Biochemical Journal - Electronic submission and Peer Review Biochemical Society
HomeSearchFeedbackLinksJoin the Society
MeetingsMembershipPolicy ActivitiesProfessional ActivitiesEducationThe SocietyContacts

































Monthly report on Professional Affairs - April 2000

Commonly used abbreviations
Previous Reports
Current Report

Contents

Professional/policy activities

The 80 delegates who attended the Biochemical Society's Heads of Department meeting on May 4th heard presentations on HEFCE's review of research funding and on RAE 2001 in the morning, and on Benchmarking and on developments in postgraduate training in the afternoon. Bahram Bekhradnia (HEFCE) explained that the key purpose of the HEFCE review was to secure a procedure that would recognise and balance established and emerging excellence, that would support both internationally competitive research and regional activities, that would promote synergistically research, teaching, and knowledge transfer with business and the community, and that would encourage high quality research training. HEFCE's consultation of the community had found wide-spread support for the RAE as the best system available, resistance to any further concentration of research funding, but support for concentration of research training at a smaller number of institutions. Evidence studies commissioned for the review had refuted some of the myths surrounding the RAE: that it discourages the hiring of younger staff, that cross-disciplinary work is disadvantaged, and that it creates a significant talent transfer market. He thought that the review was likely to conclude that the RAE should continue; that the current selectivity was appropriate; that departments that have consistently received top gradings in the RAE should be assured of longer term support by being allowed to skip an RAE round; and that there was a need to reward activities in addition to research excellence, possibly through different funding streams (eg regional reach-out, strategically driven research, excellence in training in research and in providing career management for young staff).

William Hill took the audience through stages of the report of the RAE Biosciences Panel and answered questions at each stage, supported by Bob Michell. Submissions at the boundary would automatically be cross-referred to another panel when requested, but it would also be done if the panel felt that it was needed. Cross-referral would be organised very quickly so that such work was considered thoroughly by the receiving panel. Several of the questions centred on the ability of the panel to make objective judgements on quality when only 25% of submitted work would be examined in detail. This could never be answered to everyone's satisfaction; it was essential because of the volume of submissions expected, and the whole panel would have the opportunity to comment on recommended scores, in an attempt to ensure fair treatment. The concept of the submitter being allowed to suggest which item of work should be examined was rejected, but it was noted that in RA 5 a submission could indicate the importance of particular lines of research to the department, and could cross-refer to submitted papers as a guide. It was recommended that for a paper with multiple authors the relative contributions of the different authors should be indicated. It was confirmed that the panel would not discriminate in prestige between funding from industry or from other sources, but would be looking for an element of refereeing required to obtain the funding.

Benchmarking was probably not the topic for which most delegates attended the meeting, but Mike Laugharne (QAA) gave a good account of the process constituting a check that universities were only awarding degrees to students who could demonstrate graduate attributes and subject specialist skills above a particular threshold. He commented that all disciplines that he had dealt with had protested at the outset that it was impossible to define these attributes, but 22 had recently published their benchmark statements. Most of these disciplines had gone beyond the threshold to specify what was good or excellent performance. The key was to try to define what were the particular qualities expected in biological sciences graduates that differentiated them from other groups of graduates. Edward Abel told the audience that the Chemistry Benchmarking Group had found it essential to have end-user representation, and had concluded that the benchmark statement must say something about specific chemistry skills and knowledge. The challenge had been to include this whilst not being prescriptive. Whilst the statement was legally owned by the QAA, he considered it essential that the moral ownership was with the community. A key stage of producing the statement had been the consultation of the community on the draft, which had drawn valuable feedback (particularly from small companies) that led to many changes. When sent out to trial, departments had commented that it had been useful for Subject Review.

