Monthly report on Professional Affairs - August 2000

Contents

• Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers
  • Science Policy: UK
  • Science Policy: International
  • Secondary and Higher education

Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers

Science Policy: UK
A study by Save British Science (SBS) and the UK Deans of Science organisation emphasised the difficulties that many universities face in recruiting high quality scientists. Among responding institutions 37% said that in recent years they had experienced having to appoint students, post-docs or lecturers who would not have been considered good enough in the past. More than half had left positions unfilled because they could not find suitable candidates, and three-quarters considered that the problem had become greatly exacerbated in the last 6 years. SBS contrasted lecturers' salaries with those available in the City, and noted that the recent Spending Review had failed to tackle the issue of low pay for the vast majority of university researchers (SBS press release, 25/8: THES, 25/8). SBS also revealed some hard evidence of a 'brain drain' of young researchers to the US. For scientists who obtained PhDs in the UK in 1988 a study assessed the citation rate in the last decade to papers bearing their name published between 1985 and 1989. The rate was significantly higher for those who are now working in the US (SBS press release, 7/9; Nat, 7/9).

David Weatherall drew attention to growing possibilities for conflicts of interest within university labs as researchers are encouraged to develop closer relationships with industrial sponsors. He argued that if universities were to maintain their integrity governments and granting bodies must temper their pressure for early and exploitable results (THES, 1/9). In a similar vein, an alliance of 4 unions-Natfhe, MSF, AUT, and IPMS-was to launch a 'charter for science' at the British Association Festival on 8th Sept. They too were concerned that the integrity of British science is being threatened by the emphasis on commercial return. They cited the cut back in funding for speculative research, increased university reliance on commissioned research as a source of funding, and evidence that in privately funded studies the customer may exert pressure for research findings to be tailored to its needs. The charter would stress that the independence of basic research must be guaranteed "by peer review, open publication, and by autonomy over a significant proportion of its resources". The unions expressed concern about the government's ability to find independent sources of scientific advice, and were not reassured by the safeguards stated in the recent science White Paper (THES, 8/9).

Principal outcomes from the HEFCE fundamental review of research were:

• More funding streams would be established, that would require universities to make competitive bids for cash;
• Universities would have to meet minimum standards, both in facilities and quality of the research environment, to access a new postgraduate training fund. RAE panels would assess whether departments were meeting those standards after the 2001 round;
• Departments would have to submit staff development plans in order to receive research funding. HEFCE was considering how to introduce this since it could actually lead to a reduction in opportunities if temporary positions were lost.
• HEFCE's generic research funding pool would be abolished and the money diverted to reinforce existing HERO funding in a new Research Capability Development Fund.

The review warned that extra money must be available after the next RAE so that top research departments do not suffer budget cuts, since it was expected that grades overall would improve again. If additional funding was not forthcoming then the weighting formula would be adjusted so as to protect top-rated institutions (THES, FT, Times, 1/9). This latter statement drew an angry response from post-1992 universities, which complained that it would ossify a system that is already heavily weighted towards past success rather than future potential (Gdn Ed, 5/9).

The decision of the government to accept the report from its Chief Medical Officer that called for researchers to be allowed to extract and use human embryonic stem cells, and for limited use of nuclear transfer techniques, was widely reported and gave science editors an opportunity to seize the front pages (all papers, 17/8; New Sci, 19/8; Res Ft, 23/8; Nat, 24/8; Sci, 25/8). A Nat editorial thought the government had got it right in encouraging open debate on the issue, involving the public in discussion, and giving MPs a free vote in parliament. But it asked why the government had been so hesitant in making its recommendation. The decision was generally welcomed in the UK and abroad as a pragmatic effort to balance ethical concerns for treatment of embryos against potential medical benefits. Some reports said that the government was considering new legislation to ban reproductive cloning, but Gdn, 30/8, led with a story that a survey of government advisers, medical specialists, and reproductive biologists found that a majority believed that human cloning would take place in the next 20 years. Work that has now been approved on human embryonic stem cells would lead to technical and safety problems being overcome.

Government figures showed that whilst the number of animals used in experiments was unchanged overall in 1999 there was a 14% increase in use of genetically modified animals, principally mice (all papers, 18/8; Nat, 24/8). The Research Defence Society commented that with the flood of information emerging from the human genome project an increase in use of GM animals was not unexpected, and was required to study the function of genes. On the other hand the RSPCA thought that experiments involving GM animals risked getting out of control, and it called for closer scrutiny and an independent body to consider ethical, social and welfare implications (Gdn, 21/8). The problem for the government is illustrated by the response from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection that the government has so far betrayed its pre-election pledge to reduce the number of animal experiments. In response to increased harassment of people involved in animal research the ABPI Director of Science and Technology wrote letters to the Gdn (17/8) and Times (1/9), pointing out that such work is essential for the development of new medicines and that if workers were not safeguarded the UK would lose its position at the leading edge of medicine. The ABPI also warned that the violent campaign could deter pharmaceutical companies from investing in the UK; changes in legislation covering freedom of information could exacerbate the problem of harassment (FT, 30/8). The Home Secretary announced that the government would seek new powers to prevent animal rights extremists from preying on scientists. He commented: "many of us would not be able to lead healthy lives were it not for the pharmaceutical companies being able to test their drugs on animals" (all papers, 31/8; THES, 1/9). At the opening of the British Association Festival its President, Princess Anne, also gave cautious support to genetic engineering, use of human embryonic stem cells, and the use of animals in biomedical research (all papers, 7/9). Issues like these were raised in the Foresight Healthcare Panel consultation to which the Society responded recently through UKLSC.

