Lundegaard to Head up UK Universities

The landscape has changed. The earth has shifted. After four years in post David 'Two Brains' Willetts has stepped down as Minister of State for Universities and Science. He has held the post in both opposition and government since 2005. As the dust settles on the reshuffle, one thing is clear: David Cameron's been avidly watching the DVD of Fargo. Why else would he get on the blower and offer the hapless Jerry Lundegaard the most prestigious position in higher education?

You're darn tootin'!

Lundegaard

Clark

'The Sower of Discord'

Somewhere in Turkmenistan

Last week David Willetts suggested that the Government was considering 'franchising' the REF to countries overseas. Now read on.

A terrorist arms bazaar, somewhere in Afghan/Turkmenistan border, a la Tomorrow Never Dies. Amidst all the hardware is a small stall piled high with A4 brochures. A bald man in rimless glasses stands behind the stall. He's wearing a Life of Brian style beard.

Willetts (for it is he): Pssst!
Terrorist (points to himself): Who, me?
Willetts: Yes! Are you interested in causing (looks to left and right) chaos and confusion?
Terrorist: Well...
Willetts: Do you want to blow apart civilisation? Destroy social conventions? Do you want to strike  at the heart of the intelligensia?
Terrorist (suspiciously): Maybe...
Willetts: Ah! Come! I have a wondrous weapon! More powerful than any nuclear warhead! More dangerous than a box of hand grenades without their pins!
Terrorist (looking at the stall, and picking up a brochure entitled 'Panel Criteria and Working Methods'): But this is just a...
Willetts: (waving his arms) Don't be fooled my friend! This has the potential to return society to a prehistoric struggle for survival! (Grabs the brochure and stabs his fingers at its cover) This has the power to make 'civilised' people claw each other's eyes out, and trample each other into the dirt! Not only that, but you can force the smartest people in your country to spend hours - weeks! - years! in futile bureaucracy!
Terrorist (shaking his head): That will never happen.
Willetts: It will! I have tried it and I know it works! You don't need guns, you don't need tanks. All you need is 'The Sower of Discord'!
Terrorist: 'Sower of Discord'? Is that its name?
Willetts: Yes! It is the Armageddon Machine! But we must move stealthily. In my country it has been codenamed (whispers): 'The Research Excellence Framework'.
Terrorist: So how does it work, this Sower of Discord?
Willetts: Ah! That is the clever part! This is the - mwhahahah! - genius of my plan! These intelligent infidels are the creators of their own destruction! See, I give them a pile of money and say that they have divide it up amongst themselves. But they mustn't do it equitably! Oh no! They must work out who is the 'cleverest' amongst them.
Terrorist: That doesn't sound too hard.
Willetts: Oh but it is! How do you measure 'clever', eh? Eh?
Terrorist: Hmm.
Willetts: Yes! They tear themselves apart with H Indexes, and impact factors, and all sorts of crazy bibliometrics! But my friend, I've not got to the best bit. Not only do they have to work out who is the cleverest, but also who is the most - heh! heh! -  'impactful'.
Terrorist: What does that mean?
Willetts (eyes gleaming): Ah - ha! That is the genius! No one knows! And we do not tell them! We just say, 'work it out for yourselves!' Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It creates institutional and personal madness! Madness!
Terrorist (with disgust): But that is...monstrous. What kind of sick individual are you? I may be a terrorist, but I do have some standards. You keep your, your...so-called 'Research Framework Excellence'. I'm off to buy some canisters of sarin gas.

Contemplating Turkeys

Dear David

Happy New Year to you. Whilst the rest of us were pulling crackers and flicking through the bumper copy of the Radio Times, it looks like you were hard at work planning the next phase of the Coalition's higher education strategy. Really David; you should have rested completely. Good policy does not come from contemplating turkeys.

I must admit that I was a little bewildered (as were many on Twitter) by the plans you announced today for privately-funded graduate institutions. Now I know I've had a long break (with the Guardian noting how befuddled the workforce is after the long Christmas 'Lull'), but am I missing something?

Run it by me again, David: you want universities to set up international collaborations, using private money, to found new research intensive 'hubs'? But the Government isn't going to contribute? Even the land for it is expected to be given, gratis, by a UK city. Would those be the same cities currently being squeezed by the Government's austerity measures?

I'm afraid it has the feeling of a magician's sleight of hand: if you twirl the handkerchief wildly enough, and blind us with magical words, will it make you seem dynamic, thrusting, forward thinking, and decisive - without really having to produce anything?

