The Right Trousers

The most important job in higher education has been entrusted to a 20 cm tall Plasticine character with only a passing acquaintance with reality, it has been revealed. Wallace, who shot to fame in a Grand Day Out, before tackling a psychotic penguin and a fearsome wererabbit, has been chosen for his ability to think on his feet 'and create really clever, if slightly mad, solutions to everyday problems,' a spokesman for BIS announced.

ESRC Seeks New CEO

The ESRC has started the process of recruiting its new Chief Executive. As is more and more the case, it has put its trust in the hands of headhunters. This is mistake number one. As everyone knows, headhunters almost never understand the specific requirements of academia, and assume it functions like any other business. Thus, Messrs Saxton Bamfylde (for it is they) are advertising the position as follows:

'The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) will appoint a new Chief Executive of the ESRC when the post becomes vacant on 1 September 2014. Candidates need to be able to command the respect of the academic and user communities across the domain of the economic and social sciences through their personal achievements in research and their standing in the field. They will also need to demonstrate the ability to provide sound management and strong leadership of a substantial and complex body with efficiency and probity, combined with excellent communication skills required to represent the Council and foster links with its numerous and diverse stakeholders across Government, academia, learned societies, industry/business as well as the public at large, both in the UK and internationally'. 

So let's see. Essential criteria are:

• Ability to command respect through personal achievement and standing in the field;
• Ability to provide sound management and strong leadership of a complex body with efficiency and probity;
• Excellent communication skills;
• Ability to foster links with numerous and diverse stakeholders.

Given these, I think that the headhunters will come up with a shortlist of six:

• Candidate 1: Worzel Gummage. Strong track record in commanding respect (amongst crows) whilst standing in a field. Demonstrates sound management and strong leadership (of turnips), and control over complex body (that has the ability to shift between mannequin and human) is admirable. Communicates well, despite a slight speech impediment and a penchant for 'a cup of tea and a slice of cake', and has fostered excellent links with Aunt Sally.
• Candidate 2: Adolf Hitler: Whilst somewhat brutal, his ability to command respect is undeniable. Strong leadership and excellent communication too: this guy sounds like the complete package. Fostering links is - ah - a bit of an Achille's heel. Tends to make friends one day and invade you the next.
• Candidate 3: Joan of Arc. Dead white female. Which makes a change, and will do wonders for ESRC's Athena SWAN credentials. Commands respect, especially amongst Catholics. Strong leadership. Excellent communication skills (with God). Once again, fostering links is a bit dodgy. Excellent if you're French. Not so good for the English. Which could be a problem. 
• Candidate 4: Cat in the Hat. Excellent communication skills, and commands absolute respect amongst under fives. His ability to do tricks and balance things is useful when securing the research budget and justifying the Social Sciences. Can make excellent links with Thing One and Thing Two. Somewhat chaotic, however, and could end very nastily. Nevertheless, if we stipulate that he must bring his all clearing machine, he could be a winner.
• Candiate 5: Zeus. No problem commanding respect, and good leadership qualities. However, communication skills leave something to be desired; I mean, does he have to keep using thunderbolts? It's a bit rudimentary, isn't it? Hasn't he heard of email? Worse still, we could open ourselves for so many paternity suits and sex scandals. I mean, all those partners! All those children!
• Candidate 6: Nick Clegg. Oh come on. Be serious.

Bear Sh*ts in Woods Shock!

Pope: Catholic, apparently.

Well, you may have noticed that things have been somewhat quiet over at Fundermentals Towers. Yes, I've been away, furiously eating Easter eggs and huddling by an electric fire to keep warm.

I returned this week and found a great story to kick start a new season of blogging. On 5 April Research Fortnight reported that BIS had published a report that concluded that 'the richest universities take the lion's share under dual support'.

This must rank, for news worthiness, along side the recent discovery of the Pope's Catholicism. Yes, the biggest, most research intensive universities really do get most of the government's research funding. What are they going to discover next? That knowing more about stuff makes you cleverer? That drinking coffee makes you jittery? That dogs bark and cats miaow? That the 1994 Group lacks direction?

I guess what does make it interesting is the scale of concentration, and what that bodes for the future. The top 10% of universities (in terms of income) get 64% of the Research Councils' funding. The second 10% get 20%, the next 10%, the next 4%, until you get to the final 40% of universities which get nothing. Interestingly, this distribution has altered little over the last decade, which calls into question the belief that RCUK are moving to concentrate their funding on the big hitters.

So I shouldn't be so scathing. There's gold in there, but you just have to dig for it.

The 94 Seven Join and Leave another Mission Group

'Please sir, we're looking for a mission group to join.
And leave'

The Council for the Defence of British Universities was launched today to act as a champion of traditional academia in the face of current economic and policy challenges. Welcomed by many in the Sector, including the British Academy, the launch was marred somewhat by the fact that it was followed shortly after by news that seven of its original members had decided to leave.

'Membership of the Council for the Defence of British Universities does not reflect the type of university we are, nor sit well with the future direction of the University’s strategy,' said Bath's VC, Prof Glynis Breakwell.

A spokesman from the University of Surrey concurred. 'The decision to leave the Council has not been taken lightly and reflects the University’s response to the changing higher education environment. It will continue to seek and develop new, mutually beneficial relationships with other leading UK and global academic institutions, and intends to leave further umbrella groups as and when the opportunity presents itself.'

It is believe that all 7 founding members, who have also left the 94 Group recently, are intending to apply for membership of rival mission group, The Council for the Destruction of British Universities, otherwise known as The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Catapults Are Go!

The new Innovation and Research Strategy was published today by the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). This sets out what the Government is going to do to encourage collaboration between the private and public sector, and embed innovation in the heart of any recovery.

The marvellous Mark Leach has had an early look at this, and has summarised the doorstop document brilliantly in the WonkHE blog. As he says, 'it's long, it’s nebulous and it can sometimes read more like a laundry list than a truly coherent strategy document.' So you're in for a treat.

He's done a great job in summarising it, and I won't try to do the same. If you want to get a flavour of what BIS are planning, go to his blog. However, one of the highlights of the Strategy is the strange construction toy language that the BIS use throughout. They talk of the Research Councils developing a 'gateway to research', 'catapults', 'launchpads' and 'clusters', 'hot spots', and 'acceleration'.

You can just imagine them, in short trousers, playing with their Meccano sets, building their gateways and catapults, humming the theme tune to the Thunderbirds as they identify 'hot spots' around their 'launchpads'.

However, whilst I love this language, I'm not entirely convinced that they've chosen the right metaphors to use for developing sustainable, productive relationships. After all, weren't catapults intended ultimately for projecting inert objects great distances to maim, murder and maul? And don't hot spots exist primarily in vulcanology to describe an area of deadly, life-destroying volcanic activity? And aren't launchpads primarily associated with the costly cul de sac that was the Apollo space programme?

That's the danger of using words creatively in policy documents: you never know what it might trigger in the audience's mind. Moreover, after Iraq, you would have thought that Whitehall would be somewhat wary about sexing up dossiers to appeal to a disinterested public.

UK's 'Dr Doolittle' Stance on FP8

BIS has published the UK's official response to the EC's consultation on the future of the Framework Programme. The 'Common Strategic Framework', which will take over from FP7, is intended to bring together a number of European funding streams, including the Framework Programme, the Cohesion Policy and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

Generally, BIS was happy with the proposals, and it thought that the time was right to consider the way forward. However, it did suggest that the EC should consider a 'pushmi-pullyu' set up for future funding:

'The UK proposes that the bulk of future funding is based on two broad pillars addressing: a key technology/knowledge "push" and a challenge "pull".'

A push and a pull. Hmm. It took me a while to get my head around this. When does a push become a pull? Surely when it comes to research funding any kind of impetus is really just, well, a moving force, whether it be pushing or pulling? Why make the distinction? Isn't this all just semantics?

Well. From what I understand, the 'challenge pull' is to tug recalcitrant mules on to the green fields of the 'grand challenges'. Here they should ruminate on the lush topics of climate change, energy, water, and food security, protection of natural resources and the ageing population. The 'technology push' is when you open the field gate, crack the whip and let the young colts gambol in the wide open rolling plains.

So we're all clear then? That's all very well, but what happens when, instead of mules and colts you have a pushmi-pullyu? What if the colts are recalcitrant and the mules gambol? Oh the future of Euro-funding. It's a positive farmyard of poetential misunderstanding. If we could only talk to the animals...

About Turn on Adrian Smith Job

After all the speculation and concern over Adrian Smith's job cut at BIS, it's been announced this week that he is going to be appointed to the new, combined role, rather than drafting in a career civil servant. Smith will become Director General of Knowledge and Innovation in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
So sighs of relief all round, though Research Fortnight has noted that Smith has taken over, in his combined role, from Stephen Marston, who was Director General for Universities and Skills. It still remains to be seen, then, what happens in the light of Browne's recommendations over student fees.
Incidentally, is it just me or is there a touch of the former Dr Who Jon Pertwee about the new Director General?

Night of the Long Knife

Research Fortnight has reported that Adrian Smith, Director General of Science and Research at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (that's DGSR at BIS) for the last two years, is for the chop.

Now stiffle that yawn and pay attention at the back. This is more important than it sounds. See, the DGSR is the person responsible for the Research Councils at BIS. If he's to be replaced by a career civil servant - which looks likely at the moment - research might lose its strong voice.

The cutting of the DGSR is part of a bigger shake up of BIS. Science, research, universities and space will now all be bundled together in the somewhat gnomic and Orwellian 'Knowledge and Innovation'. Surely that's doubleplusgood?

Not so. The Chief Scientific Adviser, John Beddington, considered the decision 'deeply regrettable'. His predecessor Robert May went further, calling it 'substantially both stupid and ignorant and it is politically foolish..If [the head of the new section] is a successful civil servant they are very unlikely to know much about science.'

Let's hope the career civil servant is sympathetic to science - or wears a hard hat.

BIS Publishes Milestones for Reform

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has set out its plans implementing changes to higher education. It intends to 'establish a higher education, science and research framework that promotes world-class competitiveness in teaching and research.Ensure progression, fair access and better quality for students. Strengthen links between universities and industries and support innovation and technology development.'

Amongst its milestones to achieve this are the following:

• Develop a white paper on the future strategy of higher education - by March 2011
• Introduce legislation to make possible the 'new arrangements' - by May 2012
• Set out changes to the REF, including assessment of impact - by March 2011
• Reform QR funding to focus on excellence - by July 2011
• Implement recommendations of Wakeham Review - by March 2011
• Reform HEIF funding - by July 2011
• Establish network of Advanced Technology Centres - by April 2012
• Complete move to RCUK Shared Services Centre - by March 2011

So hold on to your hats. By March next year we'll begin to see the reality of the government's brave new world. As the document says, 'the Coalition is committed to a programme of reform that will turn government on its head.' Does that mean upside down government? We'll wait and see.

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!

Strong Reaction from the Sector to the Cable Gaffe

There's been a strong reaction to Vince Cable's gaffe on the Today programme on Wednesday, when he suggested that 'something like 45% of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard so we are going to have to set the bar higher.' Twitter's been abuzz, and there's been the inevitable facebook groups set up - eg 'Vince Cable's Wrong on Science'.

Dr Evan Harris, writing in the Guardian, summaries the controversy quite clearly, quoting James Wilsdon of the Royal Society who explains why Cable got it so wrong:

'In the last Research Assessment Exercise, 54% of the work that was submitted for assessment was classed as 3* or 4*, which means it is, by definition, world class. This research receives £980m from Hefce. Research that is 2* (which Hefce still regards as 'internationally recognised') gets £115 million and 1* research gets nothing. So Hefce allocates the vast majority – nearly 90% – of its funding to world class research.'

Elsewhere others are exasperated at Cable's call for UK science to be more efficient and 'do more with less.' '1% of the world’s pop. but contributes 8% of its sci papers, and 12% of journal citations,' quotes one tweet, which speaks for itself, whilst Chris Tyler says 'just read Cable's speech. So spending more on science would be good for UK AND we will see science budget cuts.'

Finally, to finish up the round of rumours, there's talk of how large the cuts will be. The current rumour is that 'BIS may settle with Treasury next week -10% plus inflation is best case but -15/-20% more likely.'

We'll wait and see.

Cable Softens the Sector for Cuts

In an unsurprising move, Vince Cable has been softening up the sector today for cuts to the Science budget in the forthcoming spending review. In a speech at Queen Mary's, he will repeat his 'do more with less' mantra, saying that 'we need a wide spectrum of research activity,' but that we need 'a process of selection and choice' rather than 'shav[ing] a bit off everything'

But how should this be done? 'My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality - and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do.'

Despite the underlying current of cuts, this is in some ways good news. Cable seems to be going with Hefce's policy at the last RAE - that the Government funds excellent research wherever it's found - rather than concentrating on a clutch of a few, predominantly Russell Group universities, which was the suggestion earlier in the year.

Beyond that, it's all a bit ill-defined. Worryingly, although he says that he supports blue skies research, it's only if it's 'commercially useful [or] theoretically outstanding.' He goes on to wax lyrical about 'transforming research into innovation', 'spin out companies' and 'overseas investors.'

So the message is inevitably a curate's egg in these choppy economic times. We'll back quality research, he's saying, but we're going to expect you to do more with it.

'Newton Scholarships' amongst the First Victims of the Cuts

The Treasury has issued a statement detailing a number of projects that will face the axe under the new austerity regime. From a funding perspective this includes the Newton Scholarships, which were introduced by Peter Mandelson to encourage overseas postgrads to come to the UK. The Newton Fellowships will continue to be funded.
The Dept of Health's Health Research Initiative will also go, as will the University Enterprise Capital Fund.
However, there is some good news: BIS has also announced a series of projects which will be saved from the chop, including the NERC Discovery Ship and the International Space Innovation Centre in Harwell.

The End of Dual Support?

The Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is canvassing six bodies on how it should spend the science budget when the current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period comes to an end after 2010-11. For the first time the two 'arms' of the Dual Support Mechanism will be considered together. The two arms are:

• quality related (QR) funding, which depends for its distribution on the outcome of the RAE/REF (how many acronyms can I get into one post??),


• project funding, which is distributed by the Research Councils.

Does this signal the end of Dual Support? Some are saying so. However, Prof Adrian Smith ,who is leading the review, is keeping an open mind. Quoted in the Times Higher, he said his aim was 'to get the very best advice and to be as aware, alert and well informed as possible. It is not exciting, but it is a sensible approach.'

FP8: Under Starter's Orders...

The formal process to develop the next Framework Programme (FP8) is expected to start in early 2011, reports UKRO. Prior to this the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) will hold a UK stakeholder consultation to gather input for the formal UK position on FP8. This is expected to be carried out in the third quarter of 2010.

BIS recently participated in an event hosted by the Royal Academy of Engineering which brought together UK business stakeholders to share their views on the current and future Framework Programmes. The slides from this event are now available via the link above, and would be of interest to subscribers wishing to find out more about the FP8 development timetable and the challenges faced by business when participating in FP7.

FP8 Begins to Take Shape

In the same way that Christmas seems to come round quicker and quicker each year, Framework Programmes seem to be speeding up. Barely have we got FP7 underway, it seems, than FP8 is peeping around the corner. Word on the (funding) street is that the EC is considering largescale changes this time around. Of course, it's still along way off, but there's talk of 'joint programming' - where national funders feed in to a joint funding pot in areas of strategic importance (there's a pilot one on the go for dementia) - and of 'grand challenges', such as energy, security, ageing, environment - i.e. the same kind of areas as RCUK identified. The real debate will start in earnest in Autumn next year, but it's heartening to hear that the UK (via BIS and RCUK) are more engaged with the consultation than they have been in the past.

Another interesting aside: under FP7 the EC committed to using 22% of the budget for SMEs. Currently it's only used 16% for this end, so if it wants to keep to its original commitment, it will have to up its percentage to 27%. So if you want European funding in the next few years, get in to bed with an SME - pronto.

One final point. Try googling FP8: nothing out there but Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8. Not for much longer, I think...One of the camera's reviews says that the 'FP8' has a feature which is 'an uncomfortable annoyance,' and the manual provides 'not one word on how to proceed.' Any similarity with European funding is purely conincidental.

Mandelson: the Future is in 'Concentrating Research Funding'

Business secretary Peter Mandelson has launched a new framework for Higher Education. Entitled 'Higher Ambitions,' the report focuses mainly on the needs of students. However, research does come up, and the framework emphasises that BIS wants to :

• 'Sustain our world class research base by continuing to focus on excellence, concentrating research funding where needed to secure critical mass and impact; and


• Encourage collaboration between universities on world class research, especially in high cost science.'

'Concentrating research funding'. Hmm. That gets alarm bells ringing, and seems to go counter to the thrust of the last RAE which was to reward excellent research wherever it was found. Not surpisingly, the Russell Group are crowing. “Only by concentrating resources can we ensure that Britain retains world-class universities which are international partners of choice for students, researchers and business,” said Wendy Piatt, director general of the group, quoted in ResearchResearch.
More information on the report is available on the BIS site here.

'We Do the R Better than the D' - Mandelson

Peter Mandelson has used his speech at the Labour Conference to outline his vision of the future of university research and development.
“I want to see an innovation nation. Science is one of the jewels in the crown of Labour’s years in office. And we want closer links between businesses and universities so that good ideas don’t stop at the research lab or the library door,” He said. “We’re one of the world’s biggest investors in research and development. But we still do the R better than the D and that must change.”

Dual Support System Under Threat?

The Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has announced a review of HE funding to cut back on overlaps. There's no more detail yet, but the fear is that the Dual Support System is under threat. The government has been under pressure to cut what are seen as costly quangos.
Apparently BIS, Hefce and RCUK were caught off guard by Mandelson's remarks, and none have commented.
Would a review be a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it depends on what is provided as a replacement to Dual Support. The fear is that, in the current economic climate, government will be looking to fund less rather than more. We'll watch with interest...