International Review of Chemistry in the UK

Chemistry International Review Title Pages Information for the Panel i

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF CHEMISTRY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW PANEL

March 2009

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Polaris House, North Star Avenue Swindon, SN2 1ET Wiltshire, UK http://www.epsrc.ac.uk

- 1 - Chemistry International Review Title Pages Information for the Panel ii

Preface

The document contains several main sections as described below:

Title pages – including this preface, a list of acronyms and the Evidence Framework

Chapter 1 (see page 7) A general description of support for science and innovation in the UK (pages headed ‘Funding Overview’)

Chapter 2 (see page 31) A background document providing data on: EPSRC support for Chemistry Research; research community demographics; research quality; knowledge transfer activities (pages headed ‘Background Data’)

Chapter 3 (see page 83) The collected responses obtained through a consultation exercise to gather evidence in response to the Evidence Framework (pages headed ‘Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation’)

Chapter 4 (see page 231) A summary of the Chemistry ‘Grand Challenges’ that were developed following the previous international review in 2002 (pages headed ‘Grand Challenges’)

Chapter 5 (see page 295) The overview reports prepared by the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering sub-panels of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)

This document has a dual purpose: • to provide the Review Panel with insight to the structures funding mechanisms and Government policies which have bearing on chemistry in the UK. It also provides background information on EPSRC; • to provide the Review Panel with accessible evidence gathered from a wide range of sources; it is hoped this will assist the panel in the undertaking of their task.

- 2 - Chemistry International Review Title Pages Information for the Panel iii

Table of Acronyms

AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform CASE Collaborative Awards in Science and Engineering CCLRC Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (now STFC) CNA CASE for New Academics CSA Chief Scientific Adviser CSR Comprehensive Spending Review CTAs Collaborative Training Accounts DBERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform DGSI Director General of Science and Innovation DIUS Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills DSTL Defence Science and Technology Laboratory DTA Doctoral Training Account DTI Department of Trade and Industry (Abolished 2007) EngD Engineering Doctorate EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ESRC Economic and Social Research Council ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich EU European Union fEC Full Economic Costs FTE Full-Time Equivalent GDP Gross Domestic Product HE / HEI Higher Education / Higher Education Institution HEFCE / HEFCW Higher Education Funding Council for England / for Wales HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency ICT Information & Communications Technology ILL Institut Laue-Langevin (France) IP/IPR Intellectual Property / Intellectual Property Rights ISI Institute for Scientific Information, now Thomson Scientific JACS Joint Academic Coding System, developed by HESA KT / KTN Knowledge Transfer / Knowledge Transfer Network KTP Knowledge Transfer Partnership MOD Ministry of Defence MRC Medical Research Council MSc Master of Science NERC Natural Environment Research Council NSF National Science Foundation (US counterpart to EPSRC) OST / OSI Office of Science and Technology (established 2007, formerly of Science and Innovation) PPARC Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (now STFC) QR Quality Related R&D Research and Development RAE Research Assessment Exercise RAIS Research Assistants Industrial Secondments RCUK Research Councils UK RDA Regional Development Agency SATs Strategic Advisory Teams SFC Scottish Funding Council SI Science and Innovation Awards SME Small / Medium sized Enterprise SRIF Science Research Investment Fund SRs Spending Reviews STFC Science and Technology Facilities Council TSB Technology Strategy Board

- 3 - Chemistry International Review Title Pages Information for the Panel iv

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW EVIDENCE FRAMEWORK

A. What is the impact on a global scale of the UK Chemistry research community both in terms of research quality and the profile of researchers? • Is the UK the international leader in chemistry research? In which areas? What contributes to the UK strength and what are the recommendations for continued strength? • What are the opportunities/threats for the future? • Where are the gaps in the UK research base? • In which areas is the UK weak and what are the recommendations for improvement? B. To what extent are UK researchers engaged in "best with best" science-driven international interactions? • What is the nature and extent of engagement between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, India and Japan? • How effective is the engagement between the UK and the rest of the world? • Are there particular issues for the chemistry research area? What could be done to improve international interactions? C. What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous research base and portfolio? • What is the current volume of transformative research and is this appropriate? • What are the barriers to more "adventurous research" and how can they be overcome? • To what extent does Research Council funding policy support/enable adventurous research? D. To what extent is the UK chemistry community addressing key technological/societal challenges through engaging in new research opportunities? • What are the key technological/societal challenges and research directions in chemistry research? To what extent is the UK chemistry research community focused on these? Are there fields where UK activity does not match the potential significance of the area? Are there areas where the UK has particular strengths? • In terms of the defined remits of the relevant research council and other funders programmes, are there any areas which are under-supported in relation to the situation overseas? If so, what are the reasons underlying this situation and how can it be remedied? • Is the research community structured to deliver solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges? If not, what improvements could be implemented? • Are there a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature evident in the UK? If not, which areas are currently deficient?

E. To what extent is the chemistry research base interacting with other disciplines and multidisciplinary research? • What evidence is there that there is sufficient research involving investigators from a broad range of traditional disciplines including life sciences, materials, physics and engineering as well as chemists? • Are there appropriate levels of knowledge exchange between the chemistry community and other disciplines? What are the main barriers to effective knowledge and information flow and how can they be overcome?

- 4 - Chemistry International Review Title Pages Information for the Panel v

• What evidence is there to demonstrate the influence that funding programmes has had in encouraging multidisciplinary research?

F. What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides? • What is the flow of trained people between industry and the research base and vice versa? Is this sufficient and how does it compare with international norms? • How robust are the relationships between UK academia and industry both nationally and internationally and how can these be improved? • To what extent does the chemistry community take advantage of research council schemes to enable this knowledge exchange? Is there more that could be done to encourage knowledge transfer? • What is the scale of industrial R&D in chemistry nationally and internationally and what is the trend? What are the implications for the UK chemistry research community and to what extent is it well-positioned to respond? Is there any way that its position could be improved?

G. To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness? • What are the major innovations in the chemistry area, current and emerging, which are benefiting the UK? Which of these include a significant contribution from UK research? • How successful has the UK chemistry community (academic and industrial) been at wealth creation? What are the barriers to successful innovation in chemistry in the UK and how can these be overcome?

H. To what extent is the UK able to attract talented young scientists and engineers into chemistry research? Is there evidence that they are being nurtured and supported at every stage of their career? • Are the numbers of graduates (at first and higher degree level) sufficient to maintain the UK research base in this area? Is there sufficient demand from undergraduates to become engaged in chemistry research? How does this compare with the experience in other countries? • How effective are public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry? • Are there areas of weakness - is the UK producing a steady-stream of researchers in the required areas and/or are there areas that should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate? • How does the career structure for chemists in the UK compare internationally? • To what extent is the UK able to attract overseas chemists to the UK? Is there evidence of ongoing engagement either through retention within the UK research community or through international linkages? • Are early career researchers suitably equipped to embark on research careers? • Is the combination of deep subject knowledge and ability to work at subject interfaces/boundaries appropriate? • Is the UK community engaging in the changing trends in the UK employment market.

- 5 - Chemistry International Review Blank Page Information for the Panel

This page intentionally blank

- 6 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 1

Chapter 1

SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE UK

- 7 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 2

Setting the scene – key developments in science and innovation in the UK

The main developments that have occurred in the UK over the last 5 years are listed below:

1. Publication of the “Science and Innovation Investment Framework (2004 – 2014)” – government’s long-term vision for UK science and innovation, together with ambitions for public and private investment in R&D to reach 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2014. The framework’s main challenge to the research councils is to deliver two key outputs: Output 1: a healthy research base Output 2: better exploitation of research. 2. Increased emphasis on knowledge transfer and economic impact, specifically through the “Warry report” which made recommendations on how research councils can deliver and demonstrate that they are delivering a major increase in economic impact, highlighting:

• the Councils’ role in leadership of the knowledge transfer agenda; • their role in influencing knowledge transfer behaviour of universities and research council institutes; and, • increasing their own direct engagement with user organisations.

3. Establishment of the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) as an independent body tasked with stimulating innovation in those areas which offer the greatest scope for boosting UK growth and productivity.

4. Formation of the Science and Technology Facilities Council in April 2007 by merging the Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.

5. Proposals for the reform of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) after 2008, with the introduction of a more metrics-based approach1.

6. Changes in June 2007 to the structure of relevant government departments: the abolition of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Government department responsible for promoting the interests of UK businesses, employees and consumers, and the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI) which was hosted within the DTI. The OSI led for Government in supporting science, engineering and technology and the research councils reported to this Office.

7. These have been replaced by two new departments: the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR).

1 Further information about the RAE is provided in paragraphs 28-29.

- 8 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 3

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills

8. DIUS brings together the former OSI plus responsibility for higher education which previously lay with the Department for Education and Skills. Its prime objective is to make the UK one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. It also has a role in ensuring the development of an appropriately skilled workforce for the future.

9. A Government Office for Science within DIUS, headed by the Chief Scientific Adviser, reports directly to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on DIUS’s progress towards its objectives. The Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) is an appointment of the Prime Minister, although based in DIUS. The remit of the CSA is to provide scientific advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They have a responsibility across all Government departments (some of which have their own scientific advisors). Professor Beddington took up the post of CSA on 1 January 2008. Previously he had been Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College.

10. DIUS manages the allocation of the “Science Budget”1 (currently over £3 billion per annum) into research via the seven research councils for which the Director General of Science and Innovation (DGSI), Prof Adrian Smith, is responsible. The DGSI is responsible for securing the successful and high-quality operation of the research councils and advising the Minister for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the allocation of the funds to the Research Councils, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Prior to his current post Professor Smith was Principal of Queen Mary, University of London for 10 years and previously he was at Imperial College, London, where he held a number of posts over an eight-year period.

Technology Strategy Board

11. TSB’s primary aim is not the creation of knowledge, but the translation of knowledge into innovation and new and improved products and services. The Research Councils have an on-going and increasing portfolio of engagement with the TSB to help them achieve their objectives. TSB funding over the next three years will be over £1 billion. This is planned to include co-funding of at least £120 million from the research councils, and co-funding of £180 million from the Regional Development Agencies. The TSB operates in a similar way to the Research Councils and is located on the same site.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)

12. This new Department leads the Government’s efforts to create the conditions for business success in the UK. It drives regulatory reform, and works across Government and with the regions to raise levels of UK productivity.

13. The Department leads on making sustainable improvements in the economic performance of the regions. It is jointly responsible, with the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office respectively, for trade policy, and trade promotion and inward investment.

- 9 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 4

How funding for science is secured

14. The Science Budget is set by the Government’s Spending Reviews (SRs), which is the mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine how much tax payers money to put into various Government priorities. Each SR sets a three year budget for Government Departments and associated targets. SRs overlap so that the last year of one SR period is also the first year of the next SR period. In addition to the SR’s there are Comprehensive Spending Reviews (CSR) which start from a zero base rather than starting from existing spending levels and set the spending policy for periods of ten years. The 2007 review was a Comprehensive Spending Review; the previous CSR was held in 1998.

15. Within the Spending Review framework, the Treasury sets the overall limit for public spending and allocates resources between departments, according to the Government's priorities and in the light of bids from the departments for funds. It is then up to departments to decide how best to manage and distribute this spending within their own areas.

16. DIUS’s bid to Treasury is based on cases made by the Research Councils through delivery plan bidding documents. The delivery plans set out each council's funding priorities and outline the activities that they intend to undertake over the spending review period. They form part of a comprehensive performance management framework which enables DIUS to demonstrate the contribution that each research council is making towards achieving government targets. More details are available at: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/AboutEPSRC/StrategyAndPlanning/DeliveryPlanScorec ardAndOutputFramework.htm.

17. The Research Councils’ delivery plans are developed following wide ranging consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, including other research councils, researchers, industry and business. The final allocation to individual research councils is made by the Science Minister and the DGSI based on the proposals outlined in the delivery plans.

The Science Budget for the next 3 years (2008/09 – 2010/11)

18. The 2007 CSR provides DIUS with a total budget of £18.7 billion in 2008-09, £19.7 billion in 2009-10 and £20.8 billion in 2010-11, equivalent to 2.2 per cent annual average real growth. This includes: a 2.5% increase in real terms in the UK’s public science base over the CSR07 period (2008 – 2011); and a 2% increase on spending on higher education and skills over the same period.

19. The Research Councils will use the additional funding to support new activities in six interdisciplinary programmes:

• energy; • living with environmental change; • global security; • ageing research: lifelong health and wellbeing; • nanoscience through engineering to application; and • the digital economy.

- 10 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 5

Funding for Research

Introduction

20. There are two primary streams for the public funding of research in the UK. This approach is known as the ‘Dual Support System’. Under this system, block grants, or Quality-related (QR) funding, is provided to universities through the funding councils. The level of funding is based on quality ratings of departments determined through the Research Assessment Exercise and the volume of research activity. The other stream of research funding comes through the research councils. The total funding for research provided under the two streams totals close to £5 billion in 2008/09. Table 1 shows the distribution between the research and funding councils. It also shows that over the past 5 years there has been a relative shift from QR or funding council allocations, to the research councils’ allocations. The budget for the research councils has increased by 46%, whilst for the funding councils there has only been a 34% increase.

Table 1 - Research Councils and Funding Councils Research Budget Allocations for 2004/05 to 2010/11 (£000s)

2008/09 2010/11 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 increase 2009-10 2010-11 increase Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation against Allocation Allocation against 2004/05* 2004/05* AHRC 67,746 80,536 91,379 96,792 103,492 53% 104,397 108,827 61% BBSRC 287,571 336,186 371,644 386,854 427,000 48% 452,563 471,057 64% EPSRC 497,318 568,193 636,294 711,112 795,057 60% 814,528 843,465 70% ESRC 105,252 123,465 142,468 149,881 164,924 57% 170,614 177,574 69% MRC 455,279 478,787 503,461 543,399 605,538 33% 658,472 707,025 55% NERC 314,256 334,047 359,367 372,398 392,150 25% 408,162 436,000 39% PPARC 274,037 293,916 306,540 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CCLRC 127,940 167,004 182,256 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a STFC n/a n/a n/a 573,464 623,641 630,337 651,636 n/a Research 2,129,399 2,382,134 2,593,409 2,833,900 3,111,802 46% 3,239,073 3,395,584 59% Councils Total

HEFCE 1,078,750 1,249,254 1,340,843 1,413,014 1,458,447 35% SFC 174,220 181,408 201,958 217,444 228,890 31% HEFCW 61,534 63,569 65,031 69,650 71,452 16% DELNI 37,158 40,301 44,155 47,802 51,751** 39% Funding 1,351,662 1,534,532 1,651,987 1,747,910 1,810,540 34% Councils Total

*Gross percentages shown (not adjusted for inflation) – these also reflect the introduction of full economic cost funding model in September 2005. **Estimated

Full Economic Costs

21. In order to address concerns over the sustainability of research funding, the funding model used by the research councils changed significantly in September 2005. All research grant proposals and fellowship applications submitted after this date are funded on the basis of a full economic costs (fEC) model whereby the Research Council provides 80% of the fEC of the project. Given that the full economic cost of

- 11 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 6

the research varies with each university the additional cost to the research councils varies accordingly. However, the research councils estimate that post-fEC grants cost on average 45% more than pre-fEC grants. Along with the 80% of fEC included in new research council grants, a further 10% of the costs are provided through capital investment, contributed to by the Research councils and distributed by the funding councils in the form of Science Research Investment Funding (SRIF).

The Research Councils

22. There are seven UK Research Councils covering the full range of arts, humanities, engineering, and the physical and social sciences. They are:

• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC); • Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC); • Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC); • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC); • Medical Research Council (MRC); • Natural Environment Research Council (NERC); and • Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

23. The Research Councils have UK-wide responsibility to provide project-based funding and (except in Northern Ireland) postgraduate and postdoctoral support. The funding provided through research councils amounts to over £3 billion in 2008-9. The distribution of funding between the Research Councils is shown in Table 1. 24. Prior to 2007 the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) existed as separate councils. These were combined into the Science and Technology Facilities Council in April 2007. 25. The Councils have formed a strategic partnership, Research Councils UK (RCUK) to champion the research, training and innovation they support. Many activities are conducted jointly under the umbrella of RCUK: further details of RCUK activities are at www.rcuk.ac.uk. 26. The Research Councils are independent non-departmental governmental bodies, established by Royal Charter. This means that although they must report their activities to Parliament, they are independent in terms of on what and how they spend their funds, within the constraints of their Royal Charters. 27. The Research Councils made significant amendments, in 2006, to their collaboration on the peer review and funding of research projects that straddle their remits. These changes aim to ensure that no gaps develop between the Councils’ subject domains, and to ensure equality of opportunity for proposals at the interface between traditional disciplines, where many of the major research challenges of our time are located. All research grant applications that extend beyond a single Research Council’s remit are assessed by peer reviewers from across the relevant domains, thereby ensuring fair and rigorous assessment. Beyond this stage, decisions are made through a single Council’s peer review process, but any significant element residing within another Council’s remit will be funded by the Council(s) concerned. This will avoid the 'double jeopardy' of additional review, whilst ensuring that funding allocations reflect Research Councils' different missions, imperatives and approaches.

- 12 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 7

The Funding Councils

28. Funding councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland provide universities with block grants to support teaching and infrastructure. The four funding councils have arisen preceding devolution of Government in the UK, they are: the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE); Scottish Funding Council (SFC); Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW); and the Department of Education & Learning in Northern Ireland (DELNI). They follow similar, but not identical, policies. Examples where they differ include the conversion of Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) results into cash, or in the imposition of student fees.

29. The purpose of the RAE is to rate the quality of research conducted in universities and higher education colleges in the UK. The quality ratings, together with data on the number of research active staff, are used to inform the allocation of about £1.75 billion per year for unspecified research by the Funding Councils, the last RAE was in 2008, while the previous one was in 2001. In 2006 (“Next Steps”) the government outlined its intention that after 2008 the RAE would be mainly metrics based. This has caused considerable controversy and consultations are still ongoing regarding the implementation of these plans.

30. The Panel should be aware that whilst the 2008 RAE uses the same main principles of peer assessment as previous RAEs there have been some significant changes: • The results will be published as a graded profile rather than a fixed seven-point scale. This will allow the Funding Councils to identify pockets of excellence wherever these might be found and reduces the 'cliff edge' effect where fine judgments at the grade boundaries can have significant funding impacts. • A formal two-tiered panel structure has been introduced for RAE 2008; it is hoped this will ensure greater consistency and international calibration. • Explicit criteria have been set in each subject to enable the proper assessment of applied, practice-based and interdisciplinary research. Further details about the RAE can be found at http://www.rae.ac.uk

31. The Funding Councils are also the channels through which Government distributes Science Research Investment Funding (SRIF). SRIF is a major programme of investment in physical infrastructure for research funded jointly by the four UK Higher Education Funding Bodies and DIUS. The funding is intended to help address past under-investment in research infrastructure and promote the sustainability of the research base. It can be used for: • refurbishment of premises for research; • replacement, renewal or upgrading of research equipment; and • replacement of premises or infrastructure for research by new-build or acquisition, where this is a better value solution than refurbishment.

32. Three rounds of funding have been announced to date; institutions receive allocations based on the level of their research activity, and may invest the funds strategically.

- 13 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 8

Other sources of research funding

33. Industry is a major supporter of UK university research. Universities, departments or researchers may hold contracts with industrial and commercial partners as part of normal business.

34. Various learned societies and professional bodies also sponsor research, such as the Royal Society.

35. The Wellcome Trust is a major charitable trust which spends over £600 million a year in the medical, biological and chemical areas, sometimes in partnership with the funding and research councils. Other trusts and charities, such as the Wolfson Foundation (£35M per annum), the Nuffield Foundation (£9M per annum), the Leverhulme Trust (£40M per annum) and Cancer Research UK (£330M per annum) support research in a variety of areas.

36. The EU Framework Programmes are also a significant source of funds for UK researchers, providing over £200 million in 2004-05.

EPSRC

37. The EPSRC is the UK's main agency for funding research in engineering and the physical sciences investing around £800 million a year to promote and encourage research and postgraduate training in the physical sciences and engineering. The EPSRC currently supports about 6,000 research, training and public engagement grants worth a total of £3.2 billion. The complete portfolio of awards can be explored at http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/.

38. Our funding processes rely on independent peer review to ensure that the money is used as effectively as possible to give the UK the highest quality research and training. We have a flexible approach and our only constraints are that we:

• publicise our involvement; • use independent expert guidance to help us make investment decisions; • invest mainly through universities; and • do not enter into exclusive agreements.

39. Our remit covers engineering and the physical sciences: research in the areas of chemistry, engineering, information and communications technologies, materials, mathematical sciences and physics. We do not have any restrictions on application areas but the majority of the research we support must be in engineering and the physical sciences. The core programmes we supported up to April 2008 are shown in Table 2. In addition there were a number of strategic programmes in areas such as Energy, E-Science and Basic Technology.

40. To help protect and encourage interdisciplinary research, the research councils have a funding agreement for considering proposals at the boundaries of our remits. In addition, historically our Life Science Interface programme provided up to 50% funding for medical, biological and environmental-related research proposals.

- 14 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 9

Table 2 – EPSRC’s Core Programmes pre April 2008 Programme Research Areas Include: Chemistry Analytical science, inorganic synthesis, organic synthesis, physical organic chemistry, and structure, bonding and reaction mechanisms Engineering Acoustics; aerodynamics and manufacturing systems, machinery and plant; biomaterials; built environment and structural materials engineering; control and robotics; design and manufacturing management; electronic and optical engineering microsystems; engineering materials; instrumentation; mechanical engineering; medical engineering; process engineering; transport operations and management; water and coastal engineering Information and Communications, computer science, electronics, image and vision computing, people and communications interactivity, photonic devices technologies (ICT) Materials Ceramic and inorganic materials, electronic materials, magnetic materials, metals and alloys, photonic materials, polymer matrix composites, sensors, spintronics, structural polymers, superconductivity Mathematical Algebra and geometry, applied mathematics, logic and combinatorics, mathematical Sciences physics, pure mathematics, statistics and operational research Physics Atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, quantum information processing, optics and lasers, plasma physics, soft condensed matter, surface science

41. Since April 2008 the EPSRC has been restructured and there are now new core programmes. These focus on investigator-led research and training and are shown in Table 3. Business innovation mission programmes replace the old strategic programmes, in the areas of Digital Economy, Energy, Nanoscience and Healthcare. These are aimed at delivering our priority research themes and maximising the economic and social impact of the research and training we fund. The Life Sciences Interface programme has been replaced with a Cross-Disciplinary Interfaces programme

Table 3 – EPSRC’s cores programmes post April 2008 Programme Research Areas Include: Information and Communications, computer science, people and interactivity, semiconductor materials for Communications device applications including modelling, and electronic and photonic devices. Technology (ICT) Materials, Aero and hydrodynamics, control and instrumentation, generic manufacturing, Mechanical and mechanical engineering, medical engineering, structural materials engineering including Medical Engineering materials modelling at the macro-level, synthetic biology. Mathematical Pure mathematics, applied mathematics, mathematical statistics and applied probability Sciences and the mathematical aspects of operational research. Research topics: algebra and geometry, logic and combinatorics, mathematical physics, mathematical analysis, numerical analysis, continuum mechanics, non-linear systems, statistics and applied probability, and mathematical aspects of operational research. Physical Sciences Organic, physical and inorganic chemistry, condensed matter, atomic and molecular physics, plasma physics, laser physics, optics, quantum information processing, surface science, soft condensed matter, and fundamental physical and functional aspects of materials, i.e. synthesis, growth and characterisation of materials and materials modelling at the atomic scale. Process, Process engineering, Built environment and civil engineering, Water, waste and coastal Environment and engineering, Transport management, Energy impact and adaptation to climate change Sustainability (responsive mode only), Energy generation and distribution and electrical engineering (responsive mode only), Combustion, Science and heritage, Sustainable urban environment

- 15 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 10

EPSRC funding for research

42. In the financial year from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, EPSRC considered 4758 research grant proposals through peer review (see section 49-51 below) and provided funding for 1422, with a total value of £513 million (ie 30% by number, 32% by value).

43. EPSRC grants are held in universities or a limited number of recognised independent research institutes. The EPSRC does not have any wholly-owned institutes unlike some of the other Research Councils.

44. EPSRC provides research funding in two ways: responsive mode, ie unsolicited research proposals submitted by anyone eligible to apply to EPSRC for funding at any time and in any field of research relevant to EPSRC’s remit; and targeted mode - proposals submitted in response to targeted funding mechanisms with calls for proposals generally characterised by closing dates and/or eligibility criteria.

Responsive Mode

45. This mode of funding is very flexible. We fund projects ranging from small travel grants to multi-million pound research programmes. Academics can apply for whatever length of funding they require, whether it is a month or six years.

46. Under responsive mode academics can apply for funding for a wide range of activities, including research projects, feasibility studies, instrument development, equipment, travel and collaboration, and long-term funding to develop or maintain critical mass.

47. 3394 proposals were received in responsive mode in 2007-2008. 963 were funded, giving an overall funding rate by number of 28%. By value, this amounted to a demand of £1080 million with total funding of £305 million and a funding rate of 28%.

Targeted Mode

48. This mode supports proposals submitted in response to targeted funding mechanisms. There is often a preliminary outline stage, where full proposals are only invited from higher ranked outlines. In general funding rates in the targeted mode are higher than in responsive mode. Some calls for proposals involve a stage to build managed consortia and involve a number of universities collaborating on one proposal.

49. Targeted mode includes Portfolio Partnerships, Platform Grants, Research Chairs, Postdoctoral Mobility, Science and Innovation Awards, Follow on Fund and Discipline Hopping Awards.

50. 1365 proposals were received in the targeted mode in 2007-2008. 480 were funded, giving a funding rate by number of 35%. By value, this amounted to £52 million of demand with £208 million funded and a funding rate of 40%.

- 16 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 11

Peer review

51. Peer review is used for the assessment of proposals in responsive and targeted modes. Proposals are sent to at least three reviewers, including at least one nominated by the applicant. The reviewers prepare written comments and provide a number of ‘scores’ on various aspects of a proposal. These are returned to EPSRC. 52. Proposals that receive highly supportive comments from at least two reviewers are submitted to funding priority panels. Prior to the panel meeting reviewers' reports are passed back to the proposer to comment on any factual inaccuracies or questions raised by the reviewers’. This helps to create a more open and transparent review system and adds value to the information placed in front of the review panel. More details about the EPSRC review process are available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/ReviewingProposals/Reviewing/defa ult.htm 53. Further information is also available in the EPSRC Funding Guide at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/HowToApply/FundingGuide.htm. This guide covers all aspects of EPSRC research grant and research fellowship funding. It gives details of the application procedures and the terms and conditions of research grants and research fellowships.