I don't think so. I'm pleased to read about your support for UK research and innovation, but if you really feel that 'high-tech, high-quality science and research...will drive economic growth as we go into the next decade', then why not invest in it? Sure, use the public funding to leverage private investment, but don't expect commercial organisations to come running to the aid of the UK's research base. If even the Government doesn't want to invest, why should anyone else?

As you suggest, 'our research community is the most productive in the world.' Let's do all we can to keep it so. Enough grand words. Time for some real commitment.

'I'll Name that Scheme in One, Tom...'

Interesting news from the beleagured David Willetts. Research Fortnight was reporting on Tuesday that he'd asked readers of the Times to help him name the new 'British Nobel' prize (you'll need to subscribe to the Times to see the original article, here). The prize was announced in the 'Plan for Growth' at the time of the Budget in March. It's intended to kick start a buzz around engineering and science. Allegedly. The prize is likely to be awarded every two years and could be worth up to £1 million.

Now two things occurred to me about this. Firstly, at a time when small grants are being cut left right and centre, bunging £1m at one scientist every couple of years doesn't seem like a great use of public (or private endowment) funds. Wouldn't it be better to - say - fund 100 pilot projects? Or 500 young scientists to go to conferences, now that the Royal Society is cutting its funding for conference attendance?

Secondly, what is it with people asking us to name things? Willetts' request came shortly after the EC's competition to find a new name for FP8. Is this the Big Society at action in research funding? Pitch in and help, everyone! Feel involved! Though of course there's no money available at the end of it...

Research Councils Welcome Settlement

The Research Councils have greeted the Government's settlement with muted optimism. The allocations were announced by David Willets at a press conference this morning. The £4.6bn per annum funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms and ring fenced against future pressures during the spending review period. HE research funding in England has been included within this ring-fence.

Prof Rick Rylance, the AHRC's chief, said that "in a time of austerity in public spending, the AHRC’s settlement to 2015 is very welcome news indeed. It indicates the Government’s support for the value of the arts and humanities and the major contribution they make to our economic, social and cultural vitality."

Meanwhile the STFC saw the settlment as “extremely welcome." However the STFC Chairman, Professor Michael Sterling, sounded a note of caution, saying that "the next four years [are] not without challenges."

Professor Alan Thorpe, Chair of RCUK, said: “This allocation as part of the 2010 spending review confirms the value that Government has placed on research investment for the UK. In the context of a very difficult public sector settlement, it is very encouraging that the allocations to the Research Councils have fared so well. Of course, to manage within our budgets there will need to be rigorous prioritisation by Councils and some difficult strategic decisions will need to be made. The cut to the capital budgets of the Research Councils will present particularly significant challenges going forwards, but we have a good foundation, and excellence with impact will remain at the core of what we do.”

The full details of the settlement are available here.

44% Cut to RCUK Capital Spending

Research Fortnight is reporting that RCUK is preparing to make a 44% cut to its capital spending. 'Two Brains' Willetts today outlined how this cut would be made from various portfolios within BIS. Some projects would be spared - such as the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation - but others - such as the ISIS synchrotron - might be hit.

Willetts 'Keen to Hear Views of the Sector'

After a rollercoaster couple of weeks, David Willetts has been taking stock and surveying the brave new world he's helped to create. In a speech today he welcomed the findings of Lord Browne, and the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement, and welcomed feedback from the sector.

'I know too that people in this room will have anxieties about the shift in spending,' he stated, 'but I have to ask what the alternative is. Given the fiscal crisis and the pressure that we are under, there is no option of carrying on as we are.'

It's a robust defence, and I hope he's not just whistling in the dark as he finishes by saying that 'I believe that higher education, as well as research, should be able to maintain overall levels of activity throughout this time of austerity...[and]...despite the risks associated with any change, the reforms we undertake will improve higher education in the long run.'

Your Chance to Have Your Say on FP8

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting the sector on what shape, and what focus, FP8 should have. In his introdcution to the consultation document David Willets said that 'we would like to see the programme develop in the future so it becomes less bureaucratic; more attractive to participants, especially businesses; and achieves demonstrable impact in terms of high value goods and service and improved policy-making.'