Bob Price (BBSRC) commented that a good positive spin could be put on the present state of research council support for research training, whereas in reality there was a number of pressures. He cited the stipend shortfall compared to industrial salaries leading to insufficient competition for studentships; the effect of student debt on uptake; and the inability to train many PhD students to a level expected by employers in 3 years. He noted that the OST now accepted that these problems existed, and was prepared to take action. Bob praised the report on Postgraduate Training that UKLSC commissioned as having been very influential and referred to a log jam having been broken. The concept of PhD training packages that EPSRC floated had also been influential in changing OST thinking. He anticipated that individual research councils would be given more responsibility/freedom to set research training support grants according to the expense of the discipline, to improve the quality of supervision, to increase stipends, to vary length of training within limits, and to fund part-time students. Models for change would be a major focus of the BBSRC Autumn retreat. Points from the floor included a plea that the government's Spending Review should make more money available so that stipends and length of courses could be increased without sacrificing numbers, and in order to implement the Bett recommendations; a concern that in return for increased funding the government might expect more skills training to be incorporated that would take the student away from research; and the need for more sandwich placements to give undergraduates valuable practical experience.

UKLSC is preparing a response to the Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the outcome of the 1993 Science White Paper. Its Animal Science Group is organising an open letter to the Science Minister, signed by a number of eminent biomedical scientists, asking him to use his influence to discourage the Home Office from introducing any further bureaucracy that hinders work involving experimental animals.

Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers

Science Policy: UK
Lord Sainsbury confirmed that the government intended to publish a Science and Innovation White Paper after this year's Spending Review. It would focus on how to maintain and enhance Britain's outstanding record of scientific discovery, and how to provide incentives to take advantage of the science to create wealth and improve quality of life. It wouldl promote university-industry collaboration, help scientists develop business skills, and encourage small companies to undertake more R&D (DTI press release, 10/4).

The Commons Science and Technology Committee report on Government Expenditure on R&D slipped out with little publicity, "no doubt to the deep relief of ministers" in view of its critical content (DT, 26/3). The report considered that the long-term decline in support for R&D by government departments (33% decrease since 1987) was undermining efforts to boost British science and ran counter to the stated intention to encourage evidence-based policy making. There was suspicion that the science budget (ie principally to OST) was being asked to bear the brunt of cuts in departmental allocations, and such a policy "was neither sensible nor sustainable". The report expressed particular concern about MAFF's decreased R&D budget, and the adverse effects that this had had on joint projects with BBSRC. It called for the Spending Review to reverse the decline in expenditure. The report commented that despite a web of civil service and ministerial committees the government lacked a working cross-departmental approach to science. It recommended that the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser should be expanded since the OST seemed to have little effect, and called for the Minister of Science to hold Cabinet level but rejected the idea of a new Ministry of Science. Finally, the Committee wanted the use of short-term contracts to be examined to see if the cost-effective benefits were outweighed by potential damage to the science base (Nat, 27/4; THES, 28/4).

Several articles drew attention to pharmaceutical industry claims that the UK is becoming a less favourable place to carry out its R&D (DT, 21/4 and 26/4; Ft, 26/4; Gdn, 26/4). Last year the industry experienced its worst year since 1945, with a 16% fall in the balance of trade (principally because of increased imports). Factors contributing to the less favourable environment included the activities of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, other regulatory burdens, taxation policy, lack of quality graduates coming through, lack of public support for biotech industry, and the growth in violent activism from animal rights protesters.

The row over the proposed siting of the synchrotron in Oxfordshire rumbled on, with the Wellcome Trust rejecting the government's account that Wellcome had forced its hand. Wellcome insisted that it had only thrown its weight behind the Rutherford Appleton laboratory under pressure from the OST. Having accepted the OST recommendation, Wellcome then stood firm when the Trade Minister later called for the synchrotron to be sited in Cheshire for political reasons (Gdn, 12/4). Responding to concerns that research funds are increasingly concentrated into labs and academic institutions in the SE of England, the Director of the Wellcome Trust reported a regional analysis that showed that JIF awards had been spread throughout the UK (Res Ft, 19/4). A strategy review group recommended to Scotland's Minister for Enterprise that Scotland could boost the science base by taking the lead in giving contract researchers a better deal, and by enhancing links between academic researchers and industry. A key constraint on technology transfer in Scotland was the lack of R&D investment by industry (THES, 28/4).