Defining priorities for programmes

54. The EPSRC identifies priorities through its ongoing engagement with the research and stakeholder community and with the help and support of its Programme Strategic Advisory Teams (SATs). Each programme has a SAT, which is comprised of independent experts from academe and the stakeholder community, which provides strategic advice to EPSRC on the research and training elements of the respective programmes, paying particular attention to multidisciplinary opportunities. Specifically, SATs will:

• alert EPSRC to new and emerging research and training opportunities, including international opportunities; • advise on the balance between research and training activities; • advise on areas or issues that need further exploration or investigation; and • develop input on specific topics as requested by the Chief Executive.

55. Whilst the SATs are programme-based, there is some cross-representation of disciplines. SAT members are appointed for one year, but a degree of continuity year-on-year is sought.

Knowledge Transfer Activities

56. As well as the strategic programmes mentioned in paragraph 40, there are further activities undertaken in order to facilitate knowledge transfer. There are a number of sector teams, aimed at networking with specific business sectors, providing them with information about funding opportunities and giving them access to extensive knowledge about the academic community. The current sectors which have specific teams are: Aerospace and defence; Construction, environment and water; Electronics; Healthcare; Manufacturing; Power; Process industries; Software, media and communications; and Transport systems.

- 17 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 12

EPSRC mechanisms for support – a brief guide

57. This section introduces the main mechanisms used by EPSRC to support key aspects of research and training, explaining their rationale and key features. The research related mechanisms operate within responsive or targeted mode.

Support for research

Sustaining research capacity

58. In addition to the normal range of projects which are funded through responsive mode, we offer large, long-term grants to support leading groups in the UK in some research areas. There are three key schemes in this area:

a. Platform grants These are grants, up to five years long, providing leading research groups with stability and flexibility so that they can keep key research staff. Since April 2008 they have been available across the whole EPSRC remit area (before then they covered only engineering, materials and ITC).

b. Programme grants Programme grants, which are up to six years in length, are a flexible mechanism to provide funding to address significant major research challenges. Following a number of reviews, it is evident that giving leading research groups the stability of long-term funding allows them to use the flexibility that this funding gives them to be creative, innovative and able to address some key challenges.

c. Science and innovation awards (S&I) S&I awards are large, long-term grants in strategically important research areas missing or 'at risk' in the UK. They fund staff in a research group and require a commitment from the host research organisation to continue support the lecturers after the end of the grant.

Mobility

59. EPSRC is keen to encourage fruitful exchange between academics and stakeholders and to promote movement within the science community. The following schemes help promote such activities: a. Overseas travel grants These are small grants which provide short-term funding for visits to non-UK centres to study techniques or develop international collaborations. b. Visiting researchers Up to one year’s funding for researchers from within the UK or abroad to visit a UK research organisation. c. Workshops and schools Funding is available for research workshops, summer schools to train postgraduate students, international research, N+N meetings and similar events.

- 18 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 13

d. Networks This scheme brings together researchers, industry and other groups to develop collaborations through workshops, visits and part-time coordinators. e. Postdoctoral mobility between disciplines This is a follow-on funding scheme to allow a research assistant reaching the end of a research project to spend a year transferring their knowledge and skills to another discipline.

Support for People

New researchers

60. First Grant Scheme The First Grants Scheme is for researchers in their first academic appointment (ie within 3 years of appointment), including fellows. Applicants can apply at any time and there are no closing dates.

61. CASE for New Academics (withdrawn from 1st April 2008) This offers funding for a new academic to co-supervise a postgraduate student with an industrial partner. This award can help a new researcher build industrial collaborations early on and get experience in supervising students. The company provides a cash contribution of a minimum of 1/3rd of the EPSRC contribution. The company also commits to the student spending at least 3 months at their premises.

62. Challenging Engineering Challenging engineering offers support for engineering researchers at an early stage in their research careers. Exploration funding is available to help outstanding researchers build research groups.

Fellowships

63. Fellowships generally provide funding to help researchers spend their time on research rather than administration and teaching. Most operate through annual calls. We introduced two new research fellowship schemes in 2007: Career Acceleration Fellowships and Leadership Fellowships. The first calls were issued in August 2007. These replace the existing schemes, Advanced Research Fellowships and Senior Research Fellowships. Advanced Research Fellowships were awarded to researchers with between 3 – 10 years of postdoctoral experience. Advanced Fellows were expected to devote themselves to research for the period of the award (up to five years), with the expectation that they would have established an independent research career of international standing by the end of the award. Senior Research Fellowships were awarded to outstanding candidates of international repute with a minimum of ten years postdoctoral experience.

64. Postdoctoral fellowships These are three-year awards for researchers who have recently completed a PhD to help them establish an independent research career. They are available in mathematical sciences, theoretical computer science, the life science interface, and theoretical physics and engineering.

- 19 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 14

65. Career acceleration fellowships These fellowships offer up to five years funding for talented researchers who have 3- 10 years of postdoctoral experience.

66. Leadership fellowships This scheme provides up to five years of funding for researchers with the most potential to develop into the UK’s future research leaders. Applicants must have a permanent academic post at a UK higher education institution.

Postgraduate training

67. We fund postgraduate training at both the Doctoral and Masters level. We do not give money to students directly, but fund universities through Doctoral Training Accounts and Collaborative Training Accounts. Doctoral Training Accounts are targeted at the academic end of the student spectrum, and Collaborative Training Accounts are targeted at supporting training which has strong connectivity to industry. In addition, support for PhD students can be included within the staff on a research grant; these are referred to as “project students” in order to distinguish the funding source but their training experience will be equivalent to students supported through Doctoral Training Grants.

68. In addition to funding the fees and stipends associated with Students Research Councils also pay an amount towards wider skills acquisition by postgraduate students. This funding arose from Sir Gareth Roberts’ ‘SET for success’ review of research and training (2001), which revealed that many Science PhD students and postdoctoral researchers were lacking the skills required by employers. In response, the government has provided money through the Research Councils to support the development of training opportunities for PhD and postdoctoral researchers in all subjects. This funding is colloquially known as the ‘Roberts money’. A condition of the Roberts money is that it must be used to support ‘new’ training activities and not simply used to support existing provision. ‘Training’ does not necessarily indicate a ‘course’ but can be an activity that enhances the student’s or postdoctoral researcher’s experience.

69. In addition to the provision of skills funding via “Roberts Money”, the same review included provision for the payment of enhanced stipends for shortage areas. These include: Engineering, Information and communications technologies, Materials and Mathematics (particularly statistics and operational research).

70. Doctoral Training Accounts (DTAs) Doctoral training grants were introduced by EPSRC to provide universities with maximum flexibility in managing their research studentship population. Instead of offering a fixed number of studentships, we allocate DTAs as equivalent cash sums to university departments, opening up a wide range of options in the way that funds are used. For example, universities are free to offer stipends above EPSRC's required minimum, or can offer longer support than the usual three years if a project required it. In addition, they are free to switch funding to other areas of related expenditure, such as consumables, travel, conferences, external training courses and career guidance.

- 20 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 15

71. Doctoral training grants to universities are calculated by means of an algorithm based on the EPSRC research grant income received by the university. These grants are issued annually to universities. 72. Industrial collaboration on student projects funded through DTAs is encouraged and the collaborating partner may contribute financially to both the student and department. 73. Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs). Around 90 organisations have Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs), which will run until the end of September 2009. Their successors, for applicants funded through a call which closed in November 2008, will be Knowledge Transfer Accounts (KTAs). Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs) offer substantial guaranteed funding over a fixed period and amalgamate all of EPSRC’s schemes which link postgraduate training programmes with the workplace under a single financial umbrella. Schemes included are Masters Training, CASE for New Academics (CNA - withdrawn from 1st April 2008) Engineering Doctorates (EngD), Industrial CASE, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) and Research Assistants Industrial Secondments (RAIS). 74. The CTA mechanism provides research organisations with the financial agility and flexibility to both plan more effectively and respond more quickly to changes in collaborative training needs. These could range from creating new forms of collaborative training to redistributing available funding between different types of training activity or forming partnerships with public and private sector bodies - all without specific additional approval by EPSRC. Fixed-period funding also offers improved opportunities for establishing beneficial partnerships and developing strategic engagement between training sponsors, training providers and employers. 75. The Engineering Doctorate (EngD) The EngD is a four-year postgraduate award intended for the UK's leading research engineers who want a managerial career in industry. It is a radical alternative to the traditional PhD, being better suited to the needs of industry, and providing a more vocationally oriented doctorate in engineering. EPSRC currently supports 23 EngD centres. 76. Industrial CASE These are three and a half year postgraduate awards allocated to companies either directly or via agents (Knowledge Transfer Networks and Regional Development Agencies). The aim of the awards is to enable companies to take the lead in defining, and arranging, projects, with an academic partner of their choice. The company provides a cash contribution of a minimum of 1/3rd of the EPSRC contribution. The company also commits to the student spending at least 3 months at their premises. 77. Centres for Doctoral Training EPSRC have funded 44 new centres, which will each take in around 10 students per year for five years starting in 2009, with an investment in excess of £250m. Students will receive a formal programme of taught coursework and undertake a challenging and original research project at PhD level. The overall commitment budget for DTAs will remain at current levels, so there will be an overall increase in EPSRC’s studentship provision. These centres fall into two broad categories: 17 new Industrial doctorate centres, and 27 Doctoral training centres, with around the mission (strategic) programmes, complexity science and the Life Sciences Interface. For a full list please go to: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/Centres/NewCentres.htm

- 21 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 16

Support for Knowledge transfer

78. We encourage knowledge transfer (KT) activities and industrial partners on research grants so that research outcomes can be better used by business and the public sector. Collaborative arrangements and co-funding are encouraged in all of our schemes. In addition the following bespoke mechanisms encourage KT.

79. Follow-on fund This offers up to 12 months’ funding for EPSRC grant holders to work on the very early stages of turning research outcomes into a commercial proposition. There is an annual call for proposals issued in the autumn.

80. Innovation and knowledge centres (IKCs) These are centres of excellence with five years' funding to combine world-class research, postgraduate training and knowledge transfer with strong partnerships with business. Their key feature is shared research space where academic and industrial researchers work on common research problems. Two new centres have recently been announced, based at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Leeds. These will builds on the successes of the two centres which have been funded so far through a pilot call issued in November 2005, based at the University of Cambridge and Cranfield University. Further details of all 4 IKCs are shown below:

• Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Photonics and Electronics - Exploiting Molecular and Macromolecular Materials at the University of Cambridge. • Ultra Precision and Structured Surfaces at Cranfield University • Cyber Security at Queen’s University Belfast • Healthcare Innovation - Regenerative Therapies at the University of Leeds

81. Knowledge transfer challenge The competition aims to reward and celebrate innovative approaches to supporting knowledge transfer in universities, making sure that research finds its way to end users in business and the public sector. It was run in 2006 and 2007.

Science in Society

82. Senior Media Fellowships These enable leading researchers to devote time to develop a higher media profile. The aim is to advance public engagement with the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering via the broadcast and written media.

83. Partnerships for Public Engagement Awards These aim to communicate the excitement of fundamental and applied research in science and engineering to the public. Researchers promote research (with a little help from communications experts) and create a dialogue about science and engineering with the public.

- 22 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 17

BBSRC Overview

84. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) is the UK’s main public funder of life science research. Sponsored by Government, BBSRC annually invests around £420 million in a wide range of research that makes a significant contribution to the quality of life for UK citizens and supports a number of important industrial stakeholders including the agriculture, food, chemical, healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. BBSRC supports over 6000 scientists in universities and other research institutions across the UK. It also funds the training of over 2000 postgraduate students at PhD and Masters level and sponsors five institutes that provide specialist facilities for long-term and interdisciplinary research.

85. BBSRC’s mission is: • To promote and support, by any means, high-quality basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training relating to the understanding and exploitation of biological systems. • To advance knowledge and technology (including the promotion and support of the exploitation of research outcomes), and provide trained scientists and engineers, which meet the needs of users and beneficiaries (including the agriculture, bioprocessing, chemical, food, healthcare, pharmaceutical and other biotechnological related industries), thereby contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life.

BBSRC Delivery Plan 2008-2011: Delivering Excellence with Impact

86. In 2008, BBSRC launched its new Delivery Plan, Delivering Excellence with Impact, which sets out BBSRC’s vision for the current spending review period. BBSRC’s Strategic Plan is currently being refreshed; it is anticipated that the new Strategic Plan will be launched in Summer 2009.

87. In broad terms, BBSRC’s principal strategic aims are to: • Develop and embed a 'systems' approach to biosciences in order to advance fundamental understanding of complex biological processes • Underpin practical solutions to major challenges such as climate change, food security, healthier ageing, and the control of infectious diseases • Maintain world-class UK bioscience by supporting the best people and best ideas, wherever they emerge, through ‘responsive mode funding’; and by securing national research capability in strategically important areas • Significantly increase the economic and social impact of BBSRC-funded research, particularly through alignment with the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), and by helping to provide the skilled researchers needed for industrial R&D and academic research

88. Further details are provided in the 2008-2011 Delivery Plan http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/policy/bbsrc_delivery_plan.pdf

- 23 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 18

Science & Policy Themes

89. In October 2008 BBSRC implemented a series of Council-wide strategic priorities (research and policy) that are applicable to all aspects of its funding. Further details are available at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/bbsrc_priorities.pdf

90. Research priorities:

• Ageing research: lifelong health and wellbeing • Bioenergy • Global security • Living with environmental change • Nanoscience through engineering to application: bionanotechnology • Systems approach to biological research • Synthetic biology • Technology development for bioscience • Animal health • Crop science (food security)

91. Policy priorities

• Economic and social impact • Impact on public policy • Increased international collaboration • Replacement, refinement and reduction (3Rs) in research using animals • Welfare of managed animals (including livestock and companion animals)

Introduction to BBSRC’s research

92. BBSRC funds research at universities, BBSRC Sponsored Institutes and in collaboration with industry. Research is funded by four main funding streams:

a. Responsive Mode Research Responsive Mode provides funding for Inspiration-led research; it underpins the health and global competitiveness of UK bioscience and promotes innovation. Responsive mode grants enable funding for the best ideas from the best people, enabling BBSRC and the research community to move rapidly into emerging areas of science. Specific mechanisms exist for assisting new investigators, for Industrial Partnership Awards with significant industrial co-funding, and to increase longer/larger grants in multidisciplinary science. Applications are submitted to four closing dates a year which are subsequently assessed by the most relevant responsive mode Committee.

- 24 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 19

b. Managed Mode Initiatives BBSRC has used managed mode initiatives to encourage applications to be submitted in new and emerging science areas and to increase capacity in strategically important areas. A number of initiatives have operated which encouraged applications relevant to BBSRC’s chemistry portfolio to be submitted. These include:

• Selective Chemical Intervention in Biological Systems (SCIBS) Initiative • Structural Proteomics of Rational Targets (SPoRT) Initiative • Technology Development Research Initiative (TDRI) • Tools and Resources Development Fund (TRDF) • Bioinformatics and Biological Resources Fund (BBR)

c. Institute Strategic Programme Grants BBSRC provides long term funding to its five sponsored Institutes in the form of Institute Strategic Programme Grants. The Institutes conduct long-term, mission-oriented research using specialist facilities. Research conducted at the Institutes falls within 3 main categories: Sustainable agriculture and land use; Animal health and welfare; Biomedical and food sciences. The institutes have strong interactions with industry, Government departments and other end-users of their research.

d. Training Awards BBSRC supports postgraduate training to help ensure the flow of highly qualified people into research careers. Each year, circa 110 places on Masters Courses and circa 2000 PhD studentships in universities, research institutes or industrial partners, are funded. BBSRC also provides funding for fellowship awards to support researchers at different stages of their career paths and those returning to research after career breaks.

- 25 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 20

MRC Overview

93. The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a publicly-funded organisation dedicated to improving human health. The MRC supports research across the entire spectrum of medical sciences, in universities and hospitals, in its own units and institutes in the UK, and in its units in Africa. Established in 1913 to administer public funds for medical research, the MRC was incorporated under its present title by Royal Charter in 1920. Its Royal Charter and mission were last amended in 2003. The MRC’s mission is to:

• Encourage and support high-quality research with the aim of improving human health. • Produce skilled researchers, and to advance and disseminate knowledge and technology to improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness in the UK. • Promote dialogue with the public about medical research.

‘Research Changes Lives’ 2007-2012

94. This year, the MRC launches its new Strategic Plan, ‘Research Changes Lives’ 2009-2014, which emphasises the impact that world-class research has on improving the health and wellbeing of society. The plan sets the path for delivering better health and wellbeing through new treatments for diseases that have a significant burden, producing well-founded policy guidance for research governance and ethics, and maintaining excellence in the basic research that underpins this.

95. Over the next five years, the MRC aims to support medical research which increases the pace of the transition to better health. It will achieve this through:

• Picking research that delivers: Setting research priorities which are most likely to deliver improved health outcomes. • Research to people: Bringing the benefits of excellent research to all sections of society. • Going global: Securing progress in international medical research. • Supporting scientists: Sustaining a robust and flourishing environment for world- class medical research.

Science themes

96. The MRC will speed up the exploitation of the best ideas in medical science, from fundamental discovery science to innovative preventative and therapeutic interventions in humans. It will fund science of the highest quality across the breadth of disciplines relevant to improving human health.

97. The MRC’s strategy is to support research in areas that are poised to deliver substantive progress in tackling health challenges facing the UK and the world. While aiming for maximum impact, it is also tackling areas that would be otherwise neglected or under-funded.

- 26 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 21

98. The MRC is setting research priorities which are most likely to deliver improved health outcomes:

a. Research Priority Theme 1: Resilience, repair and replacement – objectives:

• Natural protection: To explore innate resilience to disease and degeneration, determining how it may be exploited for new interventions that ameliorate disease processes. • Tissue disease and degeneration: To advance knowledge in the biology of ageing and degeneration of human tissue; to understand the mechanism and impact of chronic inflammation. • Repair and replacement: To translate the burgeoning knowledge in regenerative medicine into new treatment strategies. • Mental health and wellbeing: To explore the relationship between mental wellbeing and resilience to disease processes.

b. Research Priority Theme 2: Living a long and healthy life – objectives:

• Genetics and disease: To use genetics, imaging, and biological indicators to understand predispositions for disease, and to target treatments to disease subtypes. • Lifecourse: To drive forward interdisciplinary research addressing health and wellbeing from childhood to older age. • Lifestyles affecting health: To determine the most effective strategies for tackling life choices that are detrimental to health. • Environment and health: To explore the impacts of changes in our environment on health and wellbeing.

Introduction to MRC’s Research

99. The MRC funds investments through four main funding streams:

a. Research Grants The MRC maintains a strong UK research base to enable the scientific community to respond effectively to the current and future grand challenges in medical research. Nearly 60 per cent of its research support is provided to scientists in universities, in the form of grants for original investigations in any area of science relevant to MRC’s remit.

b. Institute and units The rest is for institutes, units and centres. The MRC’s three institutes are preeminent research centres at the leading edge of UK science. It has a number of units in the UK, which carry out research across the biomedical research spectrum, from fundamental science at the molecular level to large-scale epidemiological studies. The MRC also have units in The Gambia and Uganda for research on improving treatments and interventions for major infectious diseases in the developing world.

c. Centres of excellence On a smaller scale, the MRC supports the formation and development of centres of excellence, to provide strategic direction for long-term research,

- 27 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 22

and building capacity in important areas, through units and centre grants to universities. The MRC has invested in state-of-the-art facilities and research technologies, both within its own institutes and units and in universities.

d. Training The MRC has a valued role in training future research leaders across a range of basic science and clinical disciplines. It works with a range of partners to respond proactively to national gaps in strategic biomedical research skills, to continue its tradition of supporting the UK’s most talented individuals at critical stages of their research careers and to find novel ways of enabling career research scientists to flourish. The MRC offers training awards at Masters, PhD and fellowship level.

- 28 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 23

NERC Overview

100. NERC is the UK's main agency for funding and managing research, training and knowledge exchange in the environmental sciences. NERC coordinates some of the world’s most exciting research projects, tackling major issues such as climate change, environmental influences on human health, the genetic make-up of life on earth, and much more. 101. Working internationally, NERC has bases in the most hostile parts of the planet. NERC runs a fleet of research ships and aircraft and invests in satellite technology to monitor gradual environmental change on a global scale. NERC provides knowledge, forewarning and solutions to the key global environmental challenges facing society.

Next Generation Science for Planet Earth 2007-2012

102. In 2007, NERC launched its new strategy, Next Generation Science for Planet Earth, which sets out an overview of how NERC, in partnership with others, will respond to the critical issue of the 21st century - the sustainability of life on Earth. The strategy was developed with the UK's environmental research users, funders and providers, and sets out the challenges for both our science and how NERC manages its activities. 103. The strategy sets out NERC's strategic goal: To deliver world-leading environmental research at the frontiers of knowledge: • enabling society to respond urgently to global climate change and the increasing pressures on natural resources, • contributing to UK leadership in predicting the regional and local impacts of environmental change from days to decades, and • creating and supporting vibrant, integrated research communities.

104. The strategy will guide all that NERC does, not just the science. It addresses two key areas:

• The UK's science needs • How NERC will deliver these science needs

Science themes

105. NERC is tackling some of this century's key environmental issues through seven strategic science themes. Challenges in each of these themes are outlined in the NERC strategy and theme reports.

• Climate system • Biodiversity • Environment, pollution and human health • Sustainable use of natural resources • Forecasting and mitigation of natural hazards • Earth system science • Technologies

- 29 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 1 Information for the Panel Funding Overview - 24

Introduction to NERC’s research

106. Research can be looked at in different ways depending on where it is funded, what environmental issues it addresses, which strategic themes (priorities) it matches and who is doing it.

NERC funds research at universities, NERC centres, and in collaboration with industry. NERC has traditionally divided its research areas (for further information: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research.areas) into classic disciplines such as marine, terrestrial, atmospheric and so on. Now NERC increasingly funds inter- and multidisciplinary science through strategic research which addresses priority environmental issues, such as climate change and biodiversity.

107. NERC funds investments through three funding streams:

a. National capability National capability enables the UK to deliver world-leading environmental science to support national strategic needs, and to respond to emergencies. It is mainly about long-term investment and will rarely be subject to open competition. NERC research centres, collaborative centres and other providers of services and facilities, play a leading role for the UK in managing and delivering this capability. Activities within this funding stream include: environmental survey and monitoring, shared services and facilities, scientific advice, training, knowledge exchange and indirect costs.

b. Research programmes Research programmes will deliver strategically directed environmental research, training and related knowledge exchange and will encourage partnerships and collaboration, for example in the effects of the environment on human health. Research programmes will have key features such as being time-limited, competitive and encouraging partnerships and collaboration.

c. Responsive research NERC funds science research grants, training awards (Masters, PhD and fellowships) and knowledge exchange that takes us to places we've never been before, increasing our knowledge of planet Earth and sometimes leading to major breakthroughs in science and technology. It supports original investigations and training in any area of science relevant to NERC's remit, strengthens the health of disciplines, and helps set future strategic priorities. This funding will help to build a healthy science base and to identify future strategic science opportunities and directions. It is delivered by higher education institutes, NERC's own research centres and collaborative centres and other eligible research institutes.

- 30 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 1

Chapter 2

BACKGROUND DATA

- 31 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 2

Contents of this Chapter (Page numbers refer to those at the top of the page)

1. Overview...... 4

2. Background & Introduction ...... 6

3. Funding for Chemistry Research in the UK ...... 8

4. Bibliometric Evidence ...... 15

5. International Engagement...... 16

6. Support for People ...... 18

7. Knowledge Transfer ...... 29

Annex A Defining the Boundaries of Chemistry ...... A-1

Annex B Additional Funding Data from Other Research Councils...... B-1

Annex C EPSRC Chemistry Programme Overview 2006 ...... C-1

Annex D Additional Bibliometric Evidence...... D-1

Annex E Additional International Engagement ...... E-1

Annex F Evidence of Impact...... F-1

Annex G Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)...... G-1

- 32 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 3

Preface

This document has been produced in preparation for the 2009 International Review of Chemistry. The review is one of a regular series organised by EPSRC in its core remit areas to inform stakeholders about the quality and impact of the UK science base. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of research in chemistry in the UK in terms of its people, funding, organisation and policy to inform the Review Panel’s deliberations as it addresses the issues raised in the evidence framework. A variety of background data has been used and sources are acknowledged. The data has been provided solely for confidential use by the International Review Panel. No data from this document may be quoted or used publicly without written permission from EPSRC. Evidence in this document has been compiled from: Research Councils’ management records; the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA): and the Thomson Reuters Citation Database. Definitions of what is covered by the term ‘chemistry’ vary, and a straightforward mapping of data from one source to another is not always possible. Note also that due to the variety of sources some data is more up to date than others. However, wherever possible a census date of 31 August 2008 has been taken and five year’s data provided. Additionally panel members should note that the EPSRC data in this document refers to the ‘Chemistry Programme’, and other programmes which now no longer exist. Since 1st April 2008, the EPSRC has been restructured internally, and chemistry research has been supported by a larger Physical Sciences Programme, encapsulating chemistry, physics, and aspects of materials research. For further information on the new structure please refer to the companion document ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’. It must be borne in mind when reading this document that no inferences or conclusions have been made from the data by the writers. It is not the purpose of this document to steer the opinion of the Panel in any way but merely to present the Panel with information it may interpret as it sees fit.

- 33 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 4

1. Overview

1. International Impact of UK Chemistry Research

1.1 UK chemistry is ranked fourth in the world behind the USA, Japan and Germany in terms of the total number of citations and also behind China in the total number of papers. These rankings have remained consistent over the last 5 years, whilst France has remained the closest competitor in terms of output.

1.2 The UK has climbed from third to second place in the G8, over the last 5 years, in terms of citation impact, whilst the USA remains in the lead. Germany has remained the UK’s closest competitor over the same period.

2. Investment in Chemistry Research

2.1 Total UK University research funding for chemistry research in 2006/07 was £183 million, a 26% increase on 5 years previous. This included about £109 million from EPSRC and other research councils (41% increase over 5 years), and about £74 million from other sources including industry, the EU, charities etc (a 2.5% decrease since 2002/03).

2.2 The total value of research funded by Research Councils over the last five years, (including BBSRC, MRC, NERC as well as EPSRC), is over £430M. With EPSRC providing 45% of this funding.

2.3 EPSRC’s chemistry budget for 2007/08 was £50 million – this accounted for 11% of EPSRC’s total research budget (compared to £54 million in 2002/03, 15% of the budget). Additionally, chemistry departments attracted approximately £14 million from EPSRC to support Doctoral Training, accounting for about 20% of the total EPSRC DTA budget.

