role in the story has generally been to buttress the idea that there is some kind of general problem between science and politics that the Nutt affair exemplifies. But - and it's a huge but - he is not an independent figure in this. In fact, he is a co-author with Nutt of the key Lancet paper that Nutt cites when arguing that his views on classification are "scientific".

Unfortunately, you would never have guessed that from the coverage in the media. I'm only going to bother listing here a few samples, mainly from journalists and media I generally admire - there have been many more. So here's a brief list of a few of those who got it wrong:

Justin Webb on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4

Jermey Paxman in a Newsnight debate on BBC2 on 2 November

Nature

Bloomberg

Mirror

Telegraph.

How could so many good journalists get it so wrong?

Lessons learned from Nutt fallout

The government is to rework the terms of engagement for using scientific advice, science minister Paul Drayson has confirmed.

Drayson says that the government will endorse the recommendations set out by a group of scientists in Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice and that a set of rules governing science advisory bodies will be prepared by Christmas. The science minister will work with the signatories of the principles on the terms as well as other government scientific advisers.

The principles, which were signed by a number of respected scientists, including Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and former chief scientific adviser Bob May, state that speaking out about policy issues should not constitute grounds for dismissal when a scientist is advising the government in an unpaid capacity and that advisory boards should be allowed to operate without political pressure.

They were published in response to the sacking of David Nutt from his position as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last week by home secretary Alan Johnson. The decision sparked fury among scientists, many of whom have warned that Johnson’s actions could discourage academics from working for the government in the future.

In an interview with Research Fortnight, Drayson said that he has spent the past few days in discussions with Johnson, the Prime Minister and John Beddington, the government chief scientific advisor, about how to handle the situation and that he has decided to draw up the new terms as a result, based on the ideas put forward in the principles document.
“I want to absolutely underline the government’s commitment to the principle of academic freedom and independent scientific advice— the principle and the practice,” he says. “These principles are a very good starting point.”

Drayson says that he hopes that the terms will go some way to drawing some good from the Nutt scandal.

“What this has shown is that both the political world and the scientific world need to have a better understanding of each other but also that the rules of engagement need to be more rigorously applied,” he says.

Nutt was dismissed after making a speech at King’s College London in July, which was published in a pamphlet last week, during which he suggested that ministers “distort” the value of scientific evidence in their policies. He argues that the government’s classification of ecstasy and cannabis should be reassessed and says that his panel has faced continual political interference in its work since Gordon Brown came into office.
Nutt has called for Drayson to lead on remodelling the ACMD in the wake of his departure. But while Drayson says that the terms of engagement will address issues such as giving committees access to an independent press office, he believes that Beddington would be better placed to advise on the specifics of the ACMD itself. “I do think that it is the role of the advisers to advise ministers on the setting up of those committees. My role as science minister is to champion science in government.”

Drayson says that Johnson was wrong to sack Nutt without consulting either him or Beddington and that he would expect ministers to communicate with him in the future on such matters before taking action. However, asked whether he agreed in principle with the sacking of Nutt, if not the method, the minister said that he does not think it “helpful” to go over the details of the incident.