Ind (17/4) stated that Ken Livingstone's manifesto, due to be published that day, would include a ban on all animal experimentation in London. In the event the manifesto made no comment about animal experimentation. However, in his regular column the following day (Ind, 18/4) Livingstone said that over the years he had received more letters of concern about animal welfare than on any other issue. So he intended to recognise these concerns by appointing an officer to liaise with existing animal welfare organisations to tackle cruelty-"whether that involved unnecessary tests on animals, factory farming, or simply cruelty to domestic pets". He remained committed to the view that London should be an "animal cruelty free zone".

In Science and Public Affairs (April) Ian Gibson MP noted that some scientists had criticised his willingness to identify potential problems, as well as benefits, that are likely to arise from developments like the human genome project. His response was that scientists cannot work without considering the potential social consequences of their research. Scientists should engage the public in social and ethical debate if they want to retain public confidence and support.

Science Policy: International
European heads of government demanded urgent action to set up a European research area to compete with the US, to be under way by the end of 2000. This would include high-speed electronic networks for universities and libraries, European and national research programmes being brought together, and barriers affecting the mobility of staff being removed (Gdn, 25/4). The case for greater integration was hardly helped by the cumbersome bureaucracy involved in applying for Framework grants, about which European scientists recently complained. Life sciences and biotechnology programmes in FP5 were heavily oversubscribed, yet EU finance rules do not allow money to be shifted from less popular research areas. FP5 was described as "a series of independent, hypothesis-driven social experiments", but FP6 was considered to be more realistic in seeking to improve national and EC research collaboration (Nat, 13/4). The EC has created a high level team of scientists to advise the Research Commissioner on biotechnology. The team has been asked to examine the social and ethical implications of life science research, to advise on how these can be communicated to the public, and to prepare the ground for a 'biosciences summit' in November 2000 (FT, 28/4). A Eurobarometer survey that polled 16,000 citizens of 15 European countries found that public confidence in all sources of information on biotechnology has fallen. Only 41% of respondents thought that biotechnology would improve people's lives significantly in the next 20 years compared to 47% in 1997 (Nat, 4/5).

A survey of European biotechnology by consultants Ernst and Young found strong growth during 1999 and concluded that the sector was at last maturing and "beginning to deliver on promises". Revenues increased by 45%, R&D spending by 36%, and net loss fell by 44%. The largest companies were located in Britain, although Germany had slightly more companies overall. Analysts forecast that some of Germany's very small companies would not be viable. The UK was responsible for 60% of the European sector's value and for three-quarters of the products in late-stage development. Reported deals between biotech and pharmaceutical companies had increased 70%, and many were "true alliances with guaranteed funding". The report was generally optimistic, but foresaw a potential problem over the ability of European capital markets to fund the growth of companies over the next 5 years (FT, 17/4). Germany's lower House of Parliament only narrowly turned down a proposal to amend the nation's constitution on animal welfare to include an additional guarantee of animal rights with no allowances made for laboratory animals. It was thought that if the amendment had been passed activists would have brought about a large number of court trials involving experiments on animals that would, in effect, have stopped biomedical research in Germany (Sci, 21/4).

FT (11/4) contained an analysis of why Monsanto made freely available its working draft of the rice genome. Among the suggestions were that it would help restore Monsanto's image, that it would put other companies on the spot as to what they were sharing with the world, and that Monsanto was taking the long view and considered that it had more to gain than to lose from such a grand gesture. A feature article about Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, and credited with doing much to bring supporters and opponents of genetic modification into serious discussion, addressed similar issues. It considered that Monsanto's action signalled a new sensitivity to worries of the public about intellectual ownership. Conway would like to see a two-tier marketing system whereby biotech companies holding patents could charge technology fees to the better off nations, whilst allowing subsistence farmers cheaper or free access to GM seed (FT, 5/5).