2.4 Cumulative EPSRC chemistry funding to institutions is clustered in a number of centres of excellence. The top 20 institutions are shown below (2003-2008), and they account for 80% of the total value of EPSRC Grants.

15 £ (Millions)

e l r l l d h s g ia e to m o g w er st ford a po am e rid p e x UCL ris r ur h Bath r York b B Leeds ur Cardiff m ch O ive nb I n Warwick L Sheffiel D And am ottingh Edi t C Ma N S Strathclyde Southampton

STFC - Laboratories

- 34 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 5

3. Current Research

3.1 The chemistry research portfolio funded by EPSRC is categorised into six sub-areas; and although the distribution of funding as a percentage of the total chemistry budget remained fairly consistent over the last five years, the proportion of funding for synthetic chemistry has become much more significant in recent years (see Figure 2):

Sub-area % Sub-area % Analytical Science 8 Materials Related Chemistry 7 Biological Related Chemistry 14 Physical Chemistry 36 Catalysis & Surfaces 12 Synthetic Chemistry 23

4. People

4.1 Over the five year period from 2002 to 2006, there were nearly 7,000 postgraduate students in the chemistry area registered at UK institutions; of these 3,761 were for doctoral-level training. The number of new doctoral students increased by 26% over this time period. EPSRC funds at least 27% of chemistry PhD students in the UK, though the actual figure may be higher than this; it is difficult to be precise due to the flexible nature of the funding provided.

4.2 It is difficult to estimate the number of chemistry researchers in the UK: the data records just over 4,160 academic staff in the chemistry ‘cost centre’ (likely to cover most chemistry departments) in 2006/07, which is a 7.4% increase since 2004/05. However this will not include chemistry researchers in other departments such as physics, engineering, pharmaceuticals, medical sciences, biology and biochemistry.

4.3 Approximately 54% of the researchers in receipt of grants from EPSRC, in chemistry, are aged 45 and under. This is younger than the average across the whole of EPSRC, which is about 45%.

5. Knowledge Transfer and Industrial Collaboration

5.1 The chemicals sector (including Pharmaceuticals) in the UK has an estimated annual turnover of more than £50 billion, contributing 2% of UK GDP.

5.2 Over the past five years 164 stakeholder collaborations have been recorded on EPSRC funded chemistry projects; over this period industry has contributed £7.1 million in cash and kind towards projects funded by EPSRC in chemistry related areas. This is alongside the £112.6 million provided directly to chemistry and chemical engineering departments over the same period by UK industry, although there has a relative decline in the importance of this funding over recent years (see Table 1).

5.3 Since the last review the importance of Technology Strategy Board (TSB) funding to chemistry departments has increased markedly. More information on the TSB is available in the ‘Knowledge Transfer’ section.

6. International Engagement

6.1 Over the past five years 113 chemistry projects supported by EPSRC have included overseas collaborations, the majority of which have been with researchers in the USA or Europe. The proportion of chemistry projects with at least one internationally co-authored publication is 34%.

- 35 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 6

2. Background & Introduction

Introduction

2.1 The purpose of the International Review is to benchmark UK chemistry research in relation to the best in the world. This data document is intended to provide the Panel with detailed background information about various aspects of UK chemistry research to help inform the Panel’s deliberations. The document provides an analysis of some key evidence to provide both a broad overview and to offer some insight into the questions in the evidence framework.

2.2 Evidence in this document has been collected from the following sources: • the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA); • Research Councils and other administrative data sources, including other funders of chemistry research and training; and • Thomson Reuters (bibliometrics data)

2.3 This data document is complemented by a number of additional sources of data: • An overview document titled ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ • A compilation of key stakeholder responses to questions posed in the evidence framework • Submission prepared for the panel by the research groups which the panel is expected to meet. • An overview of the Grand Challenges that have been developed by the chemistry research community since the last International Review, which was held in 2002

Funding for Research in the UK

2.4 There are two primary streams for the public funding of research in the UK. This approach is known as the ‘Dual Support System’. Under this system, block grants known as or Quality-related (QR) funding are provided to universities through the Funding Councils, to support teaching and infrastructure. Over £1 billion is allocated annually based on quality ratings of departments determined through the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the volume of research activity, together with data on the number of research active staff.

2.5 The other stream of research funding comes through the Research Councils. The Research Councils have UK-wide responsibility to provide funding for research and (with the exception of Northern Ireland) postgraduate and postdoctoral training. The funding provided through research councils amounted to some £2.8 billion in 2007-8.

2.6 For a more detailed overview please refer to the companion document ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’.

What is Chemistry Research?

2.7 A full description of the scope of chemistry research for the purpose of this review is provided in Annex A. In brief terms we have defined chemistry as being at core the study and manipulation of molecules. Whilst the intellectual core of chemistry remains the synthesis and study of molecules and the development of new tools, chemistry is also key in linking disciplines - by virtue of its ability to provide concepts, processes and materials to all disciplines, it is uniquely suited to link them.

- 36 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 7

The Presentation of Evidence

2.8 The evidence is presented in five sections: section 3 presents data regarding funding for chemistry research; section 4 relates to bibliometric data; section 5 describes international engagement; section 6 relates to support for people, including students and section 7 refers to knowledge transfer, including collaborative funding.

2.9 The data, along with notes about the data sets and analyses, will be provided as an electronic annex on a data stick. If you would like further information or advice about the data please contact EPSRC (Sue Smart: [email protected] or Ben Ryan: [email protected]).

Analysing the Evidence

2.10 A number of caveats apply to the data that is provided. These arise because of the different ways in which agencies classify their respective portfolios. The situation is compounded by the fact that the categories used by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) for recording academic research staff and funding data are different from those used for recording student data. The following points must be borne in mind when interpreting the data: • Information on funding and staff numbers is provided by the universities against “cost centres” – we have used data for the ‘chemistry’ and ‘chemical engineering’ cost centres as they are the most closely aligned to chemistry and are likely to represent most ‘chemistry’ departments in universities, but this excludes much of the chemistry research being carried out in physics, engineering, pharmaceuticals, biological, biochemistry, natural science and medical-related departments; • Information on total student numbers is based on a different ‘JACS’1 classification: in this case we have used the most relevant subject areas: ‘Chemistry‘ and its various sub-aggregations; ‘Chemical, process and energy engineering’ and the sub-aggregations ‘Chemical engineering’, ‘Biochemical engineering’, ‘Pharmaceutical engineering’ and ‘Chemical process engineering’; and three biochemistry areas, ‘Biological chemistry’, ‘Medical and Veterinary biochemistry’ and ‘Medical biochemistry’. • Chemical engineering is not identified as a separate sub-area in EPSRC data, although it is included within the remit of EPSRC. It is partly covered by chemistry funding and to the extent possible is included in the data presented here.

2.11 In summary the data on research income, staff and students should be regarded as broadly indicative rather than a precise descriptor of chemistry research in the UK.

2.12 Another point to remember when comparing the data is the introduction of a new research council funding model based on full economic costs (fEC) in September 2005. For all research grant proposals and fellowship applications submitted after this date, the Research Council provides 80% of the fEC of the project. Given that the full economic cost of the research varies with each university the additional cost to the research councils varies accordingly. However, the research councils estimate that post-fEC grants cost on average 45% more than pre-fEC grants. The Panel should bear this in mind when comparing year on year figures.

2.13 Along with the 80% of fEC included in new research council grants, a further 10% of the costs are provided through capital investment, contributed to by the Research Councils and distributed by the funding councils. For further information please refer to the ‘Support for Science & Innovation in the UK’ document.

1 See http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/component/option,com_studrec/task,show_file/Itemid,233/mnl,07051/href,JACS2.html/

- 37 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 8

3. Funding for Chemistry Research in the UK

Funding for Chemistry

3.1 Table 1 and Table 2 show the value and source of research income (contracts and grants) received by all UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the years 2003/04 to 2007/08 for, respectively, the chemistry/chemical engineering cost centres and all cost centres. There has been a 40% increase in chemistry funding over the period (Table 1), as compared to an average increase of 37% across all subjects (Table 2). There has been a significant growth of just over 31% in government income for the ‘chemistry’ cost centres, in contrast to the lower increase in government income across all subjects (+22% over 5 years). The increased importance of the EU as a funding source for chemistry research is also apparent (an increase of 48%), though the decline in Industrial funding is significant, down by 16%, compared to an increase of 20% elsewhere. The apparent jump in Research Council funding from 2004/05 to 2005/06, can be attributed to the introduction of full economic costs in September 2005.

Table 1 UK university research funding - 'Chemistry and Chemical Engineering' cost centres (HESA (£ million))

5-yr 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 growth Research Councils 75.3 (51%) 83.7 (55%) 100.0 (60%) 108.7 (59%) 129.3 (63%) 72% UK industry, commerce & public 23.4 (16%) 21.7 (14%) 21.0 (13%) 22.1 (12%) 19.7 (10%) -16% corporations UK govt. bodies, health & hospital 12.9 (9%) 11.2 (7%) 11.1 (7%) 13.6 (7%) 17.0 (8%) 31% authorities UK-based charities 14.1 (10%) 11.1 (7%) 9.5 (6%) 10.3 (6%) 9.9 (5%) -30% EU government 12.8 (9%) 12.9 (9%) 15.2 (9%) 17.7 (10%) 18.9 (9%) 48% EU other sources 1.8 (1%) 1.8 (1%) 1.4 (1%) 2.6 (1%) 2.6 (1%) 46% Other overseas sources 4.7 (3%) 5.5 (4%) 5.6 (3%) 6.5 (4%) 6.5 (3%) 39% Other sources 1.4 (1%) 3.4 (2%) 2.7 (2%) 1.5 (1%) 1.6 (1%) 13% Totals 146.4 151.3 166.5 183.0 205.6 40%

Table 2 UK university research funding - all cost centres (HESA (£ million))

5-yr 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2006-08 growth Research Councils 833.2 926.3 1,073.4 1,152.0 1,358.2 63% UK industry, commerce & public 247.3 243.4 256.4 289.7 296.1 20% corporations UK govt. bodies, health & hospital 522.0 565.9 576.6 606.6 639.3 22% authorities UK-based charities 691.4 700.1 725.7 767.5 825.8 19% EU government 188.7 202.3 219.2 258.1 279.3 48% EU other sources 32.6 34.3 40.3 45.9 51.8 59% Other overseas sources 143.4 151.3 171.8 199.1 217.3 52% Other sources 55.9 60.5 57.4 58.1 54.2 -3% Totals 2,714.6 2,883.9 3,120.6 3,377.0 3,721.9 37%

3.2 Over the five year period the research councils have consistently provided over 50% of the total research funding into the chemistry and chemical engineering cost centres, and business/industry has provided about 10-15%. The data will exclude funding for chemistry and chemical engineering research undertaken in other departments if it is recorded using alternative ‘cost centres’.

- 38 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 9

EPSRC Support for Chemistry Research

3.3 EPSRC’s chemistry budget accounted for 11% of EPSRC’s budget in 2007-08 as shown in Table 3. Although people often refer to a “standard grant” there is in fact no such thing. Grants range from a few thousand pounds to several millions and from a few months to more than 5 years. Additionally, there is a distinct trend for longer and larger grants, driven by trends to be more transformative and collaborative.

Table 3 EPSRC research by programme: spend (2007/08) and proportion

Programme £M % Engineering 83.5 20% Information and Communications Technologies 76.5 18% Materials 49.6 12% Chemistry 47.4 11% Energy 42.2 10% Physics2 33.7 8% Innovative Manufacturing 32.1 8% Life Sciences Interface 21.7 5% Infrastructure and Environment 15.3 4% Mathematical Sciences 14.3 3% Public Engagement 2.8 1% Total 419.1 100%

3.4 The number and value of new research grants funded (i.e commitment .v. actual expenditure) in chemistry are shown in Figure 1. The introduction of full economic costs in September 2005 is reflected in the figures for 05/06, 06/07 and 07/08.

Figure 1 The number and value of new Chemistry projects supported by EPSRC during the last 5 years to 2007/08

80 291 268 Projects 240 70 Projects Projects 294 230 Projects Projects 60

£ Millions 40

0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

2 Note this doesn’t include funding for physics in the remit of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which includes funding for astrophysics, particle physics, and nuclear physics.

- 39 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 10

3.5 Where research projects span more than one programme area, they are co-funded by two or more EPSRC programmes, each contributing a proportion of project costs agreed internally between the relevant EPSRC programme staff. In such cases a programme contributing the majority share is referred to as the lead programme. The level and direction of such internal funding flows is available in Table 4 and Table 5, which show the extent to which Chemistry contributes to grants jointly funded with other areas and, conversely, the contribution from the other areas in jointly funded grants where Chemistry was the lead. These tables show that over the past 5 years Chemistry has contributed £34M from other programmes and received £43M, on a combined total of over 850 grants.

Table 4 The number and value of grants funded by other EPSRC programmes to which Chemistry contributed (2003-2008), with the proportion of the contribution as a percentage of the total value of the jointly funded grants

Value of Value of grants Chemistry Total EPSRC Programme contribution from contributed to by contribution as a number Chemistry (£M) Chemistry (£M) % of grants value grants Engineering 4.0 11.9 33% 72 IDEAS Factory 0.8 2.6 31% 24 Information & Communication Technology 0.2 1.9 10% 5 Infrastructure & Environment 0.1 0.4 37% 5 Life Sciences Interface 15.4 38.8 40% 54 Materials 10.5 39.9 26% 132 Mathematical Sciences 0.2 2.9 7% 6 Physics 3.1 8.9 35% 17 Totals 34.2 107.3 32% 315

Table 5 The number and value of grants funded by Chemistry to which other EPSRC programmes contributed (2003-2008), with the proportion of the contributions as a percentage of the total value of the jointly funded grants

Value of Value of grants Other progs. Total EPSRC Programme contribution to contributed to by contribution as a number Chemistry (£M) other progs. (£M) % of grants value grants Engineering 8.4 54.1 16% 152 Information & Communication Technology 0.4 2.9 13% 7 Life Sciences Interface 17.3 58.0 30% 186 Materials 11.2 57.0 20% 154 Mathematical Sciences 0.2 0.9 21% 2 Physics 5.7 27.9 20% 62 Totals 43.2 200.8 21% 563

3.6 The EPSRC chemistry portfolio, which is described in detail in Annex A, is categorised into six sub- areas: • Analytical Science • Biological Related Chemistry • Catalysis & Surfaces • Materials Related Chemistry • Physical Chemistry • Synthetic Chemistry

3.7 Figure 2 shows the distribution of spending across these sub-areas over the last five years. The percentage shares of the budgets have been fairly consistent over this timeframe. This is because responsive mode funding accounts for some two thirds of the distribution, and targeted funding is fairly evenly spread across the sub-areas to meet needs in specific areas. Table 6 shows the value of current grants in each of the sub-areas for 07/08.

- 40 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 11

Figure 2 Distribution of funding by sub-area 100%

80%

Other

Synthetic Chemistry 60% Physical Chemistry

Materials Related Chemistry 40% Catalysis & Surfaces

Biological Related Chemistry Analytical Science 20%

0% 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Table 6 Funding commitment across Chemistry in 07/08 financial year

Number of Value of Percentage by Sub-Area Grants Grants (£M) Value (%) Analytical Science 9 3.6 6% Biological Related Chemistry 22 7.5 13% Catalysis & Surfaces 27 7.2 12% Materials Related Chemistry 10 4.1 7% Physical Chemistry 53 13.0 22% Synthetic Chemistry 53 17.1 29% Other 25 6.0 10% Chemistry Total 199 58.3 100%

3.8 In addition to the research programmes listed in Table 3 the council also supports a number of cross- EPSRC managed activities, and analysis of the research topics addressed by these show that they also provide considerable support to chemistry research. Table 7 provides a breakdown of this funding commitment over the last 5 years.

Table 7 EPSRC funding commitment on chemistry additional to EPSRC core programmes (2003- 2008)

cross-EPSRC funding source Amount (£M) Crime Prevention and Detection 2.7 Basic Technology 25.9 IDEAS Factory 1.1 Nanoscience to Engineering 3.3 Technology Strategy Board 1.7 Energy 36.4 Total 71.1

3.9 The Crime Prevention and Detection Technologies programme was developed in close cooperation with UK national crime and security authorities whilst the Basic Technology Programme supports long term underpinning technologies to enable future interdisciplinary research of the highest quality to be carried out. The IDEAS Factory is about finding new ways to generate research projects coupled with real-time peer review using intense interactive workshops (called ‘sandpits’). The aim of the Nanoscience through Engineering to Application programme is to focus UK nanotechnology research to

- 41 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 12

enable the UK to make an international impact in this rapidly developing field. The programme has involvement from all other research councils and the Technology Strategy Board. Funding with the Technology Strategy Board is described in the knowledge transfer section. The Research Councils' Energy Programme is bringing together engineers and scientists from many areas to tackle the research challenges involved in creating new energy technologies and understanding the social and economic implications.

3.10 Additional funding into the chemistry programme has been received by a number of sources, including other research councils. This occurs when EPSRC is the lead funder, but the remit of the project falls within the scope of others, and so they provide a proportion of the total funding for a grant. The distribution of this co-funding on chemistry grants over the last 5 years is shown in Table 8 below, and shows that BBSRC is the most significant such co-funder on chemistry projects.

Table 8 Additional co-funding to EPSRC Chemistry portfolio by other public sector organisations (2003-2008)

No. of Grants Value of co-funding Organisation co-funded (£M) BBSRC 34 4.8 MRC 1 0.1 NERC 1 0.2 DSTL 3 0.4

Distribution of EPSRC Chemistry Funding

3.11 Table 9 shows the 15 universities with the largest chemistry grant portfolios; this totals about £460 million out of a total portfolio of £700 million covering 84 institutions. Whilst this shows that chemistry support is relatively concentrated, this is not as a result of a specific policy, but the outcome of consideration of individual research proposals.

Table 9 Top fifteen institutions by value of Chemistry contribution to current grants (EPSRC, 31-08- 2008)

Value of Grants Number of Institution (£k) Grants Cambridge 34,388 153 Oxford 25,737 197 Imperial 20,634 153 Manchester 16,876 115 Bristol 16,290 40 UCL 15,500 148 Warwick 15,233 99 Leeds 13,662 133 Nottingham 12,628 124 Liverpool 11,157 94 Sheffield 9,890 90 Durham 8,538 106 Edinburgh 8,054 107 York 7,621 93 Southampton 6,934 84

3.12 Taking an historical view, the distribution of funding for chemistry over the past five years (Figure 3) shows a similar pattern, with a significant proportion of the funds going to Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and Manchester.

- 42 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 13

Figure 3 Cumulative value of EPSRC Chemistry funding 2003-2008 35

15 GrantValue Millions)(£ 10

l r L l k e ds ld o m ria t ick e e o a e UC ristol ffi p Bath Yor B Le e ches Oxford mbridge Imp Warw Sh Liver dinburgh Durh an E Ca M Nottingham

Other Research Council Funding

3.13 Given chemistry’s underpinning nature, it has interfaces with many disciplines, including those within the remit of other research councils. In addition to Table 8, which shows funding where EPSRC took the lead, Table 10 below gives the amount of funding EPSRC provided to other research councils, where they took the lead, over the past 5 years. For further details about the nature of funding by other councils please refer to Annex A.

Table 10 EPSRC funding to other Research Councils (2003-2008) No. of Grants Value of Research Council funded funding (£M) BBSRC 11 5.3 MRC 6 3.2 NERC 1 1.9

3.14 In addition to funding where projects fall within the remit of two or more research councils, some chemistry-related research is 100% funded by other research councils. The value of such funding over the last 5 years is shown in Table 11. The total amount of chemistry related research, funded by the research councils is £434M, with EPSRC providing £194M of this. Please note this table does not include funding to studentships, fellowships or Research Council Institutes, and the research councils have defined ‘chemistry’ research in slightly different ways. For more detailed information please refer to Annex B.

Table 11 Independent Research Council funding for Chemistry-related research (2003-2008) Value of Research Grants Funded (£M) BBSRC 172.9 MRC 19.4 NERC 47.7 Total for other Research Councils 240.0 EPSRC 194.0 Total for all Research Councils 434.0

- 43 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 14 National and International Facilities and Services

3.15 Access to research facilities is essential for chemistry researchers. Some of these are provided internationally or nationally and are administered by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). In addition a number of ‘mid range’ facilities are supported as part of the EPSRC chemistry portfolio3: • A National Service for Electron Paramagnetic Resonance, Manchester • EPSRC National Mass Spectrometry Service Centre, Swansea • Solid-state NMR Research Service for UK Universities, Durham • National Crystallography Service, Southampton • Laser Loan Pool Facility (STFC) • Chemical Database Service (STFC)

3 Note that this list is substantially the same as that given in Annex C, which provides an overview from 2006. EPSRC funding for the Computational Chemistry Software Service expired in March 2009; the service has secured alternative funding to cover the period until March 2010

- 44 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 15

4. Bibliometric Evidence

4.1 Although bibliometric indicators must be used with caution they are internationally recognized as a useful indicator when seeking to compare national research quality in fields such as chemistry where the journal coverage is good and where publication in journals is the usual mode of disseminating outputs. Providing evidence from such indicators may therefore assist the panel in benchmarking UK performance relative to the rest of the world.

4.2 The details of the bibliometric analyses are provided in Annex D. The key points are as follows: • Globally the UK is ranked 4th behind the USA, Japan and Germany in terms of the total numbers of citations; • the UK is ranked 5th in the number of papers globally; • the UK hosts seven of the top 100 institutions based on number of papers and five of the top 100 in terms of number of citations; • the UK has four of the top 100 institutions based on citations per paper.

4.3 The impact of UK papers in chemistry using five-year rolling averages to 2007 is shown in Figure 4 (impact is defined as the number of citations per paper for the discipline and country concerned). This shows that whilst the UK is performing well, it remains stable whilst the developing economy countries are improving rapidly.

Figure 4 UK Chemistry papers impact National Citation Impacts in Chemistry Research, 5 year rolling averages (Thomson National Science Indicators 2007) 1.8

USA 1.6 USA

1.4

UK UK 1.2 GERMANY GERMANY FRANCE FRANCE EU 1 EU JAPAN JAPAN

0.8 ASIA PACIFIC CHINA INDIA 0.6 ASIA PACIFIC USA CHINA UK GERMANY 0.4 INDIA FRANCE EUROPEAN UNION JAPAN 0.2 ASIA PACIFIC(WO JAPAN) CHINA INDIA 0 1991-1995 1992-1996 1993-1997 1994-1998 1995-1999 1996-2000 1997-2001 1998-2002 1999-2003 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007

4.4 A recent study using bibliometric analysis to compare UK performance with other G8 countries confirms that our closest competitor in ‘Chemistry’ is Germany. This study, which was recently presented to the EPSRC Council, is available on request.

- 45 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 16

5. International Engagement

Introduction

5.1 The figures in Table 1 give a clear indication of the extent to which there is direct international support for chemistry research in the UK, with between 13% to 15% of research grant and contract funding being received directly from overseas. However, due to the availability of data this section refers primarily to international engagement with respect to EPSRC-funded research.

5.2 Chemistry research is international. While our priority as a country (and EPSRC’s as a national agency) is to support UK physical sciences and engineering research, we also support international collaboration and want to make it as easy as possible for researchers to work with each other. This allows ‘best with best’ collaborations which help ensure the UK is able to benefit from expertise as it develops, wherever it is in the world.

5.3 For example, EPSRC is participating in the 2008 call by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) entitled 'International Collaboration in Chemistry between US Investigators and their Counterparts Abroad (ICC)'. In this call EPSRC and the NSF invite investigators from the UK and the US to formulate joint collaborative projects in chemistry.

5.4 Another example is the EPSRC participation in ERA Chemistry, a Consortium of 12 European research funding organisations, all of which are partners of the ERA-Chemistry network. The scientific area of their second call was in the chemical activation of carbon dioxide and methane, and projects were to be funded for three years.4 Further examples include a call for proposals entitled UK/Japan Collaboration Development Awards: Green Sustainable Chemistry.5

5.5 Numerous sources of funding (in addition to the research councils) are available to support the international flow of people through travel grants and visiting fellowships; these serve both to enhance the research capabilities of individual scientists and to develop collaborative links. Different schemes have different requirements and eligibility criteria, and provide different levels of funding with different restrictions; some will cover all costs, including the registration fees and travel costs; some only a part of the costs. Support is available for UK-based researchers wanting to travel abroad, and overseas researchers who want to come to the UK. These alternative schemes are typically run by major organisations such as: the British Council; the Royal Society; the British Academy; the Wellcome trust; the Royal Academy of Engineering; the Leverhulme Trust; Cancer Research UK; the Nuffield Foundation; and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

International Chemistry Activity – The European Union

5.6 A considerable proportion of the chemistry research undertaken in the UK with overseas support (not including collaborations) is funded via the EU Framework Programmes, although there are no specific opportunities for chemistry within the most recent Programmes. The Seventh Framework Programme bundles all research-related EU initiatives together under a common roof, playing a crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment. The EU research funding database is available online should Panel members wish to explore the EU funding further6

4 Further information about the call is available at http://www.erachemistry.net/index/pages.view/83/ 5 see http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/UKJapanCollaborationDevelopmentAwardsGreenS ustainableChemistryCallForProposals.htm 6 http://cordis.europa.eu/en/home.html

- 46 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 17 International Collaboration with ESPRC Funded Chemistry Researchers

5.7 Over the past five years 113 EPSRC chemistry projects have included overseas collaborations. The majority of these were with researchers in the USA and Europe. Table 12 shows the “top 3” countries for each chemistry sub-area by the number and value of grants; although predominantly research grants the data also includes visiting fellowships and overseas missions.

Table 12 Top three countries for international collaboration by EPSRC sub-area, showing number and value of grants (2003-2008)

Sub-area 1 2 3 Analytical Science USA 2 £0.7M France 2 £0.7M New Zealand 1 £0.0M Biological Related Chemistry USA 8 £3.7M Germany 2 £1.4M Italy 1 £1.2M Catalysis & Surfaces USA 4 £3.9M Netherlands 3 £2.2M Germany 4 £1.3M Materials Related Chemistry France 2 £1.1M USA 2 £1.0M Germany 1 £1.0M Physical Chemistry France 9 £5.9M USA 14 £4.7M Germany 4 £1.3M Synthetic Chemistry USA 14 £4.7M Germany 4 £0.9M France 5 £1.0M

5.8 Grants of all sizes often have more than one collaborator in a given country, and the actual number of individual person-to-person collaborations is considerably larger than those shown.

5.9 International collaboration is taking place across all the EPSRC chemistry sub-areas (Table 13). It is occurs slightly less often in Analytical Science (11%) than other sub-areas, and is most common in Materials Related Chemistry (21%).