Science Policy: International
The NIH set out guidelines that would allow US researchers to apply for public funds to work with human embryonic stem cells, but not to harvest them. The ASCB and FASEB welcomed the guidelines. The US Congress is sharply split on the issue and it was thought that the future of stem cell research could depend on the outcome of the presidential election. Gore is supportive, Bush opposed (Nat, 31/8; Sci, 1/9; New Sci, 2/9). IBM was reported to be investing $100 million to develop computational biology tools and was forming a life sciences division. The company estimates that the market for IT tools in the life sciences will increase 2-3 fold in the next 3 years (Nat, 24/8). The Wellcome Trust has been discussing with several companies the creation of an international consortium to advance structural genomics and proteomics. Increasing the number of target protein structures in the public domain was expected to aid rational drug design. It was anticipated that structures would be determined at public research institutes funded through membership fees to join the consortium. Wellcome's participation in any consortium was conditional on data being made freely available, with no IPR being taken out by members (Nat, 31/8). A feature article in Sci (25/8) looked at the debate between US economists on the role of science in fuelling the growth in industrial output. Some positive indicators had led to an increase to the National Science Foundation budget, but sceptics feared that the current fashion for science in the US could backfire.

Higher Education
A study commissioned by HEFCE found that the current accountability regime represented poor value for money. It envisioned a future system with 3 components: closer collaboration between stakeholders, greater reliance on institutions' own internal management controls, and better integration of different audit requirements. The RAE was criticised for causing inappropriate tactical behaviour, contributing to planning blight because of uncertainty of RAE outcome, and to problems in staff recruitment and retention (THES, 25/8). On a similar theme a report by the Council for Industry and Higher Education recommended that universities should receive a block grant based on their individually-defined missions rather than having to 'jump through centrally-determined funding hoops'. Diversity and excellence were threatened because universities spread their activities too thinly since they were afraid to close the door on any potential funding source 'in case it becomes the latest government priority' (THES, 18/8).

An editorial in Times (29/8) after news of a further rise in A-level pass rates called for a reappraisal of targets for students entering HE, in order to improve 'human and physical conditions' in this sector. It considered that many universities risked becoming "educational factory farms staffed by lecturers earning comically modest salaries and with little realistic prospect of pursuing stimulating research". UCAS data actually did show a decrease in the number of students accepted to read science subjects in 2000/2001 (THES, 1/9).

The annual conference of the National Postgraduate Council heard that less than 20% of all postgraduate students attend the 5-day residential workshops organised by the Research Councils' Graduate Schools Programme. Although the course is free to RC-funded students, only 40% attend. It was thought that postgraduates feel under so much pressure that they do not find time to attend, despite hearing very positive feedback from those who have been on the courses (THES, 18/8). A report commissioned by CVCP concluded that large research-led universities in the UK are as effective as their US counterparts at starting market-leading spin-off companies. Twenty to thirty UK universities were large enough to sustain commercialisation of their research, and these aimed to establish about 4 spin-offs a year, in line with US experience. However, financial returns to universities from spin-offs are modest (the largest UK universities only generate about �2 million a year compared to obtaining up to �100 million from public funding) and are no substitute for public funding (THES, 25/8).

Secondary Education
TES (8/9) contained a curriculum special feature on science and technology. It included a short article by the Chief Executive of the Association for Science Education on the new science curriculum, which he regarded favourably; discussion of the specifications for the AS/A2 routes to advanced qualifications; praise from a head of sixth form for the web site www.schoolscience.co.uk, which is a move towards a 'one-stop site' for information on items in the school science curriculum; and an article about Pfizer's Link Scientist scheme that places practising scientists with local primary schools. With regard to the first two points, the Society's Professional and Education Committee is planning a colloquium at the Bristol main meeting to address the impact of changes in post-16 science curricula on the teaching of biochemistry in universities.

Most papers (17/8) noted the decrease in numbers of students who took maths and physics A-levels this year, regarded as 'hard' subjects. Commentators queried what is happening to vocational qualifications with the news that numbers registered for advanced GNVQs fell by almost 12%. The US appears to have similar concerns to the UK about science teaching. A report from the National Research Council recommended that universities should not lose contact with teachers after their training. They should play a larger role in ongoing professional development through such means as advanced courses, summer research projects, and other professional activities, to ensure that teachers keep up with their field. A second NRC report considered how more science and maths PhDs could be attracted into school teaching. It considered that most PhDs were not aware of the opportunities in teaching (only 0.8% of the science PhD workforce was employed in the sector). More would consider teaching if the US government helped with the transition, if the certification process was compressed, and if they could retain links to research (Sci, 1/9).