Higher Education
HEFCE's annual conference was told that the recent consultation had found considerable support for the idea that the quality of research training provided should have more influence on the distribution of research funding. HEFCE was currently considering options such as concentrating support for research training in a smaller number of universities, encouraging shared graduate schools between neighbouring universities, or the development of national and regional centres of excellence for research training in particular disciplines (THES, 21/4; Res Ft, 19/4). As part of HEFCE's drive to improve the information available on employment rates of graduates universities will have to collect data for a new indicator due for publication in March 2001. The Higher Education Statistics Agency has tightened the guidelines of its First Destinations 2000 survey in preparation for the new indicator (THES, 5/5).

The Quality Assurance Agency issued benchmarks for 22 subjects (THES, 5/5). All but two included a check list detailing the skills and intellectual abilities expected at the 'threshold' level for a degree and/or at the 'typical student' level. An editorial article considered that the statements were not 'standards' but descriptors by academics attempting to encapsulate what higher education aimed to convey to its students. "They were long on things that are largely unmeasurable". THES asked what the statements were really for since they had great potential for causing disputes on quality and standards between QAA inspectors, universities, and students. Various commentators had reservations about university diversity and autonomy, or on whether the proposed system would reduce bureaucracy and cost.

The Confederation of British Industry said that its members were not convinced of the need for 2-year foundation degrees, or that the award would be popular with employers and students. Most students would continue to choose Hons courses. HEFCE also questioned the demand for the award when HND courses were unpopular. HEFCE noted that the traditional 3-year Hons degree is already short by international standards and questioned whether the new qualification should be called a degree. It made the same comment as QAA about the perception of the award's value being lowered because it will be delivered primarily through further education colleges, and queried the transferability of the award between universities for the proposed additional study to a full degree (THES, 14/4).

Secondary education
A report on secondary science education from Kings College researchers that was trailed earlier (see Dec 1999 report) was finally published. It criticised over-heavy curriculum content squeezing out experimental work and discussion of contemporary science, and the boring way that the same subjects are repeated at different levels of complexity. The report recommended that the post-14 curriculum should consist of a core course containing elements of physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences and astronomy, with additional optional modules to allow pupils to specialise in subjects that interested them (TES, 21/4). The government was drafting a strategy akin to the literacy and numeracy strategies to raise teaching standards in early secondary school science. OFSTED had raised concerns about the lack of student progress and poor teaching, and so the strategy would focus on better training and staff support. The strategy would be piloted in September, and if successful, would be implemented in all secondary schools from September 2001 (TES, 28/4). Figures released by the Higher Education Minister revealed that one third of all graduate school teachers dropped out of the profession within 5 years. Maths teachers were among the most likely to leave (THES, 14/4). The School Standards Minister announced that an extra �60 million would be made available over 2 years to refurbish labs at 400 secondary schools (FT, 19/4).

A joint Qualifications and Curriculum Authority/ OFSTED study concluded that there had been some easing of standards in A-level maths between 1985 and 1995, and the QCA announced that the syllabus would be made "somewhat more demanding" from September 2000. QCA noted that universities had complained for a number of years about students with A-level maths not being able to cope with the first year of degree courses (all papers 1/5). In subsequent letters to the papers one comment was that simply making A-level maths harder would not solve the problem that students are not given an adequate grounding up to GCSE. The switch from O-level to GCSE had been the original reason for the A-level syllabus having to be watered down. A different view was that it would discourage students from taking A-level maths, which had become much more accessible to young people particularly after modular courses were introduced.




Biochemical Society/Portland Press
59 Portland Place
London
W1B 1QW
United Kingdom

Biochemical Society Membership Office
Portland Customer Services
Commerce Way
Whitehall Industrial Estate
Colchester
Essex
CO2 8HP
United Kingdom
Administration:
Tel: 020 7580 5530 - Fax: 020 7637 3626
E-mail: [email protected]

Editorial:
Tel: 020 7637 5873 - Fax: 020 7323 1136
E-mail: [email protected]

Meetings:
Tel: 020 7580 3481 - Fax: 020 7637 7626
E-mail: [email protected]

Membership:
Tel: 01206 796 351 - Fax: 01206 799 331
E-mail: [email protected]