Table 13 Percentage of internationally co funded EPSRC research within each sub-area (2003-08)

Value of Value of Percentage Sub-Area Collaborative Grants (£M) by Value (%) Grants (£M) Analytical Science 56.6 6.5 11% Biological Related Chemistry 96.4 14.8 15% Catalysis & Surfaces 127.1 21.2 17% Materials Related Chemistry 48.2 10.2 21% Physical Chemistry 287.0 49.6 17% Synthetic Chemistry 283.3 43.6 15% Other 4.7 1.1 22% Chemistry Total 903.1 146.8 16%

5.10 The USA has the greatest number of collaborations across the entire chemistry portfolio, and Germany and France also feature strongly with links across much of the portfolio. There is a substantial exchange of personnel at all levels delivering benefit to UK researchers through access to both expertise and equipment.

5.11 Analysis of final reports from all EPSRC projects completed during the past three years, shows that the proportion of chemistry projects with at least one internationally co-authored publication, at 34%, is marginally higher than the average for EPSRC (29%); the overall proportion of publications with international co-authors arising from chemistry projects is about 23%, which is the same as the average across all EPSRC areas. 5.12 Additional information on international interactions, together with background information on the RCUK International Strategy is provided in Annex E.

- 47 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 18

6. Support for People

Introduction

6.1 This section provides data about people working as, and training to be, chemistry researchers. Data is drawn from both HESA and EPSRC; it is important to bear in mind the caveats noted in section 2.10 regarding the HESA data, and particularly that the HESA data underestimates the numbers of staff working in the areas covered by the scope of this review. Unless otherwise indicated all HESA numbers are given as ‘FPE’ i.e. full person equivalents. The studentship data is based on a ‘restricted population’ extract from the HESA Student Record: the numbers select students in their first year of study to avoid double-counting between years, and cover only the subjects noted in paragraph 2.10.

6.2 An element of under-reporting also occurs in the HESA data concerning research council supported students: this is a function of the fields used to select research council students (“major source of funding” and “major source of tuition fees”) as alternatives occur (for example research council-funded students whose major source of funding is industrial), so not all students receiving funding from EPSRC will be flagged as “research council students”.

Total UK Support for Chemistry Training

6.3 Over the period 2002/03 to 2006/07 HESA data shows 6,904 first-year postgraduate students in the chemistry area; 3,761 of these were for doctoral level training (with at least 1,028 being supported by EPSRC funding); 891 were registered during 2006/07.

6.4 Table 14 shows the destinations of doctoral students post-qualification and is based on data from HESA’s ‘Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education’ survey. It has been suggested that those with engineering PhDs may be more likely to leave the UK after gaining their qualification, perhaps returning to their country of origin, whilst those with chemistry PhDs are more likely to find employment in the UK. However, the data available shows that although there are similar levels across engineering and physical sciences subjects, chemistry doctoral students are actually less likely to remain in the UK than those in many other subjects.

Table 14 The destinations of doctoral students in Engineering and Physical Sciences subject areas Destination Subject Area UK Non-UK Not Known Materials 78% 12% 9% Electrical/Electronic Engineering 78% 13% 9% Engineering 77% 15% 8% Mathematics 76% 9% 16% Computer Science 73% 17% 11% Chemistry 68% 17% 15% Physics 67% 18% 15% EPS Total 72% 15% 12%

- 48 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 19

6.5 Table 15 shows the 20 institutions which have attracted the greatest number (collectively nearly three quarters) of doctoral students (as recorded by HESA). The panel will meet with institutions marked *; the fact that UCL and Bath and not represented reflects to some extent the difficulty of using HESA data to capture and describe the scope of activity within the chemistry community in the UK.

Table 15 Top 20 institutions by registered doctoral students in a Chemistry-related subject, 2003/04 – 2006/07 (HESA) (all years)

All All All All Institution 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Manchester*7 337 400 394 462 Cambridge* 411 403 347 420 Oxford* 287 294 322 337 Nottingham* 260 266 279 277 Bristol* 201 207 203 312 Birmingham* 213 202 206 234 Southampton* 226 194 187 201 Edinburgh* 161 193 209 215 Leeds* 196 194 183 164 Cardiff* 165 178 179 184 York* 166 163 169 160 Imperial* 196 140 153 151 Sheffield* 162 158 162 127 Newcastle 141 138 147 147 Queen's (Belfast) 132 136 123 128 Durham* 117 118 130 139 Strathclyde* 123 122 119 127 St Andrews* 114 119 119 138 Warwick* 90 116 127 153 Glasgow* 101 115 119 134

EPSRC Support for Chemistry Studentships

6.6 Historically EPSRC provided the majority of support for training through Doctoral Training Accounts (DTAs)8. These are block grants giving institutions a degree of autonomy with regard to the students they fund and enabling them to support individual students with a combination of EPSRC and other funding. We therefore use a notional ‘cost per student’ to estimate DTA student numbers, and the actual number supported (in whole or in part) will be higher. Using the notional cost the number of DTA studentships in chemistry in 2008 is 668. The allocations of DTAs over the last 3 years, by discipline, are shown in Figure 5.

7 Manchester data prior to 2004/05 is derived by combining information from UMIST and the University of Manchester, which merged in 2004/05 8 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/DoctoralTrainingAccounts/default.htm

- 49 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 20

Figure 5 Doctoral training grant allocation per year, by discipline (2005-2008)

20.0 Chemistry

18.0 Mathematics

16.0 Physics

14.0 Electrical & Electronic Engineering 12.0 Computer Science

10.0 General Engineering 8.0 Metallurgy & Materials 6.0 DTG Allocation (£ Millions) Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing 4.0 Engineering Chemical Engineering 2.0 Civil Engineering 0.0 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Financial Year

6.7 Research grants also provide a significant mechanism for training by supporting the employment of PhD students as research staff. There are currently 311 such PhD ‘project students’ within the scope of chemistry. Figure 6 shows the number of project students starting, by discipline, over the last 5 years.

Figure 6 Number of EPSRC PhD project students starting per year, by discipline (2003-2008)

140 Chemistry

120 Physics

Chemical Engineering 100 Electrical & Electronic Engineering 80 Computer Science

General Engineering 60 Metallurgy & Materials

40 Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering Numnber of Project Students Civil Engineering 20

Mathematics 0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Financial Year

- 50 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 21

6.8 The estimated number of current studentships (i.e. students supported by DTAs and project students), by area, is given in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Estimated numbers of EPSRC doctoral students by area (as at 31 March 2008) Chemistry, 979, 16% Physics, 571, 9%

Other, 532, 8%

Mathematics, 561, 9%

Engineering, 1313, 21%

Materials, 868, 14%

Life Sciences Interface, 365, ICT, 1086, 17% 6%

6.9 In addition, following numerous evaluations, and building on the success of existing centres, EPSRC have recently funded 44 new doctoral training centres with an investment in excess of £250m. These will each take in around 10 students per year for five years starting in 2009; a number of these centres cover areas within the remit of chemistry. Students will receive a formal programme of taught coursework and undertake a challenging and original research project at PhD level. The overall commitment budget for DTAs will remain at current levels, so there will be an overall increase in EPSRC’s studentship provision.9

6.10

6.11 Figure 8 gives a breakdown of the doctoral student effort on research projects within the remit of this review (it includes students supported on DTAs, Industrial CASE awards and Engineering Doctorates - further details about these schemes are provided in the postgraduate training section of the ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ document (paragraphs 67-77)). The figures are derived from the (one or more) research topics associated with each student’s project; it therefore does not present an exact count of individual students, but reflects the aggregated volume of research content across the body of students. It is based on 2 years intakes of students (2005/06 and 2006/07 being the years for which the data is most complete) and will include students supported by funds associated with areas other than chemistry. The male:female gender balance is approximately 2:1.

9 For further information, including a full list of the centres, please refer to http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/Centres/NewCentres.htm

- 51 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 22

Figure 8 Doctoral student numbers by gender, mapped to EPSRC Chemistry sub-areas (students starting in 2005/06 and 2006/07)

Analytical Science

Biological Related Chemistry

Catalysis & Surfaces

Materials Related Chemistry

Physical Chemistry

Synthetic Chemistry

Other

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Female Male

Trained Researchers

6.12 Research Assistants are typically junior researchers, PhD-qualified, who are employed on temporary contracts by Universities, occasionally with teaching responsibilities, though their employment conditions have been evolving over recent years10. They are often funded on grants and supervised by more senior academics. Figure 9 below shows the relative importance of this extra ‘manpower’ by research area.

Figure 9 Estimated numbers of EPSRC research assistants by area (as at 31 March 2008)

Other, 310, 5% Cross-Discipline Interface, 495, 9% Other Physical Sciences, Energy Research Capacity, 339, 6% 240, 4% Physics, 327, 6%

Chemistry, 485, 8% Information & Communication Technology, 1,147, 20%

User-Led Research, 196, 3%

Mathematical Sciences, 201, Process Environment and 3% Sustainability, 869, 15%

Medical Mechanical and Materials Eng, 1,199, 21%

10 see http://www.vitae.ac.uk/1315/Rights-and-responsibilities.html

- 52 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 23

6.13 The most recent (2006/07 academic year) HESA data records 4,165 academic staff working in the ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ cost centres at universities in the UK. They are defined as academic professionals responsible for planning, directing and undertaking academic teaching and research within higher education institutions. Figure 10 shows how they how they have been distributed by grade, function and age over the last three years. There has been a slight net increase in numbers since 2005/06.

6.14 The ‘Researcher’ grade comprises the largest group of academic staff in the cost centre; they are normally non-tenured staff on short term contracts. Predictably most ‘Researchers’ are classified as having a ‘research only’ function; in contrast, almost all other academic staff are classified as under ‘both teaching and research’ function. 45% of ‘Research only’ staff are UK nationals, and this proportion has declined steadily from just over 50% in 2003/04.

6.15 There are, proportionately, more women training as chemistry researchers than being employed as such. As noted above, male doctoral students outnumber females by approximately 2:1. A similar ratio of just under 3:1 is typically present at the level of ‘Researcher’ and ‘Lecturer’ grade staff, but by the time they have moved up into the ‘Senior Lecturer’ grade and above, males outnumber females by more than 6:1.

6.16 A small proportion (13%) of the academic staff within the ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ cost centres work part-time, the full-time equivalent number of staff is 3,928. The FTE number of academic staff, and the FTE number of ‘research only’ staff are shown in Table 16. This table only includes those institutions known to be active within the scope of the review, and it must be remembered that by only covering the two cost centres it underestimates the true number of staff active within the review. Approximately two thirds of the academic staff reported to HESA under these cost centres, are employed by these 20 universities.

6.17 Figure 11 shows the source of basic salary for chemistry and chemical engineering research staff. The research councils are shown as the largest single source of funding for research staff in these areas. Contributions from UK Industry are also shown to be a primary source of funding for research staff in these areas. The proportions of the research councils and EU government have increased slightly over the three year period, with a slight decrease from Institutions.

6.18 Figure 12 shows the age distribution of principal and co investigators (PIs and CO-Is) funded by the EPSRC chemistry portfolio and all EPSRC funded PIs and CO-Is. The distribution peaks with the 41-45 age group; this is consistent with the equivalent chart in Figure 10 as the data in Figure 10 includes ‘Researcher’ grade staff at an early stage in their careers compared to EPSRC principal and co- investigators who by definitions will have gained some experience already. Figure 13 gives the age profiles of Investigators by sub-area; this shows that the age profiles are similar across all the sub- areas.

6.19 Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the number and value of EPSRC chemistry grants announced by the age of the PI, and shows that EPSRC support for chemistry is distributed fairly evenly across age groups.

6.20 It should be noted that despite a number of reasonably high visibility chemistry department closures neither the number of researchers in the area, nor funding by the Research Councils have decreased i.e. the concentration of expertise and of funds has increased.

- 53 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 24

Figure 10 UK academic staff numbers within the ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ cost centres analysed by (a) grade11, (b) function and (c) age; 2004/05 to 2006/07 (HESA)

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2500

a. Staff Grade

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Researchers Lecturers Senior Lecturers & Professors Other Grades Researchers

2500

2000 b. Staff Function

1500

1000

500

0 Research only Teaching & research Teaching only Neither teaching nor research

25%

20% c. Staff Age (%)

15%

10%

0% <= 25 26 - 30 years 31 - 35 years 36 - 40 years 41 - 45 years 46 - 50 years 51 - 55 years 56 - 60 years 61 - 65 years >= 66 Unknown

11 See 6.14 for definition of researcher.

- 54 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 25

Table 16 Academic staff FTE numbers within the ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ cost centres, 2006/07 (HESA)*

All Research Institution functions Only Cambridge 272 206 Manchester 280 167 Oxford 196 148 Imperial 210 128 Bristol 152 103 Nottingham 161 90 Leeds 161 85 York 135 82 Edinburgh 121 77 St Andrews 103 72 Liverpool 102 69 UCL 128 66 Southampton 100 62 Sheffield 122 61 Durham 101 61 Cardiff 73 37 Bath 81 36 Strathclyde 88 35 Warwick 64 33 Glasgow 66 31 * The table includes only institutions with activity within the scope of this review.

Figure 11 Source of salaries 2004-05 to 2006-07 for ‘Research only’ academic staff within the ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ cost centres (HESA)

100%

90%

80%

Other 70% Other overseas 60% EU Government

50% UK Industry

UK Government 40%

Wholly or principally 30% institution financed Research Councils

20%

10%

0% 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

- 55 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 26

Figure 12 Age and gender of current Chemistry portfolio principal and co-investigators, by proportion (August 2008, EPSRC)

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% Proportion of Principal Co-Invetigators and

0% <=25 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >=66 Unknown

ChemMale Male ChemFemale Female ChemNot Known Not Known All EPSRC

Figure 13 Current age profile of principal and co-investigators in the Chemistry portfolio, by sub-area (August 2008, EPSRC) 140

120 Analytical Science

100 Biological Related Chemistry

Catalysis & 80 Surfaces

Materials Related 60 Chemistry Physical Chemistry Number Investigators of Number 40 Synthetic Chemistry

0 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >65

- 56 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 27

Figure 14 No. of EPSRC Chemistry grants announced, by age group (2003-2008) 400

350

300 Age Unknown 250 60+ 50-59

200 45-49 40-44 35-39 150 30-34 <30 Number Grants Announced of 100

0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Financial Year of Decision Date

Figure 15 Value of EPSRC Chemistry grants announced, by age group (2003-2008)

140

120

100 Age Unknown 60+ 80 50-59 45-49 40-44 60 35-39 30-34 <30 40 Value Announcedof Grants (£ Millions)

0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Financial Year of Decision Date

- 57 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 28

EPSRC Support for Early-Stage Researchers

6.21 EPSRC has taken a strategic decision to provide targeted funding to address demographic concerns by assisting the best early-stage academics to establish research careers (see the ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ document for further details).

6.22 Figure 16 and Figure 17 illustrate EPSRC awards specifically aimed at new researchers in chemistry areas. First Grants are open to academic staff within three years of their first appointment; applications are reviewed in competition against each other rather than against work by more experienced researchers. There is a concern within the chemistry community that the success rate for First Grant Proposals has been too low in 2008. Advanced Research Fellowships have been available to researchers within 10 years of completing their PhD. Advanced Research Fellowships have now been replaced with Career Acceleration Fellowships (CAFs), which are aimed at providing support for talented researchers at an early stage of their career. Relevant candidates should have between 3 and 10 years postdoctoral research and/or relevant industrial experience but should not hold or have held a permanent academic post.

Figure 16 Number of Advanced Fellowship and First Grant Scheme grants awarded in Chemistry 2003-2008. The % figures by each column denote the proportion of applications received that were funded. 18 71% 47% 16 59% 56% 14 61% 12 10 20% 59% 8 13% 7% 6

Number of grants Number of grants 4 6% 2 0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Advanced Fellowship First Grant Scheme

Figure 17 First Grants, Advanced and Senior Fellowships funded across Chemistry (2003-2008) 30.0 6

25.0 5

20.0 4

15.0 3 Number £ Millions 10.0 2 Value 5.0 1

0.0 0 Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Scheme Scheme Scheme Scheme Scheme Scheme Advanced First Grant Advanced First Grant Advanced First Grant Advanced First Grant Advanced First Grant Advanced First Grant Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Fellowship Analytical Science Biological Related Catalysis & Materials Related Physical Chemistry Synthetic Chemistry Chemistry Surfaces Chemistry

number of grants value of grants

Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 29 7. Knowledge Transfer

Introduction – the UK Chemical Sector

7.1 The chemical sector in the UK, in activities ranging from pharmaceuticals through to plastics, has an estimated annual turnover of more than £50 billion, contributing 2% of the GDP of the UK. It also provides direct employment for 214,000 people, as well as underpinning hundreds of thousands more throughout the economy. The sector grew at a rate of 2.9% per annum in the 10 years from 1994-2004, compared to only 0.5% growth in the whole of manufacturing. The structure of the sector continues to evolve with a major shift from bulk chemicals to speciality chemical manufacture in the last 15 years.

The Challenges of Measuring Knowledge Transfer (KT)

7.2 The exploitation of academic research and its economic impact is subject to increased attention within the UK (see the ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ document). As a consequence KT is a central element of the review (sections F and G of the evidence framework). Obtaining reliable quantitative evidence on KT effectiveness and economic impact which can be directly linked to specific funding interventions is notoriously difficult. A recently published report about the economic impacts of the research councils' work underlines these difficulties and provides a detailed analysis of the key issues12.

7.3 To assist the Panel, the universities participating in the review will provide examples of their KT activities during the review week. In addition, collaborators from industry will be participating in the visits and Panel members are encouraged to make the most of these opportunities to explore the effectiveness of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry. In addition there will be opportunities during the week for the panel to interact with senior technology managers from the UK’s chemistry-using industries.

Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)

7.4 ‘Chemistry Innovation’ KTN is the UK’s principle chemistry knowledge transfer network, set up in 2006 and with a portfolio of collaborative projects which is valued at over £50 million. It aims to improve innovation performance across the UK’s chemistry-using industries through a coherent national strategy, and its main activity is to provide the focus and stimulus to support product and process innovation that will deliver growth and sustainability. The Chemistry Innovation KTN works closely with EPSRC and learned societies to support more effective Knowledge transfer from the science base.

7.5 The KTN is undertaking considerable work to enable more efficient KT. Further details of these activities are available in Annex F.

The Technology Strategy Board

7.6 The role of the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) is to stimulate technology-enabled innovation in the areas which offer the greatest scope for boosting UK growth and productivity. The TSB promotes, supports and invests in technology research, development and commercialisation; spreads knowledge; and brings people together to solve major technological problems or make new advances. Collaborative R&D is a primary mechanism of the TSB’s strategy and is designed to assist the industrial and research communities to work together on R&D projects in strategically important areas of science, engineering and technology. Successful applications are funded by the TSB with contributions from industry and the Research Councils.

7.7 Chemistry critically underpins a number of the TSB key technology areas; for instance Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, which should result in significant investment for chemistry research and downstream development in the UK. Further information is available in the Support for Science and Innovation document.

12 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/warry.htm

- 59 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 30

EPSRC-Supported Collaborative Research

7.8 Collaborative research is a key element of the knowledge transfer activities of the chemistry research portfolio. Collaboration with users (largely but not exclusively industry) routinely takes place within research grants, centres and consortia.

7.9 A key indicator of the value that industry places on chemistry research funded by EPSRC is the extent to which it is prepared to co-fund and collaborate with the researchers. Over the past five years 166 collaborations have been recorded on EPSRC chemistry projects. The organisations which have collaborated most frequently are shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 Key EPSRC Chemistry portfolio collaborating organisations 1.20 14

1.00 12 10 0.80 8 0.60 6

£ Millions 0.40 4 No. of Contributions 0.20 2

0.00 0

K m gy ey S ble o tth G eca ecia ru n am v nt nol Ma Ze G A h a n tr & gsze so s er n Tec A l hn ct ro Jo P rschu o Saso F Value of contribution number of contributions

7.10 In the five years to 2008 industry has contributed, in cash and in kind, some £7.1 million towards chemistry research projects funded by EPSRC. The flow of these funds is shown in Figure 19. The significant funding provided by ‘others’ shows that the chemicals industry has fragmented, and that there are no longer just a few key players. Note that these figures exclude 3 recent calls for Organic Synthetic Chemistry Studentships (for 2007-2009) funded jointly through Strategic Partnerships with GSK, AstraZeneca and Pfizer (see in paragraph 7.18 for further details).

Figure 19 Industrial collaborative funding of EPSRC Chemistry grants 4.00 Sasol Technology 3.50 Forschungszentrum 3.00 Avecia 2.50 Procter & Gamble 2.00 AstraZeneca

£ Millions £ 1.50 GSK 1.00 Johnson Matthey 0.50 Others 0.00 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

- 60 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 31

7.11 Figure 19 confirms a decline in collaborative funding since 2004/05. While the sharp dip in support in 2005/06 is believed to be related to the introduction of full economic costs (fEC) during the latter part of the year, the underlying reasons are not fully clear. A moratorium on new proposals was imposed for a month before fEC in order to allow the research councils to make the necessary changes, and there was a very significant increase in the number of proposals submitted during the period before moratorium. It is likely that most of these were hurriedly prepared and that the necessary time to obtain collaborative support was not taken.

7.12 Information about the added value of collaborative funding received from industry for EPSRC’s various sub-area themes is presented in Figure 20, which shows the value of collaborative grants funded each year from 2003-08 The degree of fluctuation across the sub-areas may be in part due to the different natures of sub-areas, but also perhaps due to the relatively small numbers of grants involved. The panel may wish to explore universities’ strategies for securing industrial funding from the different theme areas.

Figure 20 Value of industry collaboration by EPSRC Chemistry sub-area

2 2 £ Millions £ 1

0 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Analytical Science Biological Related Chemistry Catalysis & Surfaces Materials Related Chemistry Physical Chemistry Synthetic Chemistry Other

7.13 Across chemistry, 12% of current grants by number have some form of collaborative activity with the user community. This is below the average for EPSRC (26%) though it places chemistry above, Physics, Mathematical Sciences and The Life Sciences Interface. Table 17 shows the proportion of current grants which are collaborative across Chemistry, as well as the value of funding associated with them from the both the programme and the collaborators.

Table 17 Collaborative current grants by Chemistry sub-area

Percentage of Value of associated Value of Contributions Chemistry sub-area grants which are Chemistry funding made by collaborators collaborative (£M) (£M) Analytical Science 15% 15.0 0.2 Biological Related Chemistry 9% 23.7 0.3 Catalysis & Surfaces 20% 22.5 1.4 Materials Related Chemistry 16% 10.3 0.7 Physical Chemistry 9% 65.3 0.6 Synthetic Chemistry 10% 42.4 1.3 Chemistry Total 12% 179.5 4.7

7.14 In addition to high quality conference papers and journal articles, (see section 4 on research quality), EPSRC-supported projects often demonstrate knowledge transfer through a range of outputs including new licences or patents, spin-out companies and software. Unfortunately the data we hold on such outputs are not sufficiently robust to include in this document; there should however be ample opportunity for the panel to assess knowledge transfer activities during the university visits.

- 61 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - 32 Training for Collaboration

7.15 EPSRC supports training mechanisms that feature significant industrial involvement such as ‘Collaborative Awards in Science & Engineering’ (CASE) and Engineering Doctorates (EngD) through collaborative training grants awarded to universities on the basis of competitive bids (see the ‘Support for science and innovation in the UK’ document). Table 18 shows the numbers of such students per year as recorded in October 2008. Note that the data for the earlier years is more reliable because the grants covering them are finished and final audits have been completed - data on more recent grants, where the audit has not been completed, remains amendable by institutions. Students have been included if their work was at least 50% within the remit of chemistry.

Table 18 EPSRC supported doctoral student working on collaborative research projects (EPSRC data) Scheme 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total CASE Students for New Academics (CNA) 3 6 13 22 Collaborative Research Student (CTA) 3 18 14 35 Engineering Doctorate - Research Engineer 4 23 17 19 63 Industrial CASE Student 1 21 53 57 132 Totals 5 50 94 103 252

7.16 In addition to training new academics EPSRC-funded researchers also provide training directly to industry. Fourteen MSc courses directly addressed needs in the ‘Chemicals’ sector during 2006-07, representing some 5% of such courses being run with EPSRC support.

Strategic Partnerships

7.17 Strategic partnerships are formal agreements between EPSRC and other organisations where the partners agree to jointly support research, training and other activities in UK universities. A partnership can involve one or several organisations, and gives a framework for supporting mutually-beneficial activities in areas of interest. Activities can include things like research chairs, research grants, consortia and studentships. Current strategic partners under the remit of Chemistry include: • GSK (since September 2007) • AstraZeneca (since January 2006) • Pfizer (since September 2007) • Procter & Gamble (since June 2006)

7.18 Examples of recent industrial calls with these strategic partners include: • Array Chemistry13 – 2 Calls with GSK • Flow Chemistry14 – With GSK and Pfizer • Organic Synthesis Studentships15 – 3 Calls with GSK, Pfizer and AstraZeneca • Characterisation, Modification and Mathematical Modelling of Sudsing16 (e.g. non stable foams) – With Proctor & Gamble

13 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/ReactionsForArrayChemistry.htm 14 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/ChemistryFlow.htm 15 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/OrganicSyntheticChemistryCall.htm and http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/OSStudentsCall.htm 16 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/Archive/SudsingCall.htm

- 62 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - A-1

Annex A Defining the Boundaries of Chemistry

A.1 This annex is intended to define the boundaries of chemistry for the EPSRC International Review of Chemistry. It covers the areas of chemistry research supported by each of the relevant research councils and defines the six sub-areas used in this data document.

A.2 Given the cross disciplinary nature of chemistry, it is included in the remit of several of the UK’s research councils: • EPSRC funding supports research and training centred on core chemistry research, i.e. the manipulation of molecules, as well as supporting the interfaces between chemistry and other disciplines. • The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) supports research and training primarily at the interfaces between traditional chemistry research and biological research, i.e. the sub-area used in this report called ‘Biological related Chemistry’. • The Medical Research Council (MRC) promotes research into all areas of medical and related science, and therefore supports research and training for the ‘Biological related Chemistry’ sub- area as well as other medical related chemistry. • NERC (the Natural Environment Research Council), will support research and training at the interface between the traditional chemistry and Earth science disciplines, including environmental chemistry.

A.3 For further information on the relevant research councils, including their remits, please refer to the ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ document.

Historical Background of the EPSRC Chemistry Portfolio

A.4 This section refers to the EPSRC chemistry portfolio prior to the restructuring in April 2008, since when the Chemistry Programme has been incorporated as part of a new Physical Sciences Programme. Further details about the new structure are available in the ‘Support for Science and Innovation in the UK’ document.

A.5 Projects funded by the Chemistry Programme have aspects related to, at core, the study and manipulation of molecules. The intellectual core of chemistry remains the synthesis and study of molecules and the development of new tools, whilst chemistry is also key in linking disciplines, and by virtue of its ability to provide concepts, processes and materials to all disciplines, is uniquely suited to link them.

A.6 This leads to interactions between chemistry and other disciplines, and subsequently there are key interfaces between the Chemistry Programme and the Life Sciences Interface, Materials, and Physics Programmes.

A.7 Much interaction and joint funding of proposals occurs between Programmes at these interfaces. Clarity is required at these boundaries to reduce the amount of overlap between Programmes and to enable EPSRC to present a clearer picture to stakeholders.

A.8 Each programme funds a dynamic and evolving research portfolio within a landscape of Programmes, which cover the whole of EPSRC’s remit. Within this remit Programme Managers work closely together to ensure coverage of multidisciplinary opportunities, and proposals are assessed by the referees and peer review panels considered most appropriate.

A.9 Many research activities are co-funded between Programmes, promoting world class research, and satisfying the research needs of UK business. Discussions occur between Programmes when establishing the most appropriate referees to assess proposals.

- 63 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - A-2

Sub-Areas

A.10 The chemistry ‘sub-areas’ referred to in this data document are defined by ‘research topics’ as described below: Analytical Science Analytical The development of novel techniques, or the novel application of existing Science techniques, for the analysis of chemical or biological systems and entities, including the use of optical, thermal, acoustic, magnetic, electronic and electrochemical methods. This includes techniques such as mass spectrometry, NMR spectroscopy, EPR spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction and reflection, neutron diffraction, laser spectroscopy, fluorescence imaging, optical and probe microscopy, chromatography, and calorimetry. It also includes elements such as sample preparation, pre-processing and tailored synthesis of specifically targeted probes, as well as aspects of data capture and processing. Also included is work involved in miniaturisation of analytical techniques, and its integration onto single chip technology, including microfluidic techniques; and in developing novel methods to enable high throughput approaches to analytical problems Instrumentation The development/engineering of specific instrument (for specific applications) or Engineering and the development of methodologies to be used in generic instrumentation Development development. The emphasis can be either on i) the hardware issues e.g. reliability robustness, miniaturisation etc. or ii) the development of instrumentation to measure important variables which are currently difficult or impossible to determine with existing technology.

Biological Related Chemistry Biological and Novel chemistry that is directly associated with the molecular basis of biological Medicinal processes. This includes natural product synthesis, drug discovery, synthesis of Chemistry tailored molecules with specified biomedical properties, protein design and synthesis, and biomimetic chemistry where this involves the transfer of chemical paradigms from biological systems for application in other areas of chemistry. Cell Biology This research topic should only be used to capture research in the life sciences, which would normally fall within the remit of another Research Council. Research into the physiological properties of cells, as well as cell behaviour, interactions and environment, on both molecular and microscopic scales. This topic includes research on both single-celled organisms, such as bacteria, and cellular development in multicellular organisms, including humans. Exemplar areas include fundamental cell biology, cell ageing and death, embryonic stem cells and cell-cell interactions. Research centred on the physiology of more complex organisms is covered under ‘Developmental biology and physiology’; theoretical, quantitative and predictive approaches to cellular models/model organisms is covered under ‘Quantitative, predictive biology’. Chemical The application of chemical techniques, including theoretical and molecular Biology modelling approaches, for the understanding of biological processes: macromolecular structure determination and prediction; understanding macromolecular folding processes; understanding macromolecular structure/function relationships and aspects of biomolecular recognition; chemical genetics; non-covalent interactions between molecules in biology; thermodynamics of macromolecular interactions within biological processes; and biomimetic chemistry where this involves producing simplified chemical models of complex biological systems. Within this context macromolecules can be of any size and include proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, ligands, and coordination complexes.

- 64 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - A-3

Disease and All aspects of disease and disease therapy, other than neuromedicine, including: Treatment transmission and control of infectious agents and their interaction with the immune system; pathogenesis, development and control of the immune system; parasitology, virology, and bacteriology; tropical medicine; function and pathophysiology of the major organ systems; molecular medicine; genetics of disease and genomic epidemiology; cancer; inflammation; pharmacology; metabolism; and toxicology. Clinical trials and translational medicine also fall under this topic, but should normally only be supported by EPSRC at an initial stage and as a minor component of a wider proposal. Drug Mutidisciplinary research into the formulation and controlled delivery of Formulation and therapeutic, diagnostic or imaging agents to the body via the full range of routes Delivery of administration and including: tailored synthesis of molecules with specific desired delivery properties; formulation science; encapsulation techniques; pro- drugs; polymer therapeutics; controlled release devices; and delivery devices such as patches, inhalers, injection systems and gene guns. Also included within this topic are: gene delivery for gene therapy; delivery of cells and growth factors for tissue engineering; applied pharmacogenetics; understanding the nature and function of biological barriers to delivery; development of in-vitro or in-silico models of delivery pathways and target organs; and initial toxicology and clinical trial studies related to delivery issues.

Catalysis & Surfaces Catalysis and Structural and kinetic studies to understand the molecular mechanisms involved Applied Catalysis in catalytic reactions, preparation of novel or improved catalysts and their development towards industrially useful processes but extending to manufacture of catalysts and the design and scale-up of reactors to use new catalysis systems (and existing catalysts by cleaner and more efficient routes). Reactor The design and scale up of new and existing reaction vessels to undertake Engineering chemical reactions. Includes batch reactors, trickle bed reactors, fluid bed reactors. Surfaces, The study of surfaces and interfaces. Techniques include x-ray and electron Surface Probes diffraction, synchrotron radiation and scanning probe microscopy. Research topic and Interfaces covers the study of surface mediated chemical reactions and surface adsorbed species.

Materials Related Chemistry Functional Emphasis is on the understanding of the materials and their properties. Ceramics and Characterisation techniques will include compositional, electrical, optical and Inorganics: structural analysis methods. Materials will be functionally active and could Characterisation typically include glasses, ionic materials, electroceramics, zeolites and diamond when acting as a non-semiconductor. Research on superconducting or magnetic materials should be included in the specific codes for these material types. Functional Synthesis of materials, development of deposition and growth techniques and Organics and research on the effect of these techniques on materials properties. However, Polymers: research where the emphasis is on, for example, understanding the chemistry of Synthesis and novel synthetic pathways is excluded. Materials will be functionally active and Growth could typically include dyes, liquid crystals, ferro-electric organics and polymers, dielectric organics and polymers etc. Research on superconducting or magnetic materials should be included in the specific codes for these material types. Magnetic Emphasis on the understanding of the materials and its properties. Materials: Characterisation techniques will include compositional, electrical, optical, Characterisation magnetic and structural analysis methods, including the use of synchrotron radiation and neutrons. Materials types will include organic and inorganic magnetic materials as well as metals and alloys. Magnetic Synthesis of materials, development of deposition and growth techniques and Materials: research on the effect of these techniques on the materials properties. Materials Synthesis and types will include organic and inorganic magnetic materials as well as metals and Growth alloys.

- 65 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - A-4

Structural Emphasis is on the understanding of the materials and their properties. Ceramics and Characterisation techniques will include compositional and structural analysis Inorganics: methods. Materials derived from non-metallic inorganic minerals and for Characterisation structural applications, could include: glass, diamond and overlay ceramic coatings. Structural Synthesis of materials, development of deposition and growth techniques and Ceramics and research on the effect of these techniques on materials properties. However, Inorganics: research where the emphasis is on, for example, understanding the chemistry of Synthesis and novel synthetic pathways is excluded. Materials derived from non-metallic Growth inorganic minerals and for structural applications, could include: glass, diamond and overlay ceramic coatings. Structural Synthesis of materials, development of deposition and growth techniques and Polymers: research on the effect of these techniques on materials properties. However, Synthesis and research where the emphasis is on, for example, understanding the chemistry of Growth novel synthetic pathways is excluded. The polymers classified here are for structural applications and include i) those from natural or synthetic sources and ii) those with organic or inorganic backbones. Filled polymers are also included.

Physical Chemistry Chemical Determination of chemical structure by spectroscopic, diffraction and Structure thermodynamic techniques. Determination of intermolecular forces, including weak interactions, and of weak structures within liquid crystals and similar systems. Colloids, Soft Structural studies and the characterisation, handling, formulation and processing Solids and of complex fluid and colloid systems (including soft solids). This includes the Complex Fluids theory covering the application of statistical mechanics techniques to soft condensed matter. Synthesis of tailored molecules to produce specific properties within such systems. Examples of these systems include: creams, pastes, drilling fluids, foods (where they are an example system), ceramics (in the green state), concrete/cement. Computational The theoretical study of chemical structure, bonding and reactivity in and Theoretical homogeneous, micro-heterogeneous and heterogeneous systems by ab-initio Chemistry and approximate techniques, including molecular modelling. Electrochemistry Research covers the electrochemical control of heterogeneous reactions, novel and chemical reactions of anions, cations and electrolytes, elucidation of reaction Electrochemical rates and mechanisms by electro-analytical techniques but extends to the Engineering recovery of metals from scrap and the electrochemical deposition of metals. Research related specifically to the development and application of fuel cells should be coded within the separate research topic Fuel Cell Technologies. Gas and Solution Studies of rates and mechanisms of gas phase reactions including scalar and Phase Reactions vector correlations of unimolecular and bimolecular reactions, complex reactions, formation and properties of clusters. Studies of rates and mechanisms of reactions in the liquid phase, speciation, non-linear feedback and complex processes Lasers and Development of novel laser systems, laser physics and the understanding of Laser Systems lasing mechanisms e.g. short pulse, high repetition rate tuneable laser systems. Topic extends to cover research into laser technologies, beam delivery systems (such as fibre optics), and laser/material process interactions, leading to the development and use of laser-based systems for engineering applications. However, the development of semiconducting lasers for opto-electronic applications is excluded and covered within the “opto-electronic devices” heading. Physical Organic Studies of rates and mechanisms of organic reactions including reaction Chemistry pathways and intermediates, kinetic and thermodynamic parameters and energy transfer, structure of intermediates - both transient and long-lived, molecular dynamics, non-covalent bonding and molecular complexation Solid-state The synthesis, modification and characterisation of compounds with extended Chemistry structure composed of infinite lattices (not packed discrete molecules).

- 66 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - A-5

Synthetic Chemistry Asymmetric Chemistry leading to products containing single enantiomers of chiral molecules Chemistry that can otherwise form two mirror image forms Carbohydrate The chemistry of sugars including novel glycosylation methods, oligosaccharide Chemistry synthesis, and use of sugars as chiral synthetic reagents. Chemical Novel methods for the synthesis of compounds including oligo- and Synthetic macromolecules, peptides, nucleotides, polymers, and components of Methodology supramolecular arrays. Combinatorial Automated synthetic techniques to enable the simultaneous production of all Chemistry possible combinations of a given set of molecular components Co-ordination Synthetic methodology leading to structures, often with unusual physical Chemistry properties, resulting from the binding of atoms or ligands to a central co- ordinating metal ion.

- 67 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - B-1

Annex B Additional Funding Data from Other Research Councils

B.1 During the period 2003-08, the other research councils funded chemistry-related research to the tune of over £300M. Details by research council are given in the following tables.

Table B-1 BBRSC funding for Chemistry-related research, 2003-09 by award type

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09* Grant - Responsive Mode 20.2 21.1 21.3 21.8 22.5 22.8 (£M) Grant - Initiative (£M) 7.8 8.7 12.1 17.3 20.1 22.5 Institute Project (£M) 5.5 5.6 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.1 Fellowship (£M) 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 Grand Total (£M) 34.0 36.1 38.6 44.4 48.4 51.2 incl. with industry links (£M) 4.0 3.9 5.6 7.4 9.0 10.4 *Data for 2008-09 are forecasts only.

Table B-2 MRC funding for Chemistry-related research, 2003-08 by award type

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Fellowship (£M) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 Grant (£M) 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.5 4.1 Studentship (£M) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Unit (£M) 6.6 5.6 14.5 12.6 10.2 Grand Total 11.3 9.5 18.9 16.5 14.8

Table B-3 NERC funding for Chemistry-related research by sub-area (2003-2008)

Percentage Number of Grants Value of Grants (£M) by Value (%) Analytical Science 26 2.5 5% Biological Related Chemistry 3 0.1 0% Catalysis & Surfaces 6 0.3 1% Physical Chemistry 19 1.7 4% Other (primarily 473 43.1 90% Environmental Chemistry) Grand Total 527 47.7 100%

- 68 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - B-2

Figure B-1 NERC funding for Chemistry-related research, 2003-08 cumulative value

3 £ (Millions) £ 2

0 . l H l r s a e h k g r b a d e li g o g E d r e a i l e t d t r in t r tl g d s r C o L ie s e i i u fo d s e f s e e n r r Y a e p f a A b b C x a h L B n e c n m e c c t m i R O n i I h s d R r w n a E a a S e a a E N L E C M N M th u o m ly P Definitions Used

B.2 As mentioned in paragraph 3.14, the data has been derived in slightly different ways by each research council, dependant upon the management information systems available.

B.3 EPSRC figures are generated from the ‘Chemistry’ expenditure, as found in the annual accounts. This will not include chemistry-related grants funded by other programmes.

B.4 BBSRC used the following criteria to identify which awards to include in their data: • Awards with ‘chemistry’ or ‘chemical’ in the title. • Awards held by chemistry departments. • Other awards relevant to chemistry (including searches for awards with chemical terms). • Except as above, Biochemistry was excluded. • Studentships were excluded

B.5 MRC used a similar method to BBSRC, using chemistry terms to select awards, and including all projects carried out in chemistry departments and the nanotechnology portfolio. Differences are that awards with ‘chemistry’ or ‘chemical’ in the title were not automatically included, and studentships were included.

B.6 The NERC definition was also based on chemistry terms being included in award titles and abstracts, whilst awards given directly to NERC centres and studentships were excluded.

- 69 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - C-1

Annex C EPSRC Chemistry Programme Overview 2006

Scope of the Overview

C.1 The Chemistry Programme carried out annual reviews of its portfolio prior to the programme restructuring. The EPSRC Chemistry Strategic Advisory Team was the main audience for these reviews (the role of the Strategic Advisory Team is described in the ‘Support for Science & Innovation in the UK’ document), although copies of the reviews are made available on request. This document presents a summary of the most recent such review, undertaken in 2006.

C.2 The Chemistry Programme carried out the review at the level of its six sub-areas: • Analytical Science; • Biological Related Chemistry; • Catalysis & Surfaces; • Materials Related Chemistry; • Physical Chemistry; and • Synthetic chemistry.

Overview of Programme

C.3 Historically the objectives of the Chemistry Programme were to: • Maintain the health of the chemistry discipline through the support of high quality research. • Support key areas of chemistry research that offer particular scientific and industrial opportunities. • Facilitate research opportunities at the interfaces with other disciplines. • Provide support for a sufficient supply of postgraduate researchers in chemistry with the skills required to meet the needs of industry, public bodies and academia.

C.4 In the period to 2006 at least 60% of the Programme’s annual research grant commitment was used for responsive mode. Emphasis was placed on the flexibility of responsive mode funding and the level of more managed activities was kept relatively low. The chemistry peer review panel was introduced in 2000, replacing three smaller panels. The chemistry panel worked well and provided the opportunity to operate a separate ranking list for research proposals to encourage critical mass. This mechanism facilitated funding for shared research equipment, networks and more major programmes of research.

National Services & Equipment rich proposals

C.5 In 2006 the Chemistry Programme supported six services for the chemistry community through research grants. Chemistry national services operate where a single centre of equipment and expertise offers cost effective support for the UK chemistry community. In 2006 the six services were: • Mass Spectrometry (Swansea) • EPR Spectroscopy (Manchester) • Solid State NMR (Durham) • X-ray Crystallography (Southampton) • Computational Chemistry Service (Imperial College) • Chemical Database Service (CCLRC, now STFC).

- 70 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - C-2

Analytical Science

C.6 Historically Analytical Science has been a small component of the chemistry programme portfolio both in number of grants and overall level of funding. The majority of EPSRC funding for this theme has come from a variety of managed programmes, only one of which is led by the chemistry programme. There has been no dedicated managed programme since 1999. This movement away from measurement techniques solely for the chemical sciences is reflected by the main research groups generally not being located within major chemistry departments. Research in technique development is often single application focussed such as for environmental or pharmaceutical analysis.

C.7 The main research centres which engage with EPSRC are at Manchester, York, Sheffield and Imperial. However the portfolio of funded grants is disparate with many institutions having less than one grant equivalent. In an attempt to develop the area, EPSRC and the Analytical Division of the Royal Society of Chemistry funded three research chairs in analytical science at Manchester, York and Sheffield.

Biological Related Chemistry

C.8 Evaluation of this theme is difficult because historically the Chemistry Programme has included only a small section of the research work in this area – in particular other work has been funded by BBSRC under Biomolecular Sciences (BMS) and Engineering and Biological Systems (EBS). Also, although this theme includes main stream synthesis and spectroscopy, some work appears to be missing from the EPSRC portfolio: bioinorganic chemistry, metalloprotein chemistry, co-ordination chemistry, electrochemistry and bioorganic chemistry.

C.9 Biologically related chemistry corresponds to approximately 10% of the total chemistry programme portfolio. A significant proportion of the funding has gone to ten universities: Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester, Exeter, UCL, Imperial College, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Edinburgh.

Catalysis & Surfaces

C.10 This is one of the smaller themes in chemistry, equivalent to about 15% of the Chemistry Programme portfolio. It has historically been funded primarily through responsive mode, although there has also been funding from the ‘Speculative research leading to greener chemistry’ managed programme. The main research centres are Cambridge, Nottingham, Liverpool, Queen’s University (Belfast) and Cardiff. Although the number of collaborative grants (with industry or overseas institutions) has been very high, the value of the collaborative contributions has in general been very small. The CARMAC and ATHENA collaborations are noticeable exceptions to this and bring together leading multidisciplinary teams with major industry funding. However, now these strong research networks are in place, the community needs to look further ahead to identify key research challenges. The changing nature of the links between universities and individual companies, with increased company outsourcing of research, may pose a threat to the diversity and nature of research in the future.

Materials Related Chemistry

C.11 In the materials related chemistry theme, funding has been distributed over a large number of small grants and a small number of First Grant awards and Faraday partnerships. There is one IRC included: the Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration in Nanotechnology at the engineering department, University of Cambridge. Much of the research connects with the materials programme with funding predominantly in the areas of functional organics and polymers, magnetic materials and structural polymers.

Physical Chemistry

C.12 Physical chemistry has historically constituted about one third of the Chemistry Programme portfolio and has been primarily supported through responsive mode; there are no current managed programmes. The main research centres are Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, UCL (including the Royal Institution) and Nottingham. The two Portfolio Partnerships funded by the Chemistry Programme are in this theme: one is in spectroscopy of reaction dynamics held jointly by Bristol and Oxford; the other is in the theory of condensed matter and is held jointly by the chemistry and physics departments

- 71 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - C-3

at Cambridge. In theoretical chemistry, there have been several consortia, including the Collaborative Computational Projects (CCPs), which make use of and facilitate the use of high-end computing.

C.13 A Science and Innovation Award has been used to address the declining capacity in Physical Organic Chemistry (POC): a managed programme is currently underway at Cardiff. The problem had been identified in previous chemistry evaluation reports, by the Chemistry Strategic Advisory Team, and also by the Chemistry Leadership Council’s Innovation Task Force.

Synthetic chemistry

C.14 Historically Synthetic chemistry has been the second largest theme within the chemistry programme, by both current grant value and number. It covers asymmetric chemistry, carbohydrate chemistry, chemical synthetic methodology, combinatorial chemistry and co-ordination chemistry. In general, funding for synthetic chemistry research has been distributed over a large number of small grants, although a few large (£1M to £3M) programme grants have been funded through responsive mode. Much of the synthetic research connects with the biological related chemistry, catalysis and surfaces and materials related chemistry themes. The main research centres funded by EPSRC include Cambridge, Oxford, Cardiff, Bristol and Nottingham.

- 72 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - D-1

Annex D Additional Bibliometric Evidence

Introduction

D.1 Bibliometric data relating to chemistry publications are included below to provide the Panel with information on the relative performance of the UK internationally. The information was sourced from the ISI Web of Knowledge in February 2008.

Some Caveats

D.2 When using bibliometric methods to analyse research performance a number of limitations need to be borne in mind. The underpinning data is often incomplete and can be subject to human error. Varying degrees of bias can be introduced by changes in the relative popularity of research fields and behavioural differences depending on the research field and country. In addition, international coverage is problematic: although ISI indexes journals from 60 countries, the coverage is uneven with few non- English language publications included, and very few from the less-developed countries. Lastly, citations are not always an indication of quality - not all work is cited because of its excellence. Taken together these factors mean that a simple count of citations may be a poor proxy for the real “impact” of an investigator’s work within the research community.

D.3 Despite these cautions citation rates are internationally recognized as a useful indicator of relative research quality in research fields where the journal coverage is good and where publication in journals is the usual mode of disseminating research outputs. It is possible to exclude self citations, and studies have shown strong correlation between citations and quality assessed by other means, such as peer review.

D.4 ISI Include the following topics in their ‘Chemistry’ category: Analytical chemistry Food chemistry chemical Spectroscopy Methods and structures Instrumentation Natural and laboratory syntheses Inorganic and nuclear chemistry Isolation and analysis of Organic chemistry Clinically significant molecules Physical chemistry Medicinal chemistry Polymer science Chemical engineering.

Global Citation Rates

D.5 Table D-1 presents global citation rates for chemistry in five year intervals since 2000.

Table D-1 UK Chemistry 5 year interval citation rates (ISI)

Five years intervals 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007 2004-2008 Number of papers 32,335 32,616 32,590 32,462 32,456 Times cited 164,429 176,839 188,872 196,404 211,427 Citations per paper 5.09 5.42 5.80 6.05 6.51

- 73 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - D-2

D.6 Table D-2 presents the top 30 countries ranked by the total number of citations over the 10 years to February 2008 in the ISI-defined field of chemistry. Data for the UK is collected by the constituent countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The overall position for the UK is 4th.

Table D-2 Country rankings for Chemistry field (top 30 ISI)

Ranking Country Papers Citations Citations/paper 1 USA 230,276 3,637,375 15.80 2 JAPAN 120,346 1,193,569 9.92 3 GERMANY 98,801 1,154,166 11.68 4 UK 69,195 857,576 12.39 5 PEOPLES R CHINA 144,325 745,561 5.17 6 FRANCE 67,516 729,884 10.81 7 SPAIN 44,904 451,437 10.05 8 ITALY 42,251 448,895 10.62 9 CANADA 32,961 386,568 11.73 10 INDIA 57,086 318,876 5.59 11 NETHERLANDS 19,267 302,158 15.68 12 SWITZERLAND 18,491 280,051 15.15 13 SOUTH KOREA 33,240 251,996 7.58 14 SWEDEN 15,069 196,766 13.06 15 AUSTRALIA 18,217 192,542 10.57 16 RUSSIA 61,426 192,420 3.13 17 POLAND 28,243 166,371 5.89 18 BELGIUM 13,074 142,278 10.88 19 TAIWAN 18,744 139,819 7.46 20 ISRAEL 8,883 115,645 13.02 21 BRAZIL 17,950 113,611 6.33 22 DENMARK 7,338 108,658 14.81 23 AUSTRIA 8,389 88,199 10.51 24 CZECH REPUBLIC 10,628 78,516 7.39 25 HUNGARY 8,539 65,226 7.64 26 FINLAND 6,734 63,029 9.36 27 SINGAPORE 6,453 62,934 9.75 28 GREECE 7,079 62,453 8.82 29 PORTUGAL 7,821 60,826 7.78 30 TURKEY 11,953 60,274 5.04

- 74 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - D-3

Global Institution Rankings

D.7 ISI lists a total of 875 academic/industry-based research institutions globally, of which there are 53 from the UK. Based on cites per paper the ranking of UK institutions ranges from 13th to 871st. The UK has five out of the top 100 institutions based on number of citations; and seven out of the top 100 based on number of papers. Four of the top 100 institutions in terms of citations per papers are from the UK; these are Cambridge Display Technology (2nd), the Cambridge Crystallogical Data Centre (5th), the SERC Daresbury Laboratory (now a part of STFC)(77th), and Queen’s University (Belfast) (95th). Table D-3 presents the rank order of the top 20 UK universities ordered by citations.

Table D-3 World ranking of UK universities Chemistry citation rates (number of citations (ISI))

World World World ranking Citations ranking ranking (citations Institution Papers Citations per paper (papers) (citations) per paper) Cambridge 4,817 84,435 17.53 27 12 115 Oxford 4,398 65,057 14.79 34 26 215 Imperial College 3,574 61,006 17.07 46 29 126 Bristol 2,295 35,654 15.54 117 83 182 UCL 2,689 34,165 12.71 80 91 323 Manchester 2,981 31,924 10.71 63 103 493 Nottingham 2,446 31,463 12.86 96 107 312 Sheffield 2,018 30,010 14.87 155 117 211 Durham 2,063 28,442 13.79 150 129 258 Leeds 2,448 28,411 11.61 95 130 415 York 1,510 26,951 17.85 253 142 108 Southampton 2,220 26,435 11.91 130 145 393 Liverpool 1,416 23,877 16.86 277 170 131 Queens (Belfast) 1,245 22,765 18.29 330 181 95 Edinburgh 1,740 21,697 12.47 198 199 344 Birmingham 1,578 20,903 13.25 234 209 288 Warwick 1,420 20,523 14.45 276 215 227 Sussex 1,409 19,804 14.06 281 222 244 St Andrews 1,724 16,979 9.85 203 258 565 Cardiff 1,442 16,972 11.77 269 259 403

Citation Ratings of EPSRC Researchers

D.8 Analysis has shown that approximately 1760, or 36%, of researchers supported by EPSRC during the five years 2001-2005 inclusive were awarded 80% of the total research funding. To assess the performance of this group relative to others in the UK and the rest of the world we commissioned Evidence Ltd. in 2006 to carry out a study of their citation impact profiles17. Their report showed that this group generally have better citation profiles than other UK researchers, and also that the majority of UK output in chemistry-related fields is above world average in terms of citations. Sections of the report relevant to chemistry are available upon request. A more recent study is yet to be commissioned.

17 The methodology behind citation impact profiles is described in detail in a report published by the Higher Education Policy Institute – see http://www.hepi.ac.uk/pubdetail.asp?ID=213&DOC=reports

- 75 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - E-1

Annex E Additional International Engagement

International Interactions

E.1 A key role of EPSRC is to enable collaboration between the UK and the international research community. EPSRC’s strategy is to maintain the UK’s position for high-quality research and training, and to provide opportunities for the UK’s researchers to collaborate internationally.

E.2 EPSRC uses its comprehensive knowledge of UK research to make sure that the best UK research organisations are working with the best organisations from the rest of the world, and it works with other organisations to help researchers to get maximum value from international organisations and opportunities

E.3 The strategy seeks to achieve these objectives through: • Providing funding for UK researchers to collaborate internationally with their chosen partners. • Helping UK researchers to do well from European Union programmes. The Framework Programme has many opportunities and EPSRC, together with other organisations, can provide help and support to ensure that UK research is well connected into the European Research Area. • Working closely with other UK organisations involved in international research, including Research Councils UK (RCUK), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS), the British Council, the Royal Society and the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO). • Being well-informed about international science policy developments to make sure that EPSRC’s decisions are informed by current international thinking. • Involving the international research community in EPSRC activities, particularly through International Reviews and the involvement of overseas researchers, especially from target countries, in peer review.

E.4 The strategy places emphasis on developing contacts with the following specified countries: • Europe • Japan • USA • China • India

E.5 Table E-1 illustrates the international chemistry collaborations within EPSRC by country since 2003 by a simple count of all grants involving a degree of international interaction with the principal investigator, and includes mechanisms such as incoming and outgoing visiting fellowships. It can be seen that the strongest interactions are with the United States and Germany, but there are also good links across Europe.

Table E-1 International collaborations on grants within the EPSRC Chemistry Portfolio since 2003

No of No of Country Country collaborations collaborations United States 50 Ireland 3 Germany 31 South Africa 3 France 28 Switzerland 3 Netherlands 21 Austria 1 Canada 9 Czech Republic 1 Sweden 9 Denmark 1 Belgium 7 Greece 1 Japan 6 Serbia and Montenegro 1 Australia 5 Singapore 1 Italy 5 Ireland 3 Spain 5 South Africa 3 Grand Total 191

- 76 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - E-2

E.6 Table E-2 shows the number and different kinds of chemistry investments (Grants, Missions) with formal international involvements during the period 2003-08.

Table E-2 Number of EPSRC Chemistry investments (Grants, Missions) with formal international involvements (2003-2008)

Number of grants/activities/missions Grants with International Partners 113 Visiting fellows 32 Overseas travel grants 10 INTERACT 2 EuroCORES 1

E.7 EPSRC international strategy should be seen within the context of the RCUK international strategy which is available via the RCUK website18.

18 See http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/international.pdf

- 77 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - F-1

Annex F Evidence of Impact

Knowledge Transfer Network

F.1 ‘Chemistry Innovation’ KTN is the UK’s leading chemistry knowledge transfer network, set up in 2006 and with a portfolio of collaborative projects which is valued at over £50 million. It aims to improve innovation performance across the UK chemistry-using industries by providing the focus and stimulus to support product and process innovation that will deliver growth and sustainability through a coherent national strategy. The Chemistry Innovation KTN works closely with EPSRC and learned societies to support more effective Knowledge transfer from the science base.

F.2 Chemistry Innovation has established the blueprint for a national innovation strategy for the chemistry- using industries. This has involved extensive consultation with industry and academia, resulting in the establishment of seven key priority areas that are aligned with TSB and European strategies.

Chemistry Innovation’s strategic objectives are to:

• deliver improved industrial performance through innovation and new collaborations by driving the flow of people, knowledge and experience between business and the science base, between businesses and across sectors • drive knowledge transfer between the supply and demand sides of technology-enabled markets through a high quality, easy to use service • facilitate innovation & knowledge transfer by providing unique network opportunities for industry/academia - individuals and organisations - in the UK/internationally • provide a coherent business voice to inform government of technology needs and issues that enhance or inhibit innovation in the UK.

F.3 Chemistry Innovation helps generate collaborative projects involving industry and academics which have been shown to generate significant value added for the chemistry using industries. Additionally Chemistry Innovation facilitates knowledge transfer events to enable technology suppliers and academics to meet and develop new business partnerships and research collaborations.

Chemistry Innovation Case Studies

F.4 Chemistry Innovation and EPSRC collaborated on a KITE (Knowledge and Innovation Transfer) event with representatives from industry and academia aimed at identifying more sustainable solvents for industrial use. Bioniqs, a small company in the sector generated a new application with multi-million pound potential for use of green solvents in the recovery of valuable materials from waste electronic equipment.

F.5 The Susman project which aims to develop tools for improving manufacturing efficiency in the chemistry-using industries is an example of a project which has generated approximately £200m of value to the UK chemical manufacturing sector and £10m of leveraged funds across related projects. The value to industry was immediate due to direct interaction of academics, project members and chemical companies. The use of EPSRC ideas factories and sandpits was crucial in the delivery of value.

F.6 Application of the spinning disc reactor to food processing. The spinning disc reactor was originally developed for chemical and pharmaceutical processing. Work by the developers Protensive and the University of Leeds has now shown that the technology has considerable benefits in replacing existing methods of product mixing during food and drink production as well as reducing product contamination and allowing the creation new flavour systems for products such as sauces. Research at Leeds has demonstrated outstanding performance in manufacture of difficult food products such as mayonnaise.

- 78 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - G-1

Annex G Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)

G.1 This annex provides an introduction to the RAE, the 2008 RAE results and an analysis of trends in previous RAE results and submissions.

Introduction

G.2 The purpose of the Research Assessment Exercise is to rate the quality of research conducted in universities and higher education colleges in the UK. The quality ratings, together with data on the number of research active staff, are used to inform the allocation of over £1 billion per year for unspecified research by the Funding Councils.

G.3 The last RAE was in 2008, and further assessments were carried out in 2001, 1996 and 1992. The results which are relevant to chemistry are presented here.

G.4 The RAE is a process of peer review by experts of high standing covering all subjects. All research assessed is allocated to one of 68 discipline-based ‘units of assessment’ (UoA), each with a panel of experts to agree ratings using their professional skills, expertise and experience: it is not a mechanistic process. Assessment is by voluntary submission of evidence to a panel; submissions consist of information about the academic unit being assessed, with details of up to four publications and other research outputs for each member of research-active staff.

RAE 2008 Results

G.5 The 2008 RAE results are presented below; further details will be available on request. Assessed research outputs were allocated a quality rating as defined in Table G-1 (with any submitted outputs below national quality or not recognised as research being unclassified). Quality judgements were then aggregated to create an overall ‘quality profile’ to describe each submission received. The quality profiles for submissions to the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering sub panels are given in Table G-2 and Table G-3 respectively. The submissions are ranked by the ‘Quality Index’, a weighted score proposed by HEFCE to help determine future funding allocations. The formula used is: QI = {(4*% x 7) + (3*% x 3) + (2*% x 1)} 7 Research rated 1* or unclassified is omitted. In the tables ‘’ denotes the universities being visited/met with by the Chemistry International Review panel.

Table G-1 Definitions of 2008 RAE ratings

Rating Description 4* Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and 3* rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence. Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance 2* and rigour. Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and 1* rigour. Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work Unclassified which does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this assessment.

- 79 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - G-2

Table G-2 Chemistry unit of assessment 2008 RAE ratings

Overall quality profile (percentage of research activity at each quality level)

FTE Category A Quality staff submitted 4* 3* 2* 1* unclassified Index University of Cambridge† 62.95 40 40 20 0 0 60.0 University of Nottingham† 35 30 55 15 0 0 55.7 University of Oxford† 73.9 30 45 25 0 0 52.9

Joint submission: Universities of 76.89 30 40 30 0 0 51.4 Edinburgh and St Andrews† University of Bristol† 67 25 50 25 0 0 50.0 Imperial College London† 53.1 20 55 25 0 0 47.1 University of Leeds† 37.2 20 50 30 0 0 45.7 University of Liverpool† 37.1 20 50 25 5 0 45.0 University of Manchester† 58.3 20 45 35 0 0 44.3 University of Warwick† 32.8 15 60 25 0 0 44.3 University of York† 46.71 15 60 25 0 0 44.3 University of Durham† 42.6 20 45 30 5 0 43.6 University of Sheffield† 33.7 15 55 30 0 0 42.9 University College London† 53.75 15 50 35 0 0 41.4

Joint submission: Universities of 51.4 10 60 25 5 0 39.3 Glasgow† and Strathclyde† Cardiff University† 36.57 10 50 40 0 0 37.1 University of Birmingham 22 10 50 35 5 0 36.4 University of Southampton† 41.2 10 50 35 5 0 36.4 University of Bath† 28 5 55 40 0 0 34.3 Heriot-Watt University 19 10 40 50 0 0 34.3 University of Sussex 21 10 40 45 5 0 33.6 University of East Anglia 30 5 50 45 0 0 32.9 Bangor University 12 10 35 45 10 0 31.4 University of Hull 26 5 45 45 5 0 30.7 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 23 5 40 50 5 0 29.3 Queen's University Belfast 32.6 5 40 50 5 0 29.3 University of Leicester 21.8 5 35 55 5 0 27.9 University of Aberdeen 12 5 35 55 5 0 27.9 Loughborough University 25.33 0 25 70 5 0 20.7 University of Reading 28 0 25 65 10 0 20.0 University of Huddersfield 10 0 25 50 25 0 17.9

- 80 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - G-3

Table G-3 Chemical Engineering unit of assessment 2008 RAE ratings

Overall quality profile (percentage of research activity at each quality level)

FTE Category A Quality staff submitted 4* 3* 2* 1* unclassified Index University of Cambridge† 30.5 30 55 15 0 0 55.7 Imperial College London† 38 30 55 15 0 0 55.7 University of Manchester† 32.73 25 60 15 0 0 52.9 University of Birmingham 26.4 20 45 30 5 0 43.6 University College London† 27 15 60 20 5 0 43.6 University of Sheffield† 20 15 40 40 5 0 37.9 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 25.25 10 50 35 5 0 36.4 University of Bath† 13 10 45 40 5 0 35.0 Heriot-Watt University 11.4 10 35 40 15 0 30.7 University of Strathclyde† 11 5 35 35 25 0 25.0

RAE 2008 Sub-panel Subject Overviews

G.6 Each of the 67 RAE2008 sub-panels produced an overview report of their discipline, based on the evidence provided in submissions. The Chemistry and Chemical Engineering units were assessed by different panels, so the layout of the reports varies, though both discuss similar topics, including research strengths, the research environment, and the interactions with industry and other stakeholders. These overviews are available on request from EPSRC, or at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov/.

Previous RAE Results

G.7 Figure G-1 shows that there has been a steady improvement in the selected group of institutions. However it is important to note that after RAEs it is usual for several lowly-ranked departments to close, hence the total numbers of institutions entering the assessment have gradually decreased since 1992. Key examples of these include the closures of the pure chemistry departments of Essex after the 1996 RAE, when it achieved a rating of 2, and Exeter’s in 2005, after it had achieved a rating of 4 in the 2001 RAE. The number of staff submitted has also gradually decreased.

G.8 The data below was derived by using only those institutions which were present in the 1992, 1996 and 2001 RAEs, in order to gain a direct comparison (in 2008 a different rating system was used). In total there were 45 institutions in the Chemistry UoA, and 15 in Chemical Engineering19, and these are listed in Table G-4.

19 For full results of previous RAEs, and the rating definitions please refer to http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/; http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/rae96/ and http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/rae92/.

- 81 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 2 Information for the Panel Background Data - G-4

Figure G-1 RAE ratings for ‘Chemistry’ and ‘Chemical Engineering’ (1992, 1996, 2001); no. of institutions and staff submitted to RAE (1992, 1996, 2001 and 2008)

Number of Chemistry Number of Category Institutions A/A* Staff Increasing Quality Submitted 2008 n/a 33 1150.9

2001 3b 3a 4 5 5* 45 1300.2

1996 2 3b 3a 4 5 5* 62 1369.1

1992 1 2 3b/3a4 5/5* 67 1387.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of Chemical Engineering Number of Category Institutions A/A* Staff Increasing Quality Submitted

2008 n/a 10 235.3

2001 3b 3a 4 5 5* 17 293.6

1996 2 3b 3a 4 5 5* 20 333.1

1992 2 3b/3a 4 5/5* 23 359.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Table G-4 Institutions included in RAE data

Institutions included in Institutions included in Chemistry RAE Data Chemical Engineering RAE Data University of Bath† University of Liverpool† University of Sussex University of Bath† University of Birmingham Loughborough University University College London† University of Birmingham University of Bristol† University of Manchester† University of Warwick† University of Bradford University of Cambridge† UMIST2 University of York† University of Cambridge† De Montfort University University of Newcastle University of Aberdeen Imperial College† University of Durham† University of Northumbria University of Edinburgh† Loughborough University University of East Anglia University of Nottingham† University of Glasgow† UMIST2 University of Exeter Nottingham Trent University Heriot-Watt University University of Newcastle University of Huddersfield Open University University of St Andrews† South Bank University University of Hull University of Oxford† University of Strathclyde† University of Surrey1 † Queen Mary, University of N.E. Wales Inst. of Higher † Imperial College University College London London Education Keele University University of Reading University of Wales, Bangor University of Edinburgh† King's College London University of Sheffield† University of Wales, Swansea Glasgow Caledonian University University of Leeds† University of Southampton† Cardiff University† Heriot-Watt University University of Leicester University of Surrey Queen's University, Belfast Queen's University,Belfast

1 Surrey included 2 departments in the 2001 RAE, only the rating for the Department of Chemical Engineering was included 2 Now merged with University of Manchester † The Institutions which will be visited by the panel

- 82 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation

CHAPTER 3

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE CHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL REVIEW

Arranged in sections by the Evidence Framework high level questions A-H

Each section is preceded by a single page summary of the key points made. This summary is reproduced in full at the end of the chapter

This is followed by a single page with links to each response submitted to facilitate easy navigation through the document

INDEX

A What is the impact on a global scale of the UK Chemistry research community both in terms of research quality and the profile of researchers?

B To what extent are UK researchers engaged in "best with best" science- driven international interactions?

C What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous research base and portfolio?

D To what extent is the UK chemistry community addressing key technological/societal challenges through engaging in new researh opportunities?

E To what extent is the chemistry research base interacting with other disciplines and multidisciplinary research?

F What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides?

G To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness?

H To what extent is the UK able to attract talented young scientists and engineers into chemistry research? Is there evidence that they are being nurtured and supported at every stage of their career?

Response Key Point Summaries

A B

C D

E F

G H

- 83 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A A What is the impact on a global scale of the UK Chemistry research community both in terms of research quality and the profile of researchers? (return to Main Index) The following key points were highlighted:

• Many of the university responses pointed to the recent Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) results as an indicator of the proportion of internationally leading chemistry research being carried out in the UK

• Chemistry sub-topics which were consistently rated as areas of strength in UK chemistry research in the submissions were: Materials Chemistry Supramolecular Chemistry Computational Chemistry and Modelling Synthesis (in general, with a specific emphasis on organic synthesis) Structural Chemistry

• Sub-topics which were highlighted in several responses as being weak in the UK were: • Research at the chemistry-chemical engineering interface • Measurement science

• Sub-topics on which there was disagreement regarding UK strength were: • Physical Organic Chemistry • Inorganic Chemistry

• Many of the submissions highlighted the central nature of the chemical sciences, and how they link to and underpin many other areas of science and engineering

• In general, comments focused on the key role academic research has to play in industry, both in ‘traditional’ sectors such as the fine chemical and pharmaceutical industries, but also in the personal care and fast-moving consumer goods industries

• The majority of submissions from academic departments highlighted concerns about the balance of investigator-led research versus priority areas for funding

• Although many submissions commented on the importance of maintaining funding for investigator-led, fundamental research, there was significant support for developing focused approaches and shared visions (e.g. through Grand Challenges)

• Several submissions raised issues around the training environment in the UK, although no cohesive trend could be drawn out • Some felt that investment over the past decade had created a research and training environment and infrastructure which were second to none, whilst others felt the UK is lagging behind international competitors

- 84 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

West Panel visits: University of Bath University of Bristol University of Cardiff (no response against individual framework questions) University of Liverpool University of Manchester University of Nottingham University of Oxford University of Southampton University of Warwick (no response against individual framework questions)

East Panel visits: University of Cambridge University of Durham University of East Anglia (2 submissions) University of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) University of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) Imperial College London University College London (confidential content blacked-out) University of Leeds University of Sheffield University of York

Others: Chemistry Innovation Biosciences Federation Institute of Physics (IoP) Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) AstraZeneca Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) University of Leicester Keele University University of Reading Aston University University of Hull Queen’s University Belfast Queen Mary, University of London University of Surrey Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)

- 85 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A Response by University of Bath

Areas highlighted as internationally leading by RAE2008 include Computational Chemistry, Green Chemistry, Heterogeneous Catalysis, Solid State and Materials Chemistry, Supramolecular Chemistry and Nanoscience and Organic Synthesis. At Bath we would add to this list Structural Chemistry (supported by world-leading central facilities at ISIS, Diamond, ILL and ESRF) and the still emerging area Sustainable Chemistry (which is broader in scope than Green Chemistry in addressing key societal and technological challenges). With continued support these latter two areas will represent major opportunities for growth for chemistry and chemistry-related science in the UK and at Bath. Integration of Chemistry with Chemical Engineering to address applied research areas remains a potential weakness in the UK relative to the US, the Netherlands and Germany (for example). Although this interface has become a strength at Bath (e.g., recent award of £7.5m for a Doctoral Training Centre based at the Chem-Chem Eng interface), nationally it would benefit from continued targeted funding, closer interaction with industry, and the creation of senior academic posts in applied chemical sciences, possibly involving transfer of expertise from industry to academia.

As ever, a major threat to key areas remains funding and, in particular, the balance between providing directed funding for managed areas and the need for adequate provision for fundamental user-led chemistry research, which is vital to maintain the health of innovative and adventurous chemistry in the UK.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

UK Position. The UK is in the top 4 countries in chemical research, alongside Germany and Japan, with the US as the world leader. The UK has a very broad range of World-class activity in most areas in groupings ranging in size from large collaborative intra- and/or interdisciplinary units through to high profile individuals in smaller chemistry and non- chemistry departments. The larger departments have a broad range of high profile activities whilst many pockets of excellence exist in smaller departments. The SoC falls into the former category and has World-class to internationally leading activity in eight broad and interconnected research themes (see Principal Research Group returns). The following highlights provide evidence of Bristol’s contribution to the UK’s global position. The Spectroscopy and Dynamics group is pioneering studies of non-adiabatic photochemical and bimolecular reaction dynamics, for instance the dynamics at conical intersections between potential energy surfaces involved in the photodissociation of aromatic organic molecules (Science, 2006, 312, 1637). In synthesis, Aggarwal’s Nature article on a novel synthesis of enantiopure tertiary alcohols that relies simply on choosing the type of boron reagent (2008, 456, 778) was cited in CEN as “one of the top 12 papers in 2008.” Booker- Milburn has provided a solution to large scale photochemistry by developing a photochemical flow process and employing it in one of the shortest syntheses of the stemona alkaloids (J. Org. Chem., 2008, 73, 6497). The strength of synthetic polymer and materials chemistry is evidenced by Manners's 5 papers in Science and Nature journals since 2006. Bristol and the UK in general are strong in biological chemistry/chemical biology. Examples of world-leading groups in the area at Bristol include: the polyketide group led by Simpson; bio-inorganic chemistry (Mann); protein folding and design (Clarke and Booth, Biochemistry) and Woolfson. The UK in general and Bristol in particular has a very strong representation in supramolecular chemistry, a recent example is the production of a “Synthetic Lectin” as a highly selective biomimetic carbohydrate receptor (Science, 2007, 318, 619). There is broad range of innovative catalysis tackling issues from new, sustainable transformations, the generation and application of novel feedstocks and application to energy challenges such as hydrogen storage (e.g. catalytic dehydogenation of aminoboranes to high MW polyaminoboranes, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6212). There is rapidly expanding development and application of computational methodology

- 86 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A across a wide variety of phenomena, for instance quantum tunnelling in enzymes (Mulholland, Science, 2006) and the application of informatics to predictive catalyst design. Bristol's Atmospheric and Global Change Biogeochemistry Group lead major international collaborations and have made fundamental contributions to understanding past and future global change (e.g. Pancost, Terrestrial methanotrophy at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Nature, 2007, 449, 332).

Opportunities, Threats and Weaknesses. UK Government investment in the science base over the last decade has led to a marked improvement in facilities and infrastructure. Coupling this with more flexible funding for overseas researchers would allow the UK to become significantly more competitive in the recruitment and retention of top quality, international PG students and PDRAs.

The global downturn is obviously going to bring an element of the unknown over the next few years, this coupled with the specific problems associated with the restructuring of global pharma is likely to have a profound influence. However this also presents opportunities, for instance as pharma adopts new discovery models, emphasis moves towards smaller biotechs and specialist SMEs. This will provide a potentially highly fertile ground for collaborative research. Global challenges and emergent technologies also provide new opportunities, for instance the application of nano- and bio-materials to healthcare and the application of new catalysis and methodology to the development of sustainable processes, new feedstocks and fuel generation and use. The UK is in a good position to address growth areas as our best researchers are used to thinking independently and creatively and forging new collaborative efforts. It is important to stress here that over-reliance of top-down initiatives is unlikely to improve upon this, but instead may lead to increased conservatism and less creative solutions. By contrast responsive mode funding should be protected as it allows maximum flexibility and delivers the most creative and adventurous research.

There are no significant gaps in the UK research base due to the diverse spread of expertise across the sector, however the development of critical mass in areas where individual research effort is less effective can be an issue. Critical mass fostering exercises proceed well in a responsive manner. For instance synthetic biology presents a major opportunity for chemists, at Bristol and in the UK as a whole, to develop links with other physical scientists, engineers and biologists to develop a true UK-approach to this emerging area. The growth of synthetic biology at Bristol occurred rapidly and effectively, facilitated by key strategic appointments and the consequent development of natural synergies, rather than by being led by external top-down initiatives. Similarly the emergence of synergies between POC, computational, photochemical and methodology groupings has led to both detailed mechanistic insight (e.g. Harvey/Aggarwal/Lloyd-Jones, mechanism of the Baylis- Hillman reaction: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 15513; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 1706) and the delivery of innovative new synthesis (e.g. Booker-Milburn/Orr-Ewing: Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 2283; J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 3078).

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

Chemistry as a discipline underpins a wide range of societal needs in areas such as energy, medicine, and consumer products. The impact of Chemistry research is sometimes obvious – for example, in the pharmaceuticals sector – but there are also many end-users of Chemistry who are not always identified as “chemical”. One example would be Home and Personal Care companies such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble. The UK is an international leader in some but not all areas of Chemistry research. Both the academic and private sectors contribute to the UK’s strength in chemical research; however, the “lifeblood” of the discipline will remain in fundamental research carried out at Universities. It is therefore essential that the UK continues to support fundamental chemistry in parallel with more focused activities – for example, the Grand Challenges exercise. Enhanced

- 87 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A multidisciplinarity in UK Chemistry research is a clear opportunity and some societal challenges may require this. On the other hand, a research environment where interdisciplinarity is a virtual prerequisite for funding is a threat to innovation and should be avoided. There are many “pillars” of UK Chemistry research which can be developed not in isolation but by focused teams with a good and up-to-date understanding of the interdisciplinary challenges. There are examples here in theory and in development of new synthetic methodology. This also applies to tackling Grand Challenges; for example, solar energy conversion requires fundamental “hard” physics and chemistry developments before it is even relevant to engineers and device manufacturers. Likewise, maintaining a strong basic organic synthetic methodology capability in the UK underpins challenges such as health and many developments in materials chemistry. Specific areas of UK excellence include, but are not limited to, materials discovery, materials modelling and computational chemistry. We suggest that impact can be obtained by focussing resource our best individuals to compete in research areas that they deem important and allowing these groups to tailor the programme to the most relevant problems.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

The UK is an international leader in some areas of chemistry research, particularly chemical biology and materials chemistry. The RAE2008 research quality profile for the School of Chemistry shows 100% are recognised internationally, 65% world leading or internationally excellent. Chemistry in UK academia has a strong commitment to teaching, training and research in core fundamental chemistry, which underpins many developments in related branches of science and industry. The funding and support of new themes of chemical research, designated priority areas and grand challenges is essential and provides a major challenge and focus for the community. However, it is also essential to maintain funding and support for core chemistry. Whilst agenda driven research can provide great opportunities for chemistry, this should not come at the expense of funding and support for core fundamental chemistry.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

The evidence from the recent 2008 RAE exercise is that nationally 15% of chemistry staff are engaged in world-leading research. At Nottingham, with 90% of Staff returned in the Nottingham submission (35 out of 39), 30% of its research activity was rated as 'world leading' (4*), and a total of 85% of activity either 4* or 3*('internationally excellent'). Notable strengths in Nottingham were identified as novel theoretical treatments of excited states of solvated molecules, synthetic methodology and total synthesis.

Generally the contribution of UK Chemistry through high-impact publications, leading EU consortia and knowledge transfer is significant and extends across a broad spectrum of the subject from synthesis, through materials, structural, supramolecular and biological chemistry to spectroscopy and chemical physics.

The RAE represents the single most significant evaluation of Chemistry research to have taken place in the past decade. Overall the research quality appears to be good in most areas covered by the research profile of Nottingham. However, unless support is maintained for Chemistry as a core discipline, research quality and impact could rapidly diminish in those areas that are not, at first sight, perceived as being of technological or economic significance. Examples of the latter would be theoretical and gas phase physical chemistry, where in some areas it could become difficult to attract funding. End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘A’ response list)

- 88 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A Response by University of Oxford The RAE 2008 Chemistry Panel’s subject overview report identified important areas where the UK was internationally strong or leading (15% of all outputs was considered to be world- leading nationally, or 30% if considering Oxford directly), including Atmospheric and Gas Phase Chemistry. Chemical Biology, Computational Chemistry, Heterogeneous Catalysis and Surface Science, Solid state and Functional materials, Supramolecular chemistry and physico-chemical engineering of nanoscale systems, organic synthesis. These are all areas in which Oxford is making major contributions to the UK’s international position. It is vital that Oxford and the UK as a whole builds on these strengths and develops new areas that will drive the direction of basic science and prepare our economy for the future. The UK is acknowledged as one of the international leaders in chemical research but continued investment in basic research is absolutely essential if we are to sustain and build on our current position, and help meet the global economy and challenges. Given the current economic climate it is vital the scientific research in the UK is fostered if we are to thrive as a nation in the 21st Century. Chemistry is “underrated” – there is a need to increase the appreciation of what the UK chemistry research community already does and can do as a central enabling science. Other UK Strengths: • We view chemistry as a central science that links almost all other research activities and technological advances ranging from bio-medicinal research to computational sciences. These links to other disciplines are well developed in the UK, especially in institutions such as this one where there is world-class strength across a very broad range of science, engineering and medicine. • Organic Chemistry and Chemical Biology underpin and drive the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries. • Research and teaching sit together side-by-side in the UK education system, producing a highly talented pool of scientific researchers. • Enabling research can be supported through both the responsive mechanism (principally) and by directed themes. Future Threats and barriers: (i) Money for large equipment may not be available via grant funding. (ii) Loss of responsive mode for enabling research to individual PIs. (iii) Inadequate (80%) funding of full economic costs of research- hence questions about sustainability of facilities. (iv) Financial threats – withdrawal of industrial and financial backing for research. (v) Increased visa requirements make it difficult to recruit the best talent from overseas. (vi) Retention and recruitment of high quality staff. Gaps in the UK research base One area that we believe will be increasingly important is innovative ‘measurement’ science at levels ranging from the atomistic to the social and universal. Almost all advances in physical and bio-medicinal sciences have been driven by advances in instrumental and analytical techniques (e.g. magnetic resonance, spectroscopy, mass spectrometry) and we believe that we are on the cusp on a revolution in the application of new methods to a range of problems of interest to society ranging from the chemical identity of cells, to metabolic and social diseases through to space research. Physical Organic remains weak despite targeted EPSRC funding and needs bolstering, as does Nuclear Chemistry. Chemical Engineering and its interface with Chemistry is weak compared to institutions such as MIT / Caltech. Other areas in which the UK is weak are: Ultrafast dynamics (femtochemistry) of condensed phase systems; and Medicinal Chemistry within academia (as opposed to Pharma).

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘A’ response list)

- 89 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A Response by University of Southampton

Overall the UK is not internationally leading in Chemistry research, being behind the US and Germany in many areas although generally ahead of France, Italy, Spain. There are strengths in the application of synthetic reactions and parts of organic synthesis in terms of ingenuity but not in scale of effort. In electrochemistry the UK is strong, ahead of Europe and competitive with the best in the US. In theoretical chemistry we are weak in supporting new areas, including the application to biological problems, but strong in quantum theory and gas phase theory. Inorganic chemistry has declined significantly, falling behind, for example, in the design of metal centres with exception reactivity. Supramolecular chemistry competes at a European level with examples of exceptional work in the UK. In heterogeneous catalysis the impact is patchy and surface science has declined behind Germany and the Netherlands. The UK remains strong in structural chemistry and nmr.

Significant threats are the poor financial state of Chemistry Departments and lack of adequate baseline funding. The move away from responsive mode to targeted themes is a threat to truly adventurous or transformative research. The uncertain future of national services such as chemistry computing and crystallography coupled with the difficulty in obtaining funding for department scale equipment/facilities is a major concern.

Gaps in the research base still exist in analytical chemistry, in areas of modelling applied to biological problems, and in contributions to molecular systems biology.

Opportunities exits for some areas of Chemistry through the significant investment in central facilities (ISIS and Diamond).

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

Chemistry at Cambridge has a major impact in international research with the recent RAE indicating that 80% of the Department’s output was classed as either 40% 4* and 40% 3* (4* Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour: 3* Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence).

All major scientific journals are represented in the Department output. The international standing results in a strong movement to Cambridge of young researchers from around the world as well as our graduates and post-docs taking on posts at major universities and institutes abroad.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Durham

RAE 2008 is the most recent comparative assessment of research quality in the UK. Durham took an inclusive approach to the RAE, including all the academic staff and a number of academic-related staff on RCUK Fellowships, Research Fellowships or who are managers of research support services. The median age of the submission was 40, reflecting the young age profile in the Department. One quarter of the permanent academic staff (or one fifth of the research-active staff) were ranked as ‘internationally leading’ (4*), based on outputs and esteem. Two thirds of the research was ranked world-leading or internationally excellent. Recent international awards won by the Department include the Kolos Medal (Hutson), RS/Academie des Science Prize (Dyer) and the Craig Lectureship (Bain). One area in which the Department has both strength and depth is Materials Chemistry, covering characterisation by X-ray techniques, synthesis of inorganic materials with unusual

- 90 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A structural or magnetic properties, chemistry and physics of polymers, and organic materials for photonic or electronic applications. Outside of materials chemistry, the research groupings are generally much smaller, often just two or three academics, who look outside of the Department – to industry or academia – for their collaborations. Examples of notable strengths in Durham include lanthanide probes for imaging, plasmachemical functionalisation of surfaces, fluorine chemistry, colloid and interface science, ultracold atoms and molecules and metal-catalysed boration and borylation chemistry. We believe that our staff have achieved global impact in these areas.

Our historical practice of appointing the brightest individual scientists with the best ideas is becoming increasingly untenable in the current funding environment, which favours large consortium bids and the concentration of researchers in specific fields of endeavour. Large collaborative projects that suppress individuality will make it more difficult for the next generation of international leaders to emerge.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

Subsequent comments should be seen against the background of the importance of Chemistry to the UK as a whole: Chemistry is the only branch of science that directly feed a major industry. Some 214,000 people are directly employed (2006, CIA figures), plus several hundred thousand additional jobs throughout the economy. Chemical industry represents 2% of UK GDP, £34billion sales (2008). Chemicals are UK's top manufacturing export earner, with an annual trade surplus of £5.5 billion. 92% of the UK chemicals output are exported; 61% of exports were to the EU (2004 figures). The industry is strongly R&D driven: It spends nearly £3 billion p.a. on capital investment plus £3.5 billion on R&D, >11% of sales. Nearly 40% of employees in the pharmaceutical industry work in R&D. The industry provides a tax and national insurance contribution of nearly £5 billion a year to the UK national government and local authorities. See also Section G. Training of sufficient numbers of highly qualified Chemistry graduates is therefore an essential national need. Similar, maintaining top level research activities requires a dedicated Research Council programme that operates over a broad range of specialisations.

The importance of the chemical industry shapes the nature and direction of much of university chemistry research, responding to both national and international demands. However, Research Council funding trends have not been able to keep the UK at the forefront in many areas. Synthetic methodology and organic synthesis of fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals: The UK cannot be regarded as world leading. There is some strength in organic materials, catalysis (including organo-catalysis), asymmetric synthesis and some supramolecular chemistry. There is however the feeling that we are failing to keep up with rapidly advancing sectors like India and China. The UK has gaps and weaknesses in most areas of core chemistry. Areas singled out include physical organic chemistry, advanced spectroscopy and organic synthesis. As a core discipline, inorganic and coordination chemistry and catalysis underpins materials chemistry, nanoscience and industrial processes but is rapidly diminishing, particularly in comparison to Europe and the US. Nanoscale chemistry is particularly weak in the UK. The major protagonists of this increasingly important discipline are overseas. It is of prime importance to strengthen fundamental, curiosity-driven research in this area. This is where innovation lies. Threats: the major threat to international competitiveness is the current Research Council policy of prioritising applied research and of few, very large grants which make it essentially

- 91 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A impossible to develop new research through responsive mode. The strength of a subject cannot be maintained in the long run if 80-90% of top-rated applications remain unfunded. Synthetic chemistry, possibly more than most disciplines, requires “biodiversity”. A funding regime of few large grants, however administratively convenient, will hit organic chemistry and impede innovation. While some large grants are well-focused, more often milestones and deliverables are difficult to identify. Large-grant funding of speculative but ill founded research with no final assessment will drive out real quality.

Physical chemistry: The UK Chemistry community has a significant international impact in major areas of spectroscopy, especially (though with numerical weakness) in the more exotic forms such as ultrafast, single-molecule spectroscopy and the use of elementary particle probes. It is also strong in the area of photonic materials science but rather weak in theoretical chemistry (though reasonable in computational simulations). In spectroscopy / dynamics / atmospheric chemistry the UK is competing at the highest level and has a well developed international profile. One threat is that high resolution spectroscopy as a discipline is slowly withering.

Biological and biophysical chemistry: The UK has an excellent international reputation for biological chemistry. There is a strong tradition of multi-disciplinarity, and there are world-leading groups, in a variety of biological chemistry areas, located all over the UK. In protein chemistry (particularly structure analyses) UK is a leader. However, translating fundamental knowledge of proteins into products useful to society (rather than just furthering knowledge and understanding of biochemistry) is not as advanced as our leading position in basic science, though there are areas of great success (e.g. monoclonal antibodies). Biomolecular NMR spectroscopy is finding it difficult to obtain funding at the moment. One likely reasons is the relative cost of the facilities involved – not large enough to be funded nationally, like a synchrotron, but larger than other techniques. The opportunity exists to maintain and strengthen this base. Chemists provide an essential contribution to the understanding (and potential exploitation) of biological systems; they will be at the heart of the major advances in medicine and biofuels/energy in the foreseeable future. Threats are: low funding success rates – this will demoralise the community and will inevitably lead to a ‘brain drain’; clumsy centralisation of resources to only selected centres of perceived excellence, at the expense of many pockets of excellence that exist throughout the university sector. The recent RAE has clearly demonstrated that excellence is spread widely across the sector; this needs to be taken into account urgently in Research Council funding policy.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

This is a difficult question to answer since it asks for opinion about the UK Chemistry research community sensu latu. Since LGMAC is not in the chemistry mainstream, it is not possible to answer across the broad sweep of UK chemistry. That said, it is perhaps reasonable to venture an opinion about the global impact of UK environmental chemistry. (The same limitation also applies to several of the following questions).

Apart from LGMAC at UEA there are significant groups of environmental chemists in the Chemistry Departments at Leeds, York and Cambridge, as well as in the Environmental (or similar) departments at Lancaster, Plymouth, Oxford, Bristol, Birmingham and Southampton. It is clear that with this small number of centres not all aspects of environmental chemistry are covered equally. However, we do have substantial international quality research in stratospheric chemistry modelling, tropospheric chemistry (gas phase, particulate

- 92 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A interactions, urban pollution, and field measurements), air-sea interaction for both gases and particles and their global implications, and marine biogeochemistry. There is reasonable access to high speed computing facilities, and ships and aircraft for field work.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

We feel it is appropriate to comment on EaStChem achievements. EaStChem delivered ca. 12% of the 4* research in the UK according to the RAE. Highlighted areas of excellence were chemical biology and in self-assembled and functional synthetic materials. Judging on, for example, plenary lecture invitations, editorial board membership, national and international prizes and the regularity of international visits, we believe EaStChem has a well-recognised international profile. The research school covers a broad range of chemical activity including, chemical biology, molecular synthesis/catalysis, materials and chemical physics. Furthermore our faculty, RAs and graduate school contain a strong international element.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

There is significant impact on a global scale from the UK chemistry research community. This is evidenced through one of the best training environments in the world where equipment, infrastructure and links with other leading world-wide institutes is clear. The UK system has also created chemists with the ability to think independently and practice adventurous research pushing for innovative step-changing projects; this approach is beginning to become self-perpetuating in terms of the push for innovation with quality as the main factor for driving the research onwards.

In addition to this, the UK research community has developed some excellent knowledge exchange programmes with industry and other parts of the community on an international scale as evidenced by the number of industrial links that come out of this community.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

Is the UK the international leader in chemistry research? In which areas? What contributes to the UK strength and what are the recommendations for continued strength? The UK has major strengths in pharmaceuticals. Second only to the USA, the British pharmaceutical companies’ market share is larger than that of the rest of Europe combined. This sector of industry is one of the leading wealth generators in the UK economy, directly employing 73,000 people and providing a trade surplus of £3.3 billion in 2005. Two of the world’s top six pharmaceutical companies are headquartered in the UK. The economic importance of this industry is enormous: its expenditure on R&D makes up around 25% of the UK’s total research and development investment. [Figures from http://www.abpi.org.uk and http://www.berr.gov.uk]

In recent years, research council funding resources have been directed towards strategic, interdisciplinary areas (nanotechnology, chemical biology), which had grown in strength. The UK continues to be strong in catalysis, synthetic (inorganic and organic) chemistry, and solid state chemistry.

- 93 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A

If the current strengths of chemistry are to continue, funders must support innovation. Prescriptive top-down initiatives have led to a catastrophic fall in investigator-led research. Innovation and true excellence do not follow an over emphasis on excessive direction. The products of tomorrow will result from innovative blues-skies research that may not have obvious applications or beneficiaries at the commencement of the research.

What are the opportunities/threats for the future? The pharmaceuticals industry is facing a succession of job cuts as it struggles with slowing sales and poor returns on research spending. [PricewaterhouseCoopers, (http://www.pwc.com/pharma2020)]. The last few years have seen a succession of job cuts within the sector, together with increased outsourcing to the Far East. These present real threats to the viability of this industry within the UK; they also present an opportunity to create links. The global downturn is inevitably going to lead to less industrially funded research in general. For research grant funding, a major danger is increased top-down direction of research to meet “flavour of the month” applications.

Where are the gaps in the UK research base? Imaging Chemistry and Radiochemistry are currently underrepresented.

In which areas is the UK weak and what are the recommendations for improvement? The research infrastructure in UK chemistry departments is generally of a lower standard than that of the US and frequently inferior to that of the industries we feed with trained researchers. UK academic chemistry labs have not, in the main, kept step with the best international standards. This undermines the marketability of our trained personnel, who need to have access to modern facilities if they are to be of value to industry, and limits our ability to carry out cutting edge research. We strongly recommend that specific investment is made in research infrastructure within UK chemistry departments.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University College London

In some areas the global impact of UK Chemistry research is very high. Examples include areas of organometallic chemistry, materials chemistry, computational chemistry, biological and medicinal chemistry and inorganic chemistry. All areas generate the very highest quality papers in Science, Nature, JACS, Angew etc.

RAE 2008 carried out an analysis of 33 institutional units of assessment and the reasonably high average value of 3* + 4* research indicates a high level of international activity. However one needs to take volume into account to gain an appreciation of volume of UK activity at the highest level. These data are available on the HEFCE website.

My impression is that UK Chemistry does well by comparison with Europe if one assesses on the basis of funding vs GDP, but I am unable to provide evidence.

EPSRC funding is a central part of funding for the Chemistry community and it the budget around £35M per annum is equivalent to around 50 – 70 standard grants. My conclusion is that UK Chemistry produces very good outputs for the funding it receives.

In terms of KT I can only really comment on the relationship with the pharma / agro / fine chemical industries. It is notable that the UK remains a key site for major R & D activities with the major industries in this sector. This is remarkable given the high cost of operating and must in part be to the high quality personnel available through u/g and p/g education in UK universities. It will also be based on the perceived / actual opportunities for exploiting a strong knowledge base in biomedical and chemical sciences. Although it is hard to know the balance / contribution of Chemistry vs other subjects, it is my impression that, for example,

- 94 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A the strong synthetic chemistry base in the UK is a very positive benefit of operating within the UK. The impact of the strong structural and biophysics community within the UK and its interaction with the Chemistry community is also likely to be significant – hence the development of a strong base in Chemical Biology.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

Is the UK the international leader in chemistry research? In which areas? What contributes to the UK strength and what are the recommendations for continued strength? Yes. Evidence comes from the research quality indicators in the 2008 RAE. Strong areas include atmospheric chemistry, chemical kinetics, dynamics, and spectroscopy, all of which are heavily underpinned by theoretical and computational chemistry. Also Chemical Biology and synthesis in general. The UK is strong in coordination chemistry, particularly with regard to molecule-based magnets and crystal engineering; in supramolecular chemistry and nanoscience; and, in solid state ceramic chemistry.

What are the opportunities/threats for the future? A concern is research councils concentrating a significant fraction of their portfolio on targeted research areas (e.g. Grand Challenges, DTCs), or on collaborative LOLAs. This may lead to more targeted research being performed to solve societal problems, but it is essential that this does not lead to a reduction in blue skies funding – this would be a threat to fundamental Chemistry studies in the UK. There are increasing numbers of EKT funding streams to promote interaction with industry. Some areas (e.g. inorganic) may not benefit greatly from this. Industry may focus on incremental improvements to existing products or processes for short-term goals, rather than world-leading science. The most important breakthroughs and economic benefits often come from fundamental research which may initially have no clear final application. A concern is the reduction in funding of University research from industry, which is likely to become worse in the current economic climate. It is becoming harder for new academics to get their foot in the door of research funding and establish themselves as successful independent researchers.

Where are the gaps in the UK research base? There is less organometallic chemistry and catalysis than in the past. There is less presence in bioinorganic chemistry than in some other countries, non-ceramic materials chemistry and main group chemistry are also thin.

In which areas is the UK weak and what are the recommendations for improvement? Funding tends to favour the stronger areas, resulting from the effects of peer-review. A managed funding call to redevelop weak areas would be appropriate. EPSRC has recently provided funding to redevelop physical organic chemistry, with some success.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

The UK contributes some of the highest quality chemistry research to the total global effort. The assessment of the recent RAE was that in the top 20 UK chemistry departments, at least 10% – and up to 40% – of their research output is ‘world leading’ (grade 4*) with the substantial majority of work assessed being ‘internationally excellent’ (3* and upwards) and more or less all of it being ‘internationally recognised’ (2* and upwards). The UK is far from being ’the’ international leader, which must be the USA, with Japan and (increasingly) China playing major roles. Given the size and population of the UK we punch above our weight.

- 95 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A

What contributes to UK strengths in chemistry and how can this be preserved? • A major strength is the independence of academics to pursue their own projects from the start of their careers – quite different to other countries. This can also be a problem: sink or swim! • Attractiveness of UK as destination for the best overseas PhD students who want to study in English • Strong interactions between chemical (and pharmaceutical) companies and the academic base has been a major contributor to the strength of UK Chemistry. The CASE scheme has provided a good route for young scientists to establish a track record of financial and academic support from industry. • Strong in materials science and chemical biology; good links of chemistry with physics / biology departments. • Strong student base with a large pool of local PhD applicants who have sustained the majority of UK chemistry research programmes and realised good career prospects in the chemical industry.

Significant threats are: • Over-emphasis of research spend on issues that are perceived to be of ‘societal importance’ now, which (by definition) precludes the adventurous / unexpected. Much societally/economically valuable science research arises unexpectedly from blue-sky projects that had no apparent practical benefit at the time but evolved in unexpected ways. Responsive mode needs to be protected, as does the EPSRC/BBSRC DTA scheme which gives academics freedom to employ PhD students on projects that are not part of managed programmes. The lack of this will make continuity of core research impossible. • The ‘first grant scheme’ for new academics needs to be right. Low recent success rates will cause long-term damage to UK research base as newly-appointed staff cannot get going. The current restriction that new academics cannot apply for a 3-year grant should be removed as soon as possible. • A sharp drop in research spend by industry in times of economic difficulty. The high cost of FEC is also pushing down the number of industrial grants (it is cheaper for a company to employ someone themselves than pay a university at FEC rates). Consequently the UK is no longer competitive for attracting industrial research sponsorship compared to countries (e.g. Canada) that offer subsidies to industry to attract their research contracts. The CASE scheme is similarly under threat. • The government drive to get up to 50% of school-leavers through HE, coupled with tuition fee levels that mean departments must squeeze in as many students as possible to survive – with the academic quality of students coming second – means that time available for research is being steadily eroded. • The end of the ORS scheme means that there is no way to take non-EU PhD students because of the high fees. They are naturally attracted by the UK since they can learn English, and the best are outstanding. This is a significant problem which makes the UK uncompetitive compared to the USA. • Inadequate teaching of maths at school level is a serious issue – the present dire state of mathematical preparedness of incoming undergraduates strongly affects their ability to cope with the challenges of hard science courses, and to pursue physical/theoretical research. • A comparison of the UK and North America suggests reveals a significant difference in attitude in the UK towards encouraging our best and brightest students to consider carrying out postdoctoral studies here. Although there are clear advantages to encouraging research graduates to engage in the broadest possible research experience, the UK would certainly benefit from providing more opportunities for PhD students to apply for their own postdoc scholarships in the UK to carry out research that would be of direct benefit to the UK (along the lines of the NSF/NIH Fellowships). • The interface and activity between Chemistry and Engineering (especially Chemical Engineering) is much weaker than in the USA.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘A’ response list)

- 96 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A Response by University of York

Significant. The 2008 RAE result showed that nearly all departments have some research work which is described as world-leading. From York this includes research work in biological chemistry, organic chemistry and chemo-archaeology. The RAE also demonstrated that 97% of the work carried out in UK chemistry departments is internationally renowned or better.

End of response by University of York (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

UK chemistry Research punches above its weight in global research terms. It possesses a number of globally renowned centres of academic excellence with recognised high quality leaders and its papers are highly cited per unit spend on research. The community however, is relatively fragmented with many small or single academic led groups which are likely to find delivering transformational advances in the subject increasingly taxing as they compete against the larger international research groups.

Industry finds the issue of full economic costing at best frustrating and at worst a complete turn off. This is exacerbated by increasing demands regarding ownership of intellectual property making collaborative academic research in the UK less attractive than overseas.

End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

The biological chemistry research community has a huge impact on a global scale, from genome mapping to molecular ecology. The UK punches well above its weight in this area, where it is second only to the US.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

Impact in terms of publications is good. Publications from the major Universities appear frequently in high-impact journals. The international profile of researchers is high and spans a wide number of disciplines. However over the last 10 years there has been a decline in the number of Universities contributing at the highest levels over a broad range of chemistry. There are many centres of specialised excellence.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, some 20% of the Chemical Engineering research activity (Unit of Assessment 26) was judged 4*, or internationally leading, compared with around 15% for Chemistry. This is a satisfactory approval rating for the quality of the research base, though of course there is always room for improvement. Areas where the chemical engineering research base is particularly strong are those where interactions with the chemistry, biochemistry and biology science base are important, and also in the environmental area where we work with a whole range of other disciplines including sociology, economics, statistics and management etc.

The relatively small size of the UK’s chemical engineering research community is a cause for concern. In that same RAE exercise, 235 chemical engineers (Cat A, Full Time Equivalent) were returned, compared with 1151 chemists. Considering the highly applied

- 97 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A nature of the calls to which both communities are being asked to respond (energy, environment, new materials, healthcare etc.), we suspect that, even including chemical engineers who were returned in other UoA categories, the community is somewhat stretched. We definitely see the need for more capacity building, in chemical engineering as a whole but also in areas of chemistry and biology where the greatest innovation is taking place and where the seeds are sown of chemical engineering research to come.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

UK has historical strength in chemistry research in academia and industry, benefitting from depth and breadth in education in schools and universities, and from students motivated by science - resulting in good researchers, and competitive research. Research success can be determined by 2008 RAE output. Drug discovery success by UK pharma is a further measure of how education and academic research has successfully supported a multinational business sector contributing to UK GDP.

Chemical synthesis is an area of research strength critical for much of the UK chemistry using industries (and especially the global success of UK pharma). UK is internationally competitive in structural biology/structural chemistry and is improving in green chemistry and catalysis - areas of research relevant to pharma.

Synthetic chemistry is seemingly viewed as a mature science and associated with a service industry. The growth in capability and quality in the developing world (particularly India and China) is leading to increasing degrees of outsourcing of synthetic chemistry to these regions. It is critical that the UK maintains its focus on high quality problem solving in synthetic chemistry, and the link between what to make and how to make it (ie. the design component within the design-make-test cycle).

The developing world is far more strategic in how it funds research – making key investment decisions and fast progress in those areas it identifies (eg as in India, Singapore, China). This supports the competitiveness of these emerging economies, but compounds the reduction in competitiveness of UK research in the same areas. A clearer strategy for UK research would help serve UK competitiveness. It is acknowledged that some aspects of science would migrate from the UK but equally other areas would grow and be globallly competitive.

UK has historically benefited from a reasonable cost base, which is changing in the UK lending to global observation that chemical research in the UK is now expensive (cf introduction and application of fEC) but without appreciable increase in quality of research. This has significant impact on industry investment moving towards the global market. Inappropriate application of fEC by UK universities must be checked. It is fully appropriate that universities – as industry – understand their cost base but this knowledge must be used to support UK competitiveness.

UK is embracing funding strategies for universities to seed reseach incubators eg in drug discovery. This is an interesting approach to monitor for applied research, and may act as a complement to wider industry R&D. It has particular relevance at the present time in the pharma sector as businesses seek more diverse discovery opportunities, and university ambition is now supported by experienced drug discovery scientists released by industry.

Gaps in the UK research base relating to pharma are partly informed by the abpi “Skills Refresh”*: http://www.abpi.org.uk/Details.asp?ProductID=338

- 98 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A * Although the Skills Refresh largely highlights graduate skills, a deficiency can often be linked to an absent or weak research (and hence teaching) base

Specifically to chemistry, this relates to perceived weakness in analytical chemistry and its application, computational chemistry/science, and concerns over the future development of the best synthetic chemists (see above). Steps have been taken to improve UK standing in physical organic chemistry, and although the improving research strength is not yet manifest by improved knowledge and understanding in graduate courses, it is hoped that this will begin to improve.

UK has a small number of internationally competitive groups in computational chemistry and cheminformatics, but the overall picture is relatively weak. At the same time, predictive science (chemistry, biology and toxicology) is a priority area in the pharmaceutical industry and is an obvious area for which collaborative research across the boundaries is required.

A significant threat for the future of the research and education base in the UK is obviously going to arise from the current and significant economic downturn. It is vital that research and education maintain a proper priority for politicians and treasury in the current fiscal climate.

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Dstl

Chemistry research is seen as an area of some strength that is recognised abroad but we perceive this strength to be dwindling as globalisation proceeds and major industries exploit cheaper labour elsewhere (e.g. in India and China). The culture of UK universities encourages challenging the status quo and innovation, which is not the norm in many countries. The UK’s track record on exploiting innovation, however, needs to be improved. Weak areas of research include energy storage and the chemistry of energietic materials (high explosives and pyrotechnics).

Chemists in Dstl produce high quality work (as assessed by the Defence Science Advisory Committee, and also through Dstl’s external Technical Benchmarking process).

They publish in peer-reviewed journals (where security issues allow) and contribute to Research Council colleges, Technology Strategy Board committees and to initiatives involving the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Dstl staff contribute significantly to international collaborative initiatives and thus have a global impact.

Dstl works with appropriate academics in the UK, and this significantly contributes to Dstl’s output.

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

The UK continues to “punch above its weight” internationally in terms of contributions and output per £ invested. Half of the FTSE top 20 companies have chemistry as their core business. Internationally leading outputs from UK academia include: (i) trained researchers, many securing highly sought after PDRA positions in Europe/America/Asia; (ii) primary publications in the highest impact journals; (iii) publication citation rates. Areas of highest profile include: Chemical Biology, Nanoscience/Materials, Atmospheric Chemistry and Clean Technologies. Since these areas require genuine interdisciplinary activity, the UK’s historical focus on individual excellence plus some closely integrated interdisciplinary units

- 99 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A (particularly biological sciences/chemistry), the advantages of a large number of internationally leading units in relatively close proximity, and the high international regard for UK chemistry all contribute to maintaining these strengths.

The primary threats relate to the resources supporting UK Chemistry departments: globalisation of the chemical industry, decreasing activity in the UK; lower resources for peer-reviewed research; increased focus on short term commercial value, potentially at the expense of intellectual novelty with longer term or unpredictable benefits; inadequate Government support for u/g teaching, leading to research funds subsidising teaching; closure of UK chemistry departments, undermining the pyramidal network of mobile researchers/students, essential to sustaining international excellence of the highest ranking institutions.

Other threats include: weaker chemistry teaching in primary/secondary schools; limited volume and range of chemical engineering activity in UK.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Keele University

The UK continues to be a world leader in most branches of chemistry, and makes major contributions to the quality of life and our understanding of the physical world. This arises from a long history of chemical achievement, a good education system, and a high density of industrial and academic research establishments, which provides benefits found in few other parts of the globe.

There is no reason why this healthy situation cannot continue, but there are some concerns. We must encourage international organisations to continue to invest in chemists and infrastructure in the UK. An increasing concern is the level of science education in schools (particularly the State sector). Increasingly students are taught general science at a level that does not extend the better students, and often chemistry is taught by non-chemists.

One of the strengths of UK chemistry is the synthesis of molecules, which is of great importance to the bioscience industry. There is a need in the UK for continued emphasis on molecular design, and the synthesis of more innovative and challenging target molecules.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

For much of the 20th Century, the UK and Germany were probably equal-second to the US in terms of their contributions to the progress of Chemistry. However, in recent decades, prodigious advances in research capability throughout Asia (especially in Japan, China, India and Korea), and also in mainland Europe, mean that the UK's relative position in Chemistry research is no longer anything like so strong, when measured against this increasingly competitive background.

Areas of UK strength include (i) solid-state inorganic chemistry (both experimental and computational), (ii) molecular nanoscience, i.e. the theory, design and synthesis of functional nanoscale structures which are fully-specified at the atomic level, (iii) surface chemistry and heterogeneous catalysis, (iv) materials chemistry (it should be noted that the Royal Society of Chemistry has now created a Materials Chemistry Division, to rank alongside the more traditional Divisions associated with Inorganic, Physical and Organic chemistry), (v) atmospheric chemistry and (vi) biological and medicinal chemistry, especially in the context of pharmaceuticals.

- 100 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A

Areas of relative weakness include homogeneous catalysis (the UK having declined from a leading academic position in the 1960's and 70's) and membrane chemistry (only one or two academic groups and essentially no industrial research).

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Aston University

Since the 1990s approximately 30 chemistry departments have been closed within UK universities, leaving around 40. In part this reflects the fact that chemistry is a predominantly experimental, and therefore costly, discipline. It is inevitable that the nature of chemistry- based research has evolved and will continue to do so in order to work within the financial constraints imposed upon it. Effects have included combination of chemistry with other disciplines to form larger more focussed units and greater dependence upon goal-oriented funding. In consequence speculative open-ended projects are relatively few in number within the UK. In consequence the impact of UK-based chemistry research on the global chemistry community is limited. On the other hand – and more positively – the foregoing factors have increased the impact of UK chemistry on a range of UK and international industries and many worldwide interdisciplinary projects. In the context of Aston University, chemistry and chemical engineering were combined, with mutual advantage, to form a joint department (Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry) over twenty years ago. Undergraduate and postgraduate programmes are healthy and our chemistry-based research well funded but the focus of the research is not directed to impact within the global chemistry community.

End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

This is summarised in the RSC commissioned Whitesides Review of Chemistry in the UK in 2003 and reports by the DTI of the same period. The RAE chemistry panel states that “Particular UK research strength, the panel noted, lays in atmospheric chemistry; chemical biology; organic synthesis; computational methods; green chemistry; surface science and catalysis; solid state and materials chemistry; and supramolecular and nanoscience.”

The UK is also an international leader in many other areas of chemical research including organic semiconductors, plastic electronics, natural product chemistry, the development of new synthetic procedures and reagents.

One of the two main threats to this position is the research funding policy of the Research Councils. This policy includes the concentration of funding on problem solving, of the Grand Challenges and the funding of large grants to the detriment of fundamental research. The reduction in funding available to fund PhDs as project students is extremely detrimental to the development of synthetic chemistry in the UK. The introduction of DTCs will almost certainly reduce the number of PhD students involved in fundamental chemistry research, especially in synthetic organic chemistry, even further. Scientific discoveries are usually serendipitous and a large, diverse and inhomogeneous research base of original and unusual research is required to foster ground breaking discoveries, rather than directed research designed to solve industrial/societal problems. This approach is closer to industrial R&D than innovative, original and potentially ground-breaking research.

The current Research Councils policy discriminates against early career chemists and undermines their ability to fund their individual research and establish themselves as successful academics. The policy is also leading to a further concentration of research into research-active institutions to the detriment of smaller departments with pockets of research

- 101 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A excellence, creativity and originality in different areas of chemistry neglected by the larger institutions.

Improvements in this situation depend on the strategy of the Research Councils being modified and the maintenance of the current level of governmental, European Union and industrial funding of chemistry.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast

The UK does have world leadership in a number of areas, and this is best summarised in the general report on Chemistry provided by the RAE panel. I would agree with the conclusions of this report.

However, the UK is lagging behind in developing a coherent approach to supporting research into sustainability. In contrast to the USA in particular where even before the appointment of the new president a very large commitment to the development of sustainable processes had been made we have neither committed the funds nor developed the infrastructure to compete. We must decide on a small, manageable number of grand challenges and then fund these at a level that gives a high chance of success. We need to take hard decisions to cut funding in areas that are not in the priority list otherwise we will continue to spread our very limited resources thinly and “fail cheaply!” Emerging countries, such as Saudi Arabia with almost unlimited financial resources, start far behind us in terms of expertise, but in some ways have a more focussed approach to future research and could well be challenging the UK within 10 years in a range of areas involving sustainable chemistry.

There is still very little real collaboration across discipline boundaries. From our own experience as a combined School, we see every day the benefits of chemists and engineers working from the beginning on common research challenges. This is not normal in the UK.

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

Historically, the contribution of the UK to almost all facets of what today we call chemistry is substantial. These contributions have formed the cornerstone of modern chemistry as we know it today. UK chemistry maintains its influence in many areas, for example in organic synthesis, supramolecular chemistry, the area of colloids, surfactant chemistry and polymer/materials science.

A major concern is the increasing focus of resources on fewer and fewer institutions, despite clear evidence from RAE 2008 of excellence across the sector- more accountability is required. If the UK chemical community were a business it would be required to demonstrate output as well as input. At the present time there is clear evidence that significant parts of the community receiving relatively little, or even no, EPSRC support are producing research outputs which represent fabulous value for money (or would do if they had been funded) and are world leading in every sense, whilst some institutions receiving very significant support, whilst perhaps also producing excellent outputs, represent much poorer value for money.

Threats

- 102 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A • Chemistry for Medicine; UK has a lead in pharmaceuticals which could be eroded if the major players e.g. GSK and AZ close down their research labs. There is a clear need for the provision of highly skilled chemists for this industry.

Opportunities

• Polymeric semi-permeable membrane chemistry for fuel cells: UK has a requirement to reduce its CO2 emissions. There is a lack of expertise in this area compared to the USA. • New technology to provide energy will encompass all facets of chemistry (this has already been identified through the EPSRC Grand Challenges in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering exercise).

Weaknesses

• There is a clear lack of cutting edge research at the interface of biology and chemistry in the UK compared to other countries, particularly the USA. • The impression is that UK chemistry continues to punch below its weight in catalysis, despite there being obvious world-leaders.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

UK Chemistry is internationally competitive in a number of areas, and internationally leading in a smaller number. Thus, for example: Leading, very high quality work is being undertaken in molecular electronics and at the interface to the Health Sciences. The UK’s profile in Energy Storage is internationally competitive, but requires further investment if it is to remain so. In some areas, activities by thinly spread and poorly funded teams are more typical of the UK, with problems of continuity and scale. One such area is arguably physical organic chemistry.

For a local research programme within a university to be of international stature there is a clear need for development of a critical mass of top class active researchers, for continuity, for development of the necessary theme-specific infrastructure and to manage and plan income, outputs and research collaborations. In a large academic unit this need may not present a problem. In the case of smaller chemistry units this necessarily requires the development and support of a small number of strategically identified local core themes; failure to act in this way will tend to lead to problems of achievement, even for very able individual academic researchers.

The structure of, and nature of recruitment to, academic science in the UK can lead to very able researchers being located in small units, while initially promising but ultimately less fruitful academics can be found in larger departments. The move in RAE 2008 to grade profiles (as opposed to a single grade for a unit) has made the truth behind this observation more obvious. An end product of this structure is the greater willingness (of necessity) of many chemistry academics in small units to collaborate both locally (with other disciplines) and nationally; such interactions can be stimulated and validly supported under national initiatives (managed programmes).

In the area of open application to “responsive mode”, there is an argument for key area selectivity [the identification, by a panel of experts, of key pre-identified, broadly defined

- 103 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A areas that are to be funded, and for explicit calls in those areas]. One rationale is simply that it will be financially impossible to support all areas in a way to permit them to be internationally competitive. The concept of managed “blue skies” research may be anathema to some, but if responsive mode funding is spread too thinly there is a danger of proliferation of “cottage industry” scale research, with major problems in becoming or remaining competitive. A further aspect leading to this conclusion is the continuing shrinkage in the number of academic chemists in the UK; taking as essential for all but a few themes (those not reliant on sophisticated infrastructure) the achievement of critical mass nationally by a research area’s active academic community, selectivity in topics that will be funded to a high level becomes essential, even for “blue skies” research.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

The UK is internationally leading in chemistry research. Thus, in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ca. 15% of all outputs were considered to be world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour and 45% to be internationally excellent.1 The detailed assessment of the 31 departments of chemistry submitted to RAE 2008 showed that virtually all had achieved a significant component of world leading and/or internationally competitive research during the period 2001-2008. RAE 2008 identified particularly strong areas of UK chemistry research to be: atmospheric and gas phase chemistry; chemical biology; computational chemistry; green chemistry; heterogeneous catalysis and surface science; solid state and materials chemistry, supramolecular chemistry and nanoscience and synthesis.2 Also, RAE 2008 considered major growth points and strengths in UK research are at the interfaces of chemistry with biology, engineering, environmental sciences, materials science, medicine and physics. Other salient points highlighted in the RAE 2008 subject overview for chemistry include: • During recent years there have been major investments in UK chemistry departments that have substantially improved both the built environment and the equipment in almost all institutions. This, plus the appointment of a significant number of new staff, has resulted in an increased proportion of world leading outputs emanating from UK chemistry departments. • Although some UK universities have closed their chemistry department in recent years, the subject has thrived in virtually all of the remaining departments as evidenced by increases in research income and post-graduate students and post-doctoral research assistants. Also, a substantial number of new staff with world-class research potential have been appointed; early career researchers constituted ca. 20% of the chemistry staff submitted to RAE 2008. RAE 2008 results indicate that there are a large number of researchers carrying out leading research with strong international profiles. One of the strengths of the UK community is that there are a relatively large number of fairly small research groups. This can act in the UK’s favour in terms of the ability to respond to changes in the research landscape and the generation of new directions. Consultation by the RSC with the UK chemistry research community has identified several challenges in the provision of funding by the EPSRC and other research councils that must be addressed if the UK is to maintain and, if possible, improve the quality and global impact of its chemistry research: First grants The retention of the early career research staff and the successful development of their careers is a high priority for the UK chemistry community. We operate in a global market

1 RAE 2008 Chemistry quality profile http://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=18&type=uoa 2 RAE Chemistry subject overview report http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov/

- 104 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A and the brightest of our young academics could move to other countries, notably the USA with the commitment of President Obama to inject significant new resource into science and technology. In recent years, the EPSRC’s first grant scheme made an important contribution to the commencement of the research careers of newly appointed staff in UK chemistry departments. However, during 2008 there was a significant reduction in the success rate of the first grants scheme due to: (a) the removal of the financial cap, leading to fewer and larger grants being awarded; (b) a significant increase in the number of first grant applications. Recently, the EPSRC has introduced a financial cap of £125k to its first grant scheme. Whilst this is welcomed, as it should ensure an increased success rate, the simultaneous imposition of a 2-year time limit on the duration of a grant seems unnecessarily restrictive. Also, the amount of resource allocated to the first grants scheme needs to be monitored and, if necessary, increased to ensure a reasonable (say 40%) success rate for these scientists that are vital for the future success of UK chemistry research. Poor application success rates Currently, far more applications are being submitted to the EPSRC than can be funded, resulting in some very low success rates. For example, the proportion of chemistry grants funded through ‘responsive mode’ applications, where scientists can submit proposals on any chemical topic for any amount of resource, has decreased significantly during the past year from ca. 25% to ca. 12%.3 This is causing great concern within the UK chemistry research community and presents a management challenge for the EPSRC, both in terms of a failure to meet applicants’ expectations and an inefficient use of reviewers’, panel members’ and managers’ time. The EPSRC has now introduced a range of ‘demand management approaches’, the effects of which are, as yet, unknown. In general, ‘responsive mode’ applications seek funding for a 3-year research project and the UK chemistry community associate the reduction in success rates for such applications with the change in EPSRC’s strategy to encourage applications for, larger, longer-term (5 or 6 years) platform or programme research grants. This is intended to align chemistry with disciplines such as physics and biomedical sciences with ca. 33% of the chemistry portfolio in “ambitious projects and programmes.” The latter provide a welcome opportunity for our leading researchers to obtain longer-term funding that can enhance their ability to conduct internationally competitive research. However: • A template derived from the research portfolio of another field of science should not necessarily be assumed to be appropriate for chemistry. • The proposed changes in funding require a cultural shift for many within the UK chemistry community; therefore, the phasing of the change should be accomplished in a manner that does not lead to major dislocations in the UK chemistry research portfolio. • Ambitious and transformative research does not always have to be ‘big science’; e.g. much organic synthesis research in the UK involves small projects which, collectively, have provided an invaluable ‘tool box’ of methods and reagents that has been crucial for the synthesis of many molecules of commercial importance, especially for the pharmaceutical industry. Core funding Although the UK chemistry community is generally enthusiastic about, and committed to, interdisciplinary research, the extent and quality of research in ‘core’ chemistry must be maintained, not only for its own sake but also to enable chemistry to continue to make major contributions to the development of interdisciplinary research. PhD studentships The PhD students are the lifeblood of the research school in UK chemistry departments and these trained people make a significant contribution to the UK economy. The EPSRC funds

3 Chemistry World “UK chemists warn of funding crisis”, 2008. 5, 7

- 105 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A PhD studentships under several different schemes and recently has introduced changes in their allocation to UK universities. The UK chemistry community is concerned that new mechanisms for the distribution of PhD studentships may handicap chemistry research. However, the RSC is reassured that the EPSRC continues to recognise the importance of PhD funding and is pleased with the recent EPSRC announcement of the funding of a set of new centres for doctoral training, many of which relate directly to the chemical sciences, such as sustainable chemical technologies, formulation engineering, chemical synthesis, biopharmaceutical process development and systems biology. EPSRC’s National Services The various EPSRC national services make a major contribution to the quality and impact of the chemistry research accomplished in the UK. The RSC accepts that these national services will not be funded ad infinitum and the advantages that these centres offer have to be balanced against competing demands for resources. However, the RSC urges the EPSRC to consider a mechanism for a review that focuses on the strategic significance of the service, rather than to review cases for renewal in competition with ‘responsive mode’ submissions. Some other considerations are noted in respect of enhancing the global impact of chemistry: 1. One gap in the UK research base relating to the pharmaceutical industry has been identified by the ABPI “Skills Needs For Biomedical Research”.4 Specifically in relation to chemistry, this relates to perceived weakness in analytical chemistry and its application, computational chemistry/science, and concerns over the future supply of suitably qualified synthetic chemists. Steps have been taken to improve UK standing in physical organic chemistry. 2. The UK has major opportunities to develop scientific solutions to technological and societal challenges as highlighted by the RSC Roadmap exercise.5 Significant investment has been made by the Research Councils and other funders to ensure the UK is globally competitive and in a strong position to tackle such challenges. Members of the chemistry community are aware of the need to focus their efforts and are working together, and with other relevant disciplines, to develop innovative solutions. 3. The ring fencing of funds for technological and societal challenges is a potential threat to basic UK chemistry research. There is a need for mechanisms to ensure that ‘blue skies’ fundamental research and training in basic skills continues to be supported to ensure a strong UK research base which is essential to underpin solutions to global challenges. A decreased emphasis on funding of fundamental research could mean that the UK may not remain truly innovative and internationally competitive. 4. The present economic downturn is a threat to UK chemistry research. Government has invested a large amount of funds into the UK economy and this is likely have an effect on the amount of money available for research. Industry will also be reviewing its funding priorities and the UK science community must work together to ensure the funding of world class scientific research is maintained. We urge that the UK Government notes the increased funding for basic research in the USA recently introduced by President Obama. 5. The decline of the industrial R&D base in the UK because of competition from overseas, primarily India and China, is a threat to UK chemistry research. This is inevitable in the current economic climate; however the number of spin-out companies derived from UK chemistry research, notably chemistry, is increasing. More needs to be done to stimulate innovation and the climate of entrepreneurship in the UK. Unless the UK facilitates the growth of start-up

4 Skills needs for biomedical research http://www.abpi.org.uk/Details.asp?ProductID=338 5 RSC Roadmap www.rsc.org/roadmap

- 106 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to A companies, a generation of talented R&D scientists, particularly chemists, could be lost. End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘A’ response list)

Response by ABPI

The supply of high quality science skills is an essential element in attracting global pharmaceutical research and development investment into the UK. These skills are required to deliver world class research in academia and industry.

In 2005 our report highlighted that a decline in the interest in, and number of, chemistry courses – both chemistry degrees and chemistry components of other degrees – was seriously affecting this core graduate skill, as well as the specialisations which build on it.

The 2008 review suggested that there has been an improvement in the ability of companies to recruit the scientists they need in some disciplines, including analytical and physical chemistry and synthetic/organic chemistry. Recruitment issues had eased at PhD and postdoctoral level for analytical and physical chemistry and at graduate level for synthetic organic and process chemistry. We believe this is, in part, due to the increased focus on and funding for these areas at undergraduate level, and on encouraging more young people to study chemistry; but is also influenced by reduced recruitment in these disciplines, and increased recruitment from overseas. The quality of applicants, rather than the numbers of potential recruits, is now the main concern.

Concerns remain, however, over many disciplines. Amongst the greatest concerns in the 2008 survey were chemical and process engineering and computational chemistry. Both of these areas were seen as much more of a issue in 2008 than three years earlier. Recruitment of graduates with the desired skills is a particular problem for chemical and process engineering. Computational chemistry is a growing area and academic training in this speciality in the UK is limited; hence both number and quality of applicants from the UK are a major concern.

Many pharmaceutical companies operate globally and are increasingly seeking applicants from abroad to fill roles that are difficult to recruit for in the UK or, indeed, are outsourcing projects to countries where capability and quality has increased to a level where high quality research can be carried out. Synthetic chemistry research and development is one area which is increasingly being outsourced.

End of response by Sarah Jones, Education and Skills manager, ABPI (return to ‘A’ response list)

- 107 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B B To what extent are UK researchers engaged in "best with best" science-driven international interactions? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• Collaborations with EU countries and the USA are healthy. These relationships are well established and easy to instigate due to similarities in funding opportunities and joint calls etc.

• Collaborations with China, India and Japan are increasing but these relationships are less established than EU/USA relations. This is partly due to the language barrier and a lack of joint schemes/calls.

• The EPSRC/NSF scheme is welcome and should be expanded to other areas to encourage greater international collaboration.

• Issues of double jeopardy can exist within international calls i.e. where two panels make separate decisions. This is in general avoided with joint calls but can be a problem with collaborations initiated by researchers.

• UK academics with a low level of funding are not attractive to overseas collaborators.

• The best overseas students are often not able to be funded to work in UK due to the eligibility criteria for Research Council studentships.

• International research collaboration in the UK is weak compared to rest of the world. Industry’s view is that overseas researchers are collaborating more internationally than UK researchers.

• The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) provides some assistance to collaboration through travel grants and opportunities for working in developing countries.

- 108 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 109 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by University of Bath

Engagement between the UK and Europe, US, China, India and Japan is strong with the continued development of the European Research Area seen as generally positive for the UK chemistry community. A number of funding schemes provide for exchange of researchers between the countries listed, although ‘double jeopardy’ and differing perceptions/expectations in international peer review remain issues to be fully addressed by funding bodies in some cases. Opportunities for funding collaboration between UK centres of excellence and leading international centres should be enhanced and encouraged as a means to engage “best with best” on a larger and more significant scale than is currently possible.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Bristol has extensive and very strong international links, for instance Woolfson with Gellman (Wisconsin); Davis (and Gundry in Engineering) with collaborators in US, India and South Africa ($13M Gates Foundation funding for Aquatest 2). Staff work within EU Research Networks and COST groups (Cox, Davis, Orpen, Vincent), and the School has been involved in 3 Marie Curie Early Stage Training Networks, 7 Research Training Networks and a further 10 EU Networks on priority research topics. ~42% of research publications since 2004 were co-authored with overseas collaborators; one recent example from Evershed (Nature, 2008, 455, 528) was published collaboratively with groups in 15 other institutions in the UK, US, Israel, Romania, the Netherlands, Turkey and Greece. Collaboration between the UK and US has been significantly enhanced through the EPSRC/NSF chemistry call, but issues of double jeopardy exist in refereeing.

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

In general, there are many more mechanisms for funded engagement with partners in Europe than there are with partners in the USA, China, India and Japan. The Royal Society does a valuable job in supporting the latter but this is usually in the form of travel grants, as opposed to substantive research proposals. There would be value in additional schemes to enhance collaborations with non-EU partners to augment recent EPSRC initiatives in the area, for example, to allow joint programmes with the USA. World-class research requires top-level instrumental infrastructure. There is a need for EPSRC programmes that encourage this and this is also a key driver for “best with best” engagement and development of balanced collaborations where both partners contribute expertise and infrastructure.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

Geographically the UK is ideally positioned to maintain strong engagement with Europe, USA, China, India and Japan. To improve this, research councils could look to increase the number of schemes that are directed at promoting international collaborative research. Clearly in some cases one to one interactions are desirable, whilst some larger projects require larger multinational consortia. However, those schemes that might be available can often be inflexible, unable to accommodate different modes of interactions, and difficult to administer. This is particularly the case where joint funding is required, which could involve peer review by funding agencies in different countries. Quite often the logistics and time involved in establishing such funding would serve to discourage otherwise fruitful collaborations. The School in Manchester has particularly strong links to Asia especially

- 110 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Japan and increasingly India, the USA and Europe with many members of staff holding visiting appointments and also being asked to advise on the development of the discipline in the UK and beyond.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

Chemistry in general, and Nottingham in particular, participates in a wide range of international networks especially EU funded. Nottingham leads several European-wide consortia in the areas of ligand synthesis and inorganic materials. In addition Chemistry at Nottingham has collaborative projects with China, Australia, Ethiopia, Russia and the USA. It also engages at the technology transfer level, for example, with a joint spin-out company with Colorado University, USA in the area of medicinal chemistry.

With increased funding for basic science in the USA, it is going to be harder for the UK to compete in the development of any technology that is derived from new discoveries in the core sciences.

End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford

In Oxford we have strong collaborative interactions with many countries from all over the world, including the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland, India, China and Japan. We also have interactions with less well developed countries particularly through student scholarship programs. Universities such as Oxford are a magnet for international academic visitors and we are able to offer various visiting Professorship awards to facilitate engagement. A number of exchange funding opportunities are also available nationally, particularly those provided by the Royal Society. The Joint NSF/EPSRC scheme is also an encouraging development and should be expanded. But whilst the UK is good at collaborating in situations where the principal funding comes from other countries, there is a need to improve the resources that the UK puts into international collaborations to create real research opportunities. There is also a need for more scholarship programs to attract the brightest students from third world and developing world countries. This will benefit both the UK, because we will get outstanding students, and their home countries. At present EPSRC funds cannot be used to fund such students.

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

Changes in EU funding mechanisms to cover overheads have increased the opportunities for UK involvement in European projects but there are still significant bureaucratic challenges. The NSF/EPSRC scheme was welcome but in general there are still few funding sources available to support truly joint international research activities.

Building strong international links is a long term activity and funding sources for student exchanges, staff exchange etc. are fragmented. If Departments had some earmarked funding to build focussed international interactions at Departmental level (e.g. with targeted departments in US, China, etc.) this would be of long term benefit.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 111 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by University of Cambridge There are very strong links with EU-funded science, with universities and research labs in the US, with Max Planck Institutes. End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Durham

As a relatively small chemistry department with a diverse range of research topics, Durham academics have traditionally forged links with groups in other Departments, Universities and countries. In 2006, there were more than 80 international collaborations resulting in 55 joint papers, from the both the old and the new world. We do not generally find difficulties in interacting with the most appropriate researchers internationally (see Research Grouping submissions for details) There are a range of funding sources for reciprocal visits to establish collaborations. The difficulties arise in converting these initial contacts into joint research programmes owing to the lack of funding opportunities for trans-national research outside of the EU; the USA is particularly difficult in this regard, though a recent NSF/EPSRC joint funding programme is beginning to address the problem. A network of high-level contacts around the world assists younger academics to strike up collaborations. Durham Chemistry has two high-profile lectureships that help with this networking: recent holders include Amatore, Rao, Grubbs, Diederich, Feringa, Waldmann and Nolte. Research leave applications aimed at building international links are actively encouraged. End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1) UK researchers are generally quick in identifying collaborations where there is complementary expertise that is mutually beneficial. Many of these arrangements are informal. Most collaborations are within Europe, but different sub-disciplines have different levels of collaborations (less in organic, more in biological chemistry). Royal Society international programmes with China, India and Russia are also important. Despite all electronic communication there is nothing like some travel money and the chance to socialise to oil the wheels of collaboration. UK scientists make good use of international big science facilities. UK biological chemists are engaged in collaborations with many international groups; in many cases these are “best with best” – but only where there are complementary skills. International collaborations funded by the European Union suffer from being driven by programmatic criteria and objectives, to the extent that any funding success can steer good researchers away from their areas of specific expertise. In all respects, collaborations with institutions outside the UK are very poorly and patchily funded, and active support from Research Councils is marginal. Much more ought to be achievable with properly conceived schemes such as the EPSRC might operate with NSF. It should by now be possible to achieve relatively user-friendly cross-platform online application. One consequence of collaborations is frequently that overseas PhD candidates wish to study in Britain. One would expect that educating future decision makers would be highly beneficial for UK plc but this is prevented by the EPSRC (in-)eligibility criteria. Dropping these