Grands Projets: J'accuse

A previously funded large project.

The Times Higher last month published an article by Prof Bill Amos of Cambridge, who questioned the wisdom of funders moving increasingly to backing big projects, 'taking ever-larger bites from a modest and diminishing funding pot.' By doing so, Amos concluded, the funder 'starves the wider scientific community. Consequently, the next generation of scientists is already leaving, and many undergraduates I have spoken to feel that their chances of getting one of the handful of studentships on offer these days are too low to be worth the effort.'

Amos articulated what many of us have been feeling for some time. In recent years there has been an inexorable move by the Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust to concentrate funding on longer, larger grants. The logic is impeccable:  in order to answer the big questions that will make a big difference to society, we need big teams of big hitters doing big science. Or big social science. Or big humanities. Moreover, big projects don't require proportionately more administration, and by cutting back on all those pesky small grants, funders will be saving a lot of time and money in selecting and monitoring the things.

What has particularly rankled in this is a sense that the funders are shooting themselves in the foot. I always believed that the funders got many, many more bangs for their bucks by funding small grants. Principal investigators tended to makes sure that every pound, every penny counted. Better still, these small grants offered early career researchers a first step on the ladder of research funding. Sure, some funders do offer dedicated routes for ECRs, but they still tend to be be substantial, and the success rate as a result is negligible. Small grants with a high success rate allowed funders to light the blue touch paper and watch as the subsequent careers fizzed and whirred, glittering in a thousand different directions. To many, this initial light has been extinguished.

However, up until now this view was, for me, nothing more than a hunch. This changed last week when I stumbled across 'Big Science vs Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding' via Twitter (thank you, Open Access).  Its authors, Fortin and Currie, looked at whether it was 'more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers.'

Focusing on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the National Science Foundation of America, Fortin and Currie start by asking what the goal of the funder is. Is it to maximise major discoveries (sometimes criticised as 'photo opportunity science'), or to maximise the 'summed impact' of the community. The authors looked at four measures of 'impact': total number of papers published, number of citations, number of citations for the most highly cited paper, and the number of very highly cited papers.

Interestingly, they found either no correlation or even an inverse correlation between size of grant and impact:  'impact is a decelerating function of grant size'. They continue: 'our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that concentrating research funds on 'elite' researchers in the name of 'excellence' increases total impact of the scientific community. Quite the opposite: impact per dollar remains constant or decreases with grant size. Highly cited studies are no more likely to result from large grants than from spreading the same funds among multiple researchers.'

Furthermore, 'if maximising the total impact of the entire pool of grantees is the goal, then the 'few big' strategy would be less effective than the 'many small' strategy...funding more scientists increases the diversity of fields of research, and the range of opportunities available to students.'

The time has come to reconsider this passion for large 'ribbon cutting' projects. Whilst funding many small projects might mean that you can't blow your trumpet about unpicking the human genome, it will have a huge effect on a wide, diverse range of research and careers, which might actually have a more positive effect on the health of your discipline - and consequently your profile as a funder - in the long run. Funders, think again.

Metric-ulation

One of the themes - intentional or otherwise - of EARMA2013 was metrics. Maybe that's an inevitable rule of the sector: whenever more than two research managers meet in one place they shall talk about metrics.

That's not to say it's not interesting. This time we had two sessions, one from Prof John Green of Cambridge talking about Snowball Metrics, and one from Dan Nordquist of Washington State University and Martin Kirk of the University of British Columbia talking about how they used Thompson Reuters and SciVal respetively.

Metrics, for anyone who hasn't met with a research manager recently, are the figures used to assess the performance of your university. They are potentially very useful. They can help you to back up or dispell hunches as to how you're doing. They can help to identify what you should or should not be prioritising. In a word, they can help you strategise.

This was certainly the claim of all four speakers across the two sessions. Snowball Metrics had been developed by eight UK Russell Goup universities which recognised that the figures that they were currently using were not robust. they were reliant on shaky data that had been harvested, generally, by third parties trying to sell their league table software. What was needed was an agreed set of parameters, and an agreement between all those involved to share the results.

Green, in his usual bluff and robust style, said that Snowball had achieved everything they had hoped for. As ever, he gave the impression that anyone that didn't agree with him was, franky, deluded. Like a cross between Robert Winston and a terrier, he bounded around the conference hall, prodding us all with a metaphorical finger, and asking us to rate his product on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being 'quite brilliant' and 10 being 'brain-meltingly brilliant'.

Even allowing for ego, what he was presenting did appear to be very good, and a sensible step forward. There is too much 'hunchwork' in the sector, too many fingers in the air, too few hard comparables. He suggested that the next step for Snowball would be to extend its reach internationally. but what, I wondered, for the rest of the UK sector?

The sense I got was that they really weren't worth dealing with. The eight partners already accounted for some 45 per cent of research funding in the UK, and roughly the same percentage of highly rated outputs. Why should they bother with the 150 or so other UK institutions when the gentlemen from Harvard, the Sorbonne and Max Planck were waiting in the ante room?

Dan and Martin, by contrast, were a little more ambivalent. Whilst both were glowing about the potential of their of the off the shelf products, they questioned the price that the suppliers were charging for them, and I couldn't help but wonder, post-Green, if the underlying data on which they relied were robust enough.

Still, what they did show were graphics that demonstrated clearly and quickly what the relative strengths of their institutions were. Using a series of blobs within a circle, which would have brought a tear to the eye of Damian Hurst, they showed by their relative position and size the intensity and interdisciplinarity of the university's reach portfolio.

So how did I feel after a couple of days in the metrics matrix? I felt that playing with metrics will be increasingly important for the sector, and that soon we'll all be studying complicated, elaborate graphs and scatter charts, if we're not doing so already. We'll be setting our course to benefit from the currents and eddies within our territorial waters - as well as avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis. In the current climate, with a shrinking funding pot and increasing concentration, we've all got to be more savvy about our strengths, and any tool that can effectively help with that should be embraced.

Now where's John Green's phone number..?

'Excellentiam per cognitio, innovatione et interdiu TV'

The Dreaming Spires of Rochester

We were delighted to learn that Fundermental Towers has been selected as one of a tranche of 'new' universities announced by the government today. Institutions no longer have to have 4,000 students to be classified as a university. Instead, institutions need only have three part-time students in order to join the likes of Oxford and Cambridge in the upper echelons of knowledge providers. I am very pleased to announce, then, that the ancient seat of learning formerly known as 2 Acacia Avenue, Rochester, will become Fundermental Towers University.

Break open the Asti!

Whilst we do not, strictly, meet the minimum criteria for student numbers at the moment, we believe we can make a start with what we have. Our children are broadly defined as 'students', albeit school age, and both the dog and the cat have demonstrated some interest in learning, even if it is just in finding out when feeding time is.

Yes, these are exciting times for Fundermentals University. Once I've completed the latest Cosmo questionnaire, I will make a start on filling in our REF submission. I will then move on to establishing an overseas campus at our Eurocamp tent on the Costa Brava. Finally, I intend to finance my retirement extend the opportunity for learning by offering mail order degrees a distance learning programme.

I would like to extend an invitation to all Fundermental subscribers to join us at our leafy North Kentish campus where all our undergraduates, including Rover and Tibbles, live by our motto: Excellentiam per cognitio, innovatione et interdiu TV, or 'Excellence through Research, Innovation and Daytime TV.'

Bath to Join Million+ Shock

Coffee time in the Million+
Senior Common Room

Following its departure from the 94 Group, Bath has shocked the sector by applying to join Million+ rather than the Russell Group.
'Membership of the Russell Group 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. 'The Russell Group is perceived as too 'Old Skool', and we feel the future lies with Million+'.
However, it is still uncertain whether Million+ will accept Bath's membership application. 'To be honest, I'm not sure we want them,' said Million+ Chair, VC of the University of East London, and former Avengers star Prof Patrick McGhee. 'Current members will have to vote on whether we want to admit a pre-92 institution to be in our gang.'
Other universities have tried and failed to join Million+. It is understood that, when upstarts Exeter, York, Durham and QMUL joined the Russell Group in March this year Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial tried to jump ship and join the elitist Million+, but were refused.

ERC Stats

We all love a good stat or two, and UKRO have obliged by providing some for the last round of ERC Starting Grants. I tweeted these yesterday, but in case you missed them, here are headlines:

• Success rate by domain: Physical &Engineering Sciences 11.5%; Life Sciences: 12.0%; Social Sciences & Humanities: 9.7%
• Top 5 host countries: UK (131), Germany (78), France (73), the Netherlands (51) and Switzerland (33).
• Top 5 countries by PI nationality: Germany (92), UK (68), France (67), Italy (42) and the Netherlands (37)
• Top 5 (or 7) in UK: UCL (16); Cambridge (13); Oxford (12); KCL (8); Bristol, Edinburgh and Imperial (5 each) 
• Average age of PI: 37 (the same as for the previous call) 
• Percentage of female PIs: 24%  (an increase from 21% last year) 

A fuller breakdown of previous rounds of both the Starting Grants and Advanced Grants is available on the UKRO website (pdf). Start crunchin' those numbers...

Light up the Cigars, Boys

I was very excited to read today about the elevation of the Universities of York, Durham, Exeter and Queen Mary's to membership of the Russell Group. My excitement was tempered, however, by a concern that RG was beginning to lose its elitist edge. After all, with this move the 94 Group becomes more of a select group than the RG: 94 has a svelte membership of 15 against the morbidly obese RG 24. In fact, the Russell Group is now less selective than the University Alliance (23 members), and only slightly more selective than the Million+ group of post-92 universities (26 members).

It's ironic that, in the year it reaches the age of majority, RG should run to fat so quickly. RG is going to have to start thinking about how to slim down, to regain the trim figure it cut in its prime.

Might I suggest the Fundermental Diet? It comes highly recommended by snobbish institutions the world over, and is remarkably simple. All it needs is for a self-selecting group within its ranks - let's say, for the sake of argument, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial - to break away and form a 'premier' body. Let's call it the 'Premiership' RG (TM).

