How to read David Willetts' speech to Universities UK

David Willets gave a speech to the Universities UK conference last week giving an overview of HE policy and promising a new white paper on higher education. What follows below is an annotated version of the speech, with my comments in red. I'm doing this with all the speeches from Willetts and Vince Cable, which are indexed here. I'll be digesting all this and summarising my thoughts in the next issue of Research Fortnight.

It's a compelling speech from someone who has - unlike Vince Cable last week - mastered his brief. But for me it ignores the central issue of the role of universities in economic growth. BIS and the Treasury have a growth paper coming out at the same time as the CSR and I’m very disappointed we’re not hearing more about that. George Osborne’s most recent speeches on this subject have also completely neglected the knowledge triangle, starting to revert to the simplistic line from Margaret Thatcher’s time that growth is all up to businesses. Willetts wants us all to accept that cuts in research spending are inevitable given the pressure on the public purse. But the US, Germany, France all see it differently, for good reason. Like Science is Vital, I think the coalition still hasn't explained why it makes sense for the UK to cut research spending.

***

Universities UK Annual Conference

David Willetts

By David Willetts

Minister of State for Universities and Science (attending Cabinet)

9 Sep 2010, Cranfield University

[check against delivery]

New science campaign groups may be snowballing

Vince Cable’s accidental insult to Britain’s researchers on Wednesday has prompted the creation of two new Facebook groups aimed at campaigning against cuts in science, Science is Vital and Vince Cable is Wrong On Science. They are growing fast.

On Wednesday night they had a combined membership of 324. Last night it was 796, with Science is Vital the bigger of the two. If they breach 1300 members today we may be looking at a genuine snowball that could rapidly sign up tens of thousands for a new wave of campaigning against the government.

Flip flopping at the IChemE

The Institute of Chemical Engineering appears to have had a curious change of heart in the wake of yesterday’s gloomy speech from Vince Cable.

The organisation has responded to the news that the science budget faces cuts by saying that the search for the Higgs Boson should be put on ice.

In a statement released yesterday, Andy Furlong, head of policy at the IChemE said the following:

"Innovative process engineering is central to the quest for solutions and it's important that spending should be directed towards these areas. The UK is well placed to secure a competitive advantage in emerging fields with attractive revenue generating potential, such as industrial biotechnology. Curiosity driven scientific research remains important and pure science has enjoyed a real boost over the last decade. But the financial crisis has changed the game and a shift of focus is needed. As ever, the devil is in the detail and we look forward to assisting government with the development of its plans. But for now at least the search for the Higgs Boson may have to wait.”

It’s not so long ago that the IChemE wrote a joint letter with the Institute of Physics to Research Fortnight saying pretty much the opposite. The two were responding to the Royal Academy of Engineering’s suggestion that money should be pulled from particle physics to support near-market research:

“We recognise that in the current economic background there needs to be a strong focus on value for money in all government expenditure, but this must recognise the synergy between basic science and the translation or innovation capability. There does need to be an emphasis on application (which emphatically does not necessarily mean just short-term application) as a reflection of economic need, but not at the expenses of undermining the science base.”

So what has prompted this u-turn? The IChemE say that they don’t want to see an “ugly scrap” over funding. But you might say that this is exactly how you start one.

The Royal Academy of Engineering isn't the only one with some explaining to do

Before the summer break, just as the country's professional societies seemed united in their determination to protect basic science against government cutbacks, the RAEng told the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) that the only science worth protecting was that which would benefit the economy in the near or immediate future.  Particle physics—particularly the work going on at CERN's Large Hadron Collider—should be chopped in its favour. 

You can argue till the cows come home about this, and the RAEng's proposition has some support among, for example, the mechanical engineeers. But when even right-wing, market-obsessed politicians like Peter Mandelson and Nicolas Sarkozy are speaking up for the central role of basic science in advanced economies, you have to take a second look.

In one day, Vince Cable has become an object of ridicule and loathing

 It was a momentary slip. Something, Lib Dems will say, that could happen to anyone. But one thing is for sure, Vince Cable's confusion on yesterday’s Today programme over percentages, the Research Assessment Exercise and research council grants has cost him dearly with scientists. He started the day as a reasonably new, reasonably popular cabinet minister for science. By the end of it, he was for many an object of ridicule and loathing.

To anyone who isn’t a researcher, it’s probably hard to see what the fuss is about. The key passage from Cable’s BBC interview is this:

“There was some estimate on the basis of surveys done recently that something in the order of 45 per cent of the research grants that were going through was to research that was not of excellent standard. So the bar will have to be raised.”

That 45 per cent is the sort of mind-numbing statistic that politicians hurl around every day. But to researchers who strain every intellectual sinew to win one of those coveted research council grants, it sounded like a slap in the face. Almost half our research, the Business Secretary seemed to be saying, is rubbish. In one moment, Cable had trashed the reputation of British science, and of everyone who works in it.

How to read Vince Cable's speech on science at Queen Mary's

Vince Cable gave a speech at Queen Mary's today in which he sketched out his approach to science. What follows below is an annotated version of the speech, with my comments in red. There's also some notes from the Q&A and press briefing at the end. I'll be digesting all this and summarising my thoughts in the next issue of Research Fortnight.

It turns out that all the gloomy stuff in advance about not funding "mediocre" research probably only adds up to £115m of cuts. If the research base gets away with that, scientists will be dancing in the streets. Though the new universities that Cable's now inviting to "concentrate on teaching" will probably feel differently.

***

Has Cable given up on science already?

The BBC and Guardian this morning have been given some advance extracts from Vince Cable's speech on science today. The key quote they have both focused on is this:

"There is no justification for taxpayers' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding".

That sounds reasonable at first. But hang on, we already have mechanisms throughout our research system in this country to try and ensure this doesn't happen. QR funding already is tightly focused on departments that have proved themselves to be those things in the RAE. Every grant that is awarded by a research council gets its funding because it meets those criteria better than the competing proposals. Heads of department and vice chancellors are constantly assessing the performance of researchers to see whether they are producing work that meets these sorts of criteria.

But still, Cable's language suggests that lots of money is being wasted because academics are somehow keen on subsidising crummy research. That's not the case. The problem is, you have to hand out the funding before the research gets done. And there is no nice neat way of ensuring that all the money gets used well. For example, if you only give money to researchers or departments or institutions who have already proven to be brilliant, you end up just funding the same old crowd, who lose their edge.

His department knows all this. But in his speech, it seems Cable is intent on glossing over the intrinsic difficulties in managing government research spending. Why? The obvious explanation is that he wants to soften researchers up for a coming round of deep cuts. Where is the fight, Vince? Where is the man who told voters he was in favour of rebalancing the economy? If Cable ever fought with the Treasury to defend the research budget, I don't know. But these extracts from his speech suggest he has now definitively given up.