But what do you think? The document poses 42 questions, including:

• What should the UK’s high-level objectives be for FP8?
• How can FP8 support innovation in the UK?
• What are your views on the split of the FP7 budget between specific programmes? Should this change in FP8?
• Which areas of Framework Programme funding provide the most EU added-value? And which the least?
• Can efficiencies be found in the Framework Programme because of overlaps between different areas of funding?
• Which grand challenges are best tackled on an EU-wide rather than a national level? Within these areas which particular aspects would benefit from an interdisciplinary focus?
• How should FP8 engage with countries outside the EU?
• Should ERC’s current emphasis on funding a single investigator continue into FP8?
  

The full consultation document is available here, and you have until 4 January 2011 to respond, so make sure your views are heard and reply now!

Impact Hostility Might Be 'Melting Away,' but REF Still Delayed

Two interesting news items this week: first, David Sweeney, Demon Barber of HEFCE, has been quoted as saying that 'consensus is breaking out around the sector' about the worth of including Impact in the REF. Sweeney was speaking at an 'Impact in the Context of the REF' conference and stated that he believed that the Impact pilot exercise had gone 'really well.' This might be overstating the case: I've listened to some involved in it, and the message from them was luke warm at best, but generally thankful that they'd been involved to understand the issues involved.

The second piece of news is that Two Brains Willetts, in his speech on 9 July, said that he 'appreciates why scientists are wary' of impact, going on to announce a delay of a year to the REF. The delay would mean submissions in 2013, with the results in 2014, to inform funding from 2015.

Wariness or consensus? Or consensus around wariness? You decide.

Willetts Named as Universities and Science Minister

Research Fortnight is reporting that David Willetts has been named as minister for universities and science. He was previously the Conservative's shadow higher education minister. He will work within the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, under Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary.
Willetts has been given the rank of Minister of State. He is not a Cabinet minister but the Cabinet Office says he will attend Cabinet meetings. Former science minister, Paul Drayson, also attended in this capacity, but held an additional place on Privy Council, which Willetts will not.
Willetts has previously said he would like to delay the Research Assessment Exercise by up to two years and look again at the importance attached by the Labour government to assessing the impact of research in the exercise.

Tories Pledge to Delay the REF

David Willetts, Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, has been talking to the Times Higher, and revealed that the Conservatives would delay the REF 'to establish whether a sound and widely accepted measure of impact exists.' He continued, '[we] do not believe that the current proposals pass those two tests. Unless the review is able to establish a measure that does, we would not include impact in the REF.'
Not sure if it will win many votes among the wider electortate, but it looks like they're winning over the academic sector with this manifesto pledge. More details on the Times Higher site.

How Do We Solve a Problem Like Dave Willetts?

In an interesting commentary Research Fortnight (RF) examines the problem of David Willetts. Cameron wants smart, knowledgable people in his cabinet, but Willetts has no natural home in a structure that shadows Brown's government. The obvious thing to do would be to put him within a shadow BIS under Clarke, but that would demote him from the top table. So he's got the role of Education, albeit without a department to shadow. This would be rectified, says RF, after a Tory election win, when a Department of Education would be resurrected to give Willetts his own fiefdom.

With this in mind, RF make a brave attempt at second-guessing what Willett's priorities would be, and come up with a list that includeds social mobility, tuition fees and teaching. Which leaves the electorally unsexy area of research to bear the brunt of any budget cuts. As the article drily points out, 'for the research community it’s just a case of waiting for the axe to fall.'

However, it sees glimmers of hope: 'in the details lie potentially huge victories for researchers to win,' particularly in R&D tax breaks and (it hopes) Research Councils remaining relatively unscathed. 'For researchers, there is still a lot to play for,' it concludes.

The full article is available here; Kent is subscribed to ResearchResearch, but you will need to sign up to it to access the news.

Impact Not Clunky, Says New RCUK Chief

In a story that neatly ties together three previous posts on this blog, the newly appointed Chair of RCUK has fired back at David Willett's criticism of Impact assessment as 'clunky'. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive of NERC, launching the RCUK Framework, robustly countered Willett's criticism. “I don’t think it’s at all clunky to be articulate in describing the really excellent and inspirational impacts that research has and I can’t imagine why it would be anything other than a good thing to celebrate that.”

He went on to recognise the difficult times ahead. "[Thorpe's predecessor] Ian Diamond really advanced the coming together of the missions and activities under this RCUK framework umbrella, but it was at a time when there was strong increasing investment in the research budget. I’m coming in at a time when we’re absolutely clear about the RCUK agenda but we’re looking at a much more uncertain future.”