This would make total sense. After all, we need to protect the elite from the influence of the riff raff and the hoi polloi. You know, those concretey, provincial johnny-come-latelys. These - sniff - Million Plusers.

But why stop there? There are always a few extra ounces, a few competitors, to shave off. Once the Premiership RG is up and running the case could, nay should, be made for distinguishing between the 'Ancient' Premiership (TM) of Oxford and Cambridge, and the 'Modern' Premiership (TM) of Imperial.

If this distinction isn't made, how will league tables, potential students and funders tell them apart? We need this distinction or all sorts of chaos will ensue. Institutions might be treated equally, with quality research being recognised wherever it is found - and then where would we be?

Yes, these distinctions, these groupings, are very, very important. Ultimately, however, there needs to be a Supreme Champion of Champions, a Summa Cum Laude University, by itself, for itself, standing proud, above the rabble, alone. A touchstone university, that would act as the university against which all universities should be measured. A Premiership RG of one.

But how can we select this RG Sine Pari? Of course, for this we should rely on the tried and tested methods of self-selecting groups the world over. Light up the cigars, boys, and let's fill this room with smoke.

The Past Was Yours but the Future's Mine

News came through this week of the appointment of the new AHRC Director of Research. Professor Mark Llewellyn (for it is he), Professor in English Studies at the University of Strathclyde, will take over from Shearer West (Birmingham) who has moved on to be Head of Humanities at Oxford. She, in turn, had taken over from Prof Tony McEnery, who was Professor of English Language & Linguistics at Lancaster. Before them you had Chairs of the Research Committee (John Caughie, Film Studies, Glasgow and John Morrill, History, Cambridge).

So what do we know about Mark Llewellyn? And can his appointment tell us anything about current AHRC thinking? Well, a number of things strike me about his appointment:

• firstly, he's incredibly young to be taking on a senior policy position in the major funder in the sector. Take a look at the fresh faced young prof in the photo above (looking a little like Peter Kay's young brother), and compare it to Morrill, Caughie, and even McEnery and Shearer. The AHRC is obviously backing youth.


• secondly, his rise has been meteoric over the last five years: in 2006-07 he was still plying his trade as a postdoc researcher at Liverpool. From RA to Director of Research at the AHRC in five years: some might say his haste is unseemly. The AHRC is obviously backing ambition.


• thirdly, he's keen on work which stretches out across disciplines. He works in 'neo-Victorianism', which is a fairly broad church (as I understand it), and is currently 'think[ing] about ways in which we still interact with and (re-)imagine the Victorian(s) across a range of discourses.' The AHRC is obviously backing interdisciplinarity.


• finally, he has engaged with the AHRC through the Peer Review College (2007-11), and through being PI on a recent 'Connected Communities' grant. The AHRC is obviously backing engagement.

None of this, of course, is a surprise. But it does indicate that the AHRC recognises the need for energy, dynamism and fresh thinking in these difficult times. Will Llewellyn push the Council to increased interdisciplinary initiatives, and bring in more radical reform that that already suggested in their Delivery Plan? I'll watch with interest.

Impact: a Scientist Speaks

A great blog entry from Athene Donald, Professor of Physics at Cambridge. She's currently Chair of Committee C of the BBSRC, so has seen a few Pathways to Impact statements in her time. She knows how vague and aspirational most of them are. 'Whatever it is they are going to do,' she says, 'it will solve all the ills of mankind, revolutionise the production of something or other and allow us to fly to the moon. This is not really helpful.'

Instead, applicants should focus on the quantifiable. 'Surprisingly often a committee member will want to know about the economics,' says Donald. What is thi size of the problem? How many people suffer from the disease you will cure? What is the potential size of the market? Do some background research, and give some figures. Similarly, for outreach work, be explicit about exactly how many schools you hope to visit, how many public lectures you hope to give, how many articles you will write for the general public.
Finally, don't make the mistake of resting on your laurels and talking about how many patents you've secured in the past. Look to the future and explain what you're going to do, and how past experience might facilitate it.

She finishes by asking you to take pity on weary panellists.

'You should consider that I and my colleagues will have read dozens of these statements over a rather short period of time in the run-up to the committee meeting, so have some thought that just maybe my eyes glaze over when faced with yet another page of statements along the lines of:

This proposal aims to develop new functionalities of [insert generic technology here] to support the next generation [insert protocol here] which will transform the production of [insert your favourite molecule here]. We will concentrate, just as we always have, on writing lots of peer-reviewed papers and travelling the world to exotic places to talk to our friends at high level conferences.

Do please take a few minutes and read her blog entry in full. It could make or break your Research Council application.

Researchers as Astrologists

A Cambridge zoologist is quoted in the Times Higher bemoaning the complexity of modern funding appilcations, and claiming that they are turning young academics into 'insecure bureaucrats.' Peter Lawrence criticised the time it takes to write applications, and the way researchers are asked to become 'astrologists' predicting the path their research will follow.
'Applications have become so detailed and so technical that trying to select the best proposals has become a dark art,' said Dr Lawrence.
Time to recruit Mystic Meg to Research Services...