In Search of the Royal Society Success Rates

Somewhere behind the Palladian grandeur success rates lurk. Possibly (image: Steve Slater, CC BY 2.0).

One of my roles at the University of Kent is secretary to the Research and Innovation Board, which decides on policy and strategy. I’m not a natural bureaucrat, but the paper shuffling, agenda setting and minute writing are compensated for somewhat by the ringside seat I get for the discussions that decide the institutional direction on research and innovation. 

At the most recent meeting, the board looked at success rates for different funders. In readiness for this we had gathered data on how the university compared with funder averages. For the research councils, this was fairly straightforward. Success rates are produced annually for each of the seven councils, via Times Higher. You can see last year’s figures here.

Success rates for the Leverhulme Trust take a little more digging, but the figures can be found in its annual reports. The Wellcome Trust gives more global figures but does provide a comprehensive analysis by gender and age profile, disciplinary distribution and award rate over time. And the British Academy offers all of its figures when its officers give presentations, such as on these slides given to King’s College London.

So it came as a surprise when I could find nothing on the Royal Society’s website about its success rates.

Dude, Who's Got My Twitter?

@NIHR, apparently. Or possibly a forgotten Britpop band

It's a fast moving world in the Twittersphere, and you have to be quick to bag the Twitter handle that is, well, your birthright. Some, such as @BBSRC, were super sharp and got theirs [shame they won't be around much longer - Ed], although that might be more down to the implausibility of any other person/organisation having that acronym. But what about others who were - um - a bit slower or have common arconyms? Dude, who's got my Twitter?

What's in a Name?

Rotwang in his earlier days

In September the Royal Society announced it would be introducing a new grant application system. Now read on.

A marble-lined room in 6-9 Carlton House Terrace. A liveried footman is serving drinks to members of the Grant Application System Naming Sub-committee Working Group. 

Prof Rotwang (male) [looks at his pocket watch]: Well, we don't seem to be making much progress.
Prof Honeydew (male): I'm afraid not, Rotwang. No names seem to capture the modernity, the thrusting 'now-ness' of the Society.
Prof Banner (male): How about...the Newton System?
Everyone groans. 
Prof Rotwang (male): Yes, thank you, Banner. But I fear that going back 500 years might not speak to many of modernity.
Prof Banner (male): But he was rather good.
Prof Rotwang (male): That's as may be. But I think we've exploited him somewhat excessively already for naming things.
Prof Banner (male): Yes, I suppose so.
Silence.

There's a Battle Outside and It's Raging

There's a fascinating storm raging at the moment around the walls of the EPSRC citadel. Some of you outside the Engineering and Physical Sciences might not be aware of it, but it has the potential to affect all of your disciplines, because what EPSRC does first, the other Research Councils tend to follow.

This time the EPSRC is 'engineering' their sector. Or, as they would have it, 'shaping our portfolio.' Basically, through their 'Shaping Capability' agenda, they've had a good look at the disciplines within their remit and have decided which should be backed, and which should be quietly shelved.
Now in some ways you can see the logic of this. In strained financial times it may be better to prioritise the important, high quality work that has the potential to make a difference to science globally, as well as nationally bolstering the UK's competitiveness.
However, as you can imagine, those who are adversely affected by this prioritisation are angry about what they see as the fairly arbitrary algorithm by which it has been decided. Have a look at the sub-GCSE graph above. This is known as the 'Bourne Graph'. It is a visual representation of how EPSRC see the relative value of subjects within its remit.
But how were these relative positions decided? What scale is being used along the X and Y axes? Hmm. It's not clear, and EPSRC's reticence on this is not helping. People are thinking the worst. As a York-based organic chemist comments on his blog, 'if one didn't know better you may be forgiven for thinking it had been thought up on the back of a fag packet over a pint in the pub after work.'
Helpfully, he provides a similarly inane graph for his relationship with fruit and vegetables, as follows:

I think the methodology's clear, don't you?
Prof Timothy Gower, another blogger, has tried to work out where they're coming from by deconstructing the newspeak pronouncements to come out of EPSRC.
More seriously, the sector's disquiet has resulted in letters from the chemists, statements from the mathematicians, and articles from the physicists, as well as a call from, well, everybody (in the shape of the Royal Society) to 'pause' the strategy. David 'Smalls' Delpy responded, specifically to the chemists, saying that he felt their pain, but ultimately it was their own fault for getting too much of the budget recently. Or words to that effect. Elsewhere he's poured oil on the troubled waters by saying that the complaints were an 'overreaction', backed up by 'relatively little' evidence.
The storm has been rumbling on since July, and there's no sign of it abating any time soon. If anything, it's growing in strength, and there's hope that, as Dylan said, 'the loser now will be later to win.' Whilst I have sympathy for EPSRC, and believe it acted in good faith, I think this kind of engineering is dangerous and ultimately fruitless.
Remember Robert Edwards, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine this time last year? He had developed in vitro fertilisation, which has led, since 1978, to millions of 'test tube babies.' Well, when he turned to his sector's funder, the MRC, in 1971 they turned him down. At the time his discipline wasn't of interest, as the politics of the day suggested the world was heading for malthusian destruction. If there hadn't been a private funder on hand his research may well have withered on the vine.
His is a cautionary tale. The allocation of research funding shouldn't be left up to politicians and apparatchiks (like me): it should be up to peers and contemporaries to decide what should be prioritised. Only then will the best, bravest and brightest have an equal chance - from whatever discipline.

Royal Society Cuts Conference Grants

In a move that will surprise no one, the Royal Society has followed its sister academy the BA in cutting funding for conference attendance. In a statement in their latest funding newsletter, the Society said:

"Following the latest Comprehensive Spending Review, the Society has unfortunately had to discontinue the International Travel Grants scheme and International Joint Projects scheme. Instead applications for international collaborations will from now on be managed through a new International Exchanges Scheme. However, the Society will unfortunately no longer be able to support conference attendance through this scheme. Whilst we acknowledge that conference attendance is important in raising the profile of UK science and scientists, the Society felt that facilitating international collaborations should be the priority during a period of budget constraints."

I think their belief is that universities should be providing this kind of funding themselves. However, in a time of cuts, I know that departments will be forced to trim their budgets, and the losers are going to be the individual academics, particularly the early career ones.

Still, not to worry. Rather than highlighting this on their news page, the Society is going instead with a story about it raining ants. It'll be skateboarding dogs next.

CSR: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

The dust has not yet settled, but the commentators are already trying to work out whether the Comprehensive Spending Review was good, bad, or indifferent for research in the UK. It's certainly a lot better than some of the scare stories we heard beforehand, which suggests that the government was canny in managing expectations.

In the Review it stated that 'a ring-fence will be maintained by BIS to ensure continuity of investment in science and research.' Which sounds good, until you realise that that will mean a 10% cut in real terms. The only area whose budget will be maintained in real terms is the MRC, as the government has made Health a priority.

You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief as everyone concerned with UK research dares to look again at government funding. Both Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, and Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case), have cautiously welcomed the news.

However, there are still some nerves jangling out there, and we're not out the woods yet. We have to see the detail, and the effect the cuts will have on QR funding. Will it lead to a concentration of funding on research intensive (i.e. Russell Group) universities? Is STFC for the chop? The next few months and weeks will tell.

Spend or be Damned

The Royal Society has warned that the UK will lose its position as a global economic leader unless the government commits to investing in science in the long term.

In its report, 'the scientific century: securing our future prosperity' the Royal Society warns that the UK’s current advantage is in danger of being wiped out by the US, China, India, France and Germany who have ramped up spending in science to boost their economies.

The report highlights last year's announcement of a $21 billion boost for science in the US and recent claims from American scientists that they will steal our finest minds if UK investment slips. The report also draws attention to a recent €35 billion investment in the 'knowledge economy' by France, a commitment from the German government to increase their federal budget for education and research by €12 billion by 2013 and the year on year increase of 20% in China's science spending over the last decade.

To maximise the economic opportunities from science the Royal Society report recommends:

• Creating a 15 year framework for science and innovation, with increased spending


• Prioritising investment in scientific skills and infrastructure, such as laboratories and equipment


• Expanding the R&D tax credit.

STFC Grant Funding Cut

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has announced a cut to grant funding. New grants will be issued only to October 2010 in the first instance. According to a press release the temporary measure has been implemented with immediate effect and will stay in place “pending the outcome of the prioritisation exercise” which will end in the New Year. However, there's no guarantee that funding will return to previous levels afterwards. STFC has fallen foul of the fall in the strength of the pound, as it is committed to international subscriptions to facilities abroad.
It has cut funding before; in 2007 it cut grants funding by 25%, to the consternation of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society.