Should UK Research Funding Be Reorganized?

A couple of recent news items spurred me on to reflect a bit about the system of research funding in the UK. The first of these was an item I noticed a while ago in Research Fortnight about the (ongoing) Triennial Review of the research councils, and specifically, input from the Wellcome Trust to that review that was rather critical of the Science and Technology Facilities Council and suggested it might be dismantled.

For context it’s probably a good idea to look back to the formation of STFC in 2007 via the merger of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) and the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils (CCLRC). Previously, PPARC had looked after particle physics and astronomy (including space science) and CCLRC had run large experimental facilities in other branches of science. The idea of merging them wasn’t silly. A large chunk of PPARC’s budget went on managing large facilities, especially ground-based astronomical observatories, and it was probably hoped that it would be more efficient to put all these big expensive pieces of kit under the same roof (so to speak).

However, at the time, there was considerable discussion about what should happen in general with science grants. For example, physicists working in UK universities in areas outside astronomy and particle physics previously obtained research grants from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), along with chemists, engineers and even mathematicians. Some experimentalists working in these areas used facilities run by the CCLRC to do their work. However, astronomers and particle physicists got their grants from PPARC, the same organisation that ran their facilities and also paid subscriptions to international agencies such as CERN and ESA. These grants were often termed “exploitation”  or “responsive mode” grants; they involved funding for postdoctoral researchers and staff time used in analysing observational or experimental data and comprised relatively little money compared the the cost of the PPARC facilities themselves. PPARC also funded PhD studentships and postdoctoral fellowships under the umbrella of its Education and Training division, although needless to say all the Education and Training involved was done in host universities, not by PPARC itself.

The question was whether the new merged organisation, STFC should continue giving grants to university groups or whether the responsibility for doing this should be moved elsewhere, perhaps to EPSRC. At the time, most astronomers were keen to have their research grants administered by the same organisation that ran the facilities. I thought it made more sense to have research scientists all on the same footing when it came to funding and in any case thought there were too many absurd divisions between, say, general relativity (EPSRC) and relativistic astrophysics (PPARC), so I was among the (relatively few) dissenting voices at the time.

There were other reasons for my unease. One was that, during a previously funding squeeze, PPARC had taken money from the grants line (the pot of money used for funding research groups) in order to balance the books, necessarily reducing the amount of science being done with its facilities. If STFC decided to do this it would probably cause even more pain, because grants would be an even smaller fraction of the budget in STFC than they were in PPARC. Those EPSRC physicists using CCLRC facilities seem to have managed pretty well so I didn’t really see the argument for astronomy and particle physics being inside STFC.

The other reason for me wanting to keep research grants out of STFC was that the (then) new Chief Executive of PPARC, Keith Mason, had made no secret of the disdain he felt towards university-based astronomy groups and had stated on a number of occasions his opinion that there were too many astronomers in the United Kingdom. There are two flaws with this argument. One is that astronomy is essential to the viability of many physics departments because of its appeal to potential students; without it, many departments will fold. The other problem is that Mason’s claim that the number of astronomers had grown by 40% in a few years was simply bogus.  This attitude convinced me that he in particular would need only the slightest excuse to divert funds away from astronomy into areas such as space exploration.

It all seems a very distant memory now, but six or years ago UK physics (including astronomy) was experiencing a time of relative plenty. The government had introduced a system whereby the research councils would fund research groups on the basis of the Full Economic Cost of the research, which meant more money coming into research groups that were successful at winning grants. The government increased funding for the councils to pay for this largesse and probably diminished the fear of another funding pinch. Astronomers and particle physicists also felt they would have more influence over future strategy in facility development by remaining within the same organisation. In the end what happened was that STFC not only kept the portfolio of astronomy and particle physics grants, but also acquired responsibility for nuclear physics from EPSRC.

But then, in 2007, just after STFC came into existence,  a major financial disaster broke: that year’s comprehensive spending review left the newly formed STFC with a huge gap in its finances. I don’t know why this happened but it was probably a combination of gross incompetence on behalf of the STFC Executive and deliberate action by persons higher up in the Civil Service. The subsequent behaviour of the Chief Executive of STFC led to a public dressing down by the House of Commons Select Committee and a complete loss of confidence in him by the scientific community. Miraculously, he survived, at least for a while. Unfortunately, so did the financial problems that are his legacy.

I don’t like to say I told you so, but that’s exactly what I am going to dp. Everything that happened was predictable given the initial conditions. You might argue that STFC wasn’t to know about the global economic downturn.As a matter of fact I’d agree. However, the deep cuts in the science budget we have seen have very little to do with that. They all stem from the period before the Credit Crunch even started. Although Prof. Mason was eventually replaced (in 20111), the problems inherent in STFC are far from solved.

The last Comprehensive Spending Review (2010) was less bad for STFC than some of us feared – with a level cash settlement which still holds. In real times the funds are now being eroded rather than being slashed further, but the situation remains very difficult because of past damage. I don’t think STFC  can afford to settle for flat cash at the next spending review. The new Supreme Leader  Chief Executive of STFC, John Womersley, said much the same thing at last night’s RAS dinner, in fact.

I know this preamble has been a bit long-winded, but I think it’s necessary to see the background to what I’m going to propose. These are the steps I think need to be taken to put UK physics back on track.

First, the powers that be have to realize that university researchers are not just the icing on the cake when it comes to science: they actually do most of the science. I think the new regime at STFC recognizes this, but I’m not sure the government does. Another problem is that  that the way scientists are supported in their research is a complete mess. It’s called the dual support system, because the research councils pay 80% of the cost of research grants and Higher Education Funding Councils (i.e. HEFCE in England) are meant to provide the other 20%. But in reality it is a bureaucratic nightmare that subjects researchers to endless form-filling and costs hundreds of millions in wasteful duplication. This was true enough of the old Research Assessment Exercise, but has been taken to even higher levels of absurdity by the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework, the decisions coming out of which will be more influencing by guesswork and institutional game-playing than actual research excellence.

The Research Councils already have well-managed systems to judge the quality of research grant applications, so do we really needed the REF on top of them?  The second article I referred to in the introduction, on a study showing that Research Council grant income, appeared in last week’s Times Higher. That study shows -at least at institutional level – that the two streams are pretty closely correlated. While REF/RAE income is awarded on a retrospective basis, and grant awards are based on proposals of future activity, it should be a surprise that people with a good track-record are also good at thinking up interesting new projects. Moreover, panels such as the STFC Astronomy Grant Panel (of which I am a member) certainly take into account the applicants’ track-record when assessing the viability of research proposals.

So if we don’t need two systems, what could we have instead? Moving grants from STFC to EPSRC, as some proposed in the past,  would go part of the way, but EPSRC has many problems too. I would therefore prefer to see a new organisation, specifically intended to fund blue-skies scientific research in universities. This organisation would have a mission statement that  makes its remit clear, and it would take over grants, studentships and fellowships from STFC, EPSRC and possibly some of the other research councils, such as NERC.  The new outfit would need a suitable acronym, but I can’t think of a good one at the moment. Answers on a postcard.

As a further suggestion,  I think there’s a strong case to be made that HEFCE should be deprived of its responsibility for research funding. The apparatus of research assessment it uses is obviously  flawed, but why is it needed anyway? If the government believes that research is essential to universities, its policy on selectivity doesn’t make any sense. On the other hand, if it believes that university departments don’t need to be research groups then why shouldn’t the research funding element be administered by a reserch organisation? Even better, a new University Research Council along the lines I have suggested  could fund research at 100% of the Full Economic Cost instead of only 80%. The substantial cash saved by scrapping the REF should be pumped into grants to be administered by the new organisation, reversing the  cuts imposed we’ve endured over past years.

So what should  STFC become after the Triennial Review? Clearly there is still a role for an organisation to manage large experimental facilities. However, the fact that the UK now has its own Space Agency means that some activity has already been taken out of the STFC remit.  The CERN and ESO subscriptions could continue to be managed by STFC along with other facilities, and it could in some cases commission projects in university research groups or industrial labs as it does now. Astronomers and particle physicists would continue to sit on its Board.  However, its status would change radically, in that it would become an organisation whose job is to manage facilities, not research. The tail will no longer be wagging the dog.

I very much doubt if these suggestions are at all in line with current political “thinking” nor with those of many of my colleagues. The input to the Triennial Review from the Institute of Physics, for example, is basically that nothing should change. However, I think that’s largely because most of us working in STFC area,  have much greater confidence in the current management than we did in the previous regime rather than because the structure is right. Some of the bureaucrats in the Treasury, RCUK and HEFCE won’t like my suggestion  either, because they’ll all have to go and do something more useful.  But unless someone stands up for the university sector and does something to safeguard future funding then the ongoing decline in funding levels will never be reversed.

I very much doubt if many of my fellow physicists or astronomers agree with my suggestion either. Not to worry. I’m used to being in a minority of one. However, even if this is the case I hope this somewhat lengthy post will at least get you thinking. As always, I’d be interested in comments..

8 Responses to “Should UK Research Funding Be Reorganized?”

  1. Bryn Jones Says:

    My view is that research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the United Kingdom should be administered by two research councils, one handling applied research of direct benefit to the economy and to society, the other funding basic research on the basis of its international excellence alone.

    • Bryn Jones Says:

      Industry will only fund research when there are direct financial gains to those making the investment, and often in the short and medium term only.

      Society needs to fund research for its own benefit, and long-term economic return is one of the reasons. Others include improvements in medicine. There is a need for research of real practical benefit far beyond what industry can be expected to fund.

  2. Ken Rice Says:

    It’s clear that with fEC we only only get 80% of the supposed cost of our research council funded projects and you make it seem as though REF funding supplies the other 20%. In practice, however, it has to be much more complicated than this otherwise REF funding would simply be covering the 20% shortfall in the research council funded projects, and nothing else. In practice it seems that REF money gives universities some flexibility to fund and support projects that are not supported by RC money. As much as I greatly dislike the REF process and the impact it is having on UK universities, I would be extremely concerned if all research money came through a single research council. I do think that there is some merit in some of the research money coming into the HE sector in a manner that gives universities the ability to take risks and to fund projects that for, whatever reason, have been unable to get RC money.

    Having said that I wouldn’t be averse to a change in the structure of the research councils. It doesn’t seem that STFC retaining the role of managing astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics research grants has been a great success. Having said that, I don’t really know whether we should be proposing a move into EPSRC or something completely new. My current view is that whatever happens, the major problem is that there isn’t enough money to support current activities at the level we would probably like. Either funding will need to increase, or universities will have to get used to astronomy groups bringing in less money, or …..

  3. Dave Carter Says:


    Although I did agree with you in 2007, I don’t agree this time. Having teaching funding and research funding administered completely separately would risk breaking the link between teaching and research, which is crucial to the former, and advantageous for the latter. We would risk a real two-tier system of teaching only universities, and research only universities. There would be a temptation for a group which was really successful at getting research grants to give up on undergraduate teaching altogether.

  4. In 2007 it would have made more sense to join EPSRC and this would possibly have prevented the collapse in our grant funding. But the situation is now very different. Astronomy is better off staying away from EPSRC. Only technology development for astronomy (blue sky if ever there was one) might benefit from moving over. But there are risks within STFC. Diamond seems a potential hole, redirecting STFC funding towards non-STFC science. Some astronomers could have reduced access to funding, either because they work in small institutions, work in areas considered of less ‘strategic importance’ or because a perceived lack of ‘economic impact’. Grant panels will need to remain as independent as possible from ‘guidance’ , and judge science first. STFC has a balancing act to perform with facility funding versus grant funding, but seems to be managing this for now.

    • albert:

      “Grant panels will need to remain as independent as possible from ‘guidance’ , and judge science first.”

      i don’t agree with this. if STFC provides the grants panel with a clear policy objective (which is advertised sufficiently early and widely to the community that they can react to it) then i think AGP is required to include that policy goal as one aspect in their decision making.

      the weighting of such elements relative to “scientific excellence” and “international competitiveness” is an operational matter in which AGP has more freedom, subject of course to justifying the final recommended outcome to STFC.

      regarding peter’s proposal. i think any change which decouples astronomy facilities from their exploitation is a move in the wrong direction – as this is where the bulk of the budget is spent and efficient exploitation of (increasingly) limited facilities is the only way the UK will remain competitive. from that perspective i see no reason to dissolve STFC – this just looks like the usual once-every-~5-year reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake.

      i also agree with dave that retaining dual funding, while inefficient, provides a small but useful buffer against radical changes in funding level driven by short-term assessments by either of the two channels of the “significance” of the science output of institutions.

      • Ian, I kind of agree but I worry that this would potentially lead in a direction that would certainly concern me. It’s clear that it would be foolish to invest in big bits of kit and then not use them properly. On the other hand, the goal of science is not to simply use big bits of kit. It’s to solve interesting and challenging problems and the big bits of kit help us to do that. To make the big bits of kit the focus would – I think – potentially distort the way in which we do our science.

        In a sense, though, I see this as being consistent with my general concern. There is a big mismatch – IMO – between the amount of money available to do the science and the amount of money that we would need to both support the community and allow us to properly exploit the investments that we make in big bits of kit. Given that the amount going into equipment is very obviously large, it would be foolish if we ended up not exploiting these bits of equipment properly. I don’t, however, see how we can do this without damaging other areas that don’t rely on big expensive bits of equipment. You could argue that we should all find ways to attach ourselves to projects that rely on these expensive investments, but that seems a little disingenuous. I accept that I’m not really providing any particular solution, but I do think there is a real problem with the mismatch between the level of funding and the goals of the community. Maybe we just have to weather the storm as best we can, but I do think it’s worth reminding ourselves of why we do what we do and it’s not simply to use big expensive bits of equipment . I’m not suggesting that you think it is, just that we have be careful of letting the investment drive the science.

  5. John Peacock Says:

    The most concerning aspect of all of this is that possible change is being driven by criticism from the Wellcome Trust, since this seems to focus on the job STFC has done in running Diamond. We should not forget that it is this machine that lies in part behind the huge damage done to astronomy since the formation of STFC: the initial STFC budget made insufficient provision for the depreciation costs associated with this new capital facility, and so (mainly ex-PPARC) grant lines were raided to pay off the Treasury. I would love to know whether STFC was created with the deliberate aim of achieving this outcome, or whether it just wasn’t thought through. Anyway, given this history, if Wellcome manages to pressurise STFC into putting more money into Diamond, you can guess where it might come from.

    It’s a pity to be trapped in this zero-sum game, since Diamond seems to do a pile of worthwhile things, and one gets the impression that its funding has indeed been heavily trimmed – just not by the factor of 2 hit that applied to astronomy grants over roughly 2007-2012.

    So it does seem tempting to get grants out of STFC before Diamond gets its funding increased. This would amount to accepting that our lost funding will never be restored, of course, but better to cut your losses. We already did this once with the creation of the UK Space Agency. The unfunded rise in the ESA subscription was the other main culprit in reducing the grants line – and all that money was lost forever when the increased ESA subscription was taken out of the STFC budget. But it would only have continued to eat our lunch if it had stayed.

    This starts to sound like an argument for getting rid of everything but grants – i.e. joining EPSRC – but I’m still not in favour. EPSRC seems so interventionist in what it funds, whereas most of us would prefer to die in the ditch defending the idea of funding smart new ideas independent of “strategy”.

    So I’d prefer to see us go the other way and reform SERC. When you have something so huge and dinosaur-like, the small mammals of the grants line have a better chance of escaping unnoticed. In a really big empire, some part of it (usually the biologists) was always underspending, and this seemed to give the wriggle room to bail out an area where costs had gone up. SERC has been gone nearly 20 years, of course, and times were better then – but I don’t see a better solution for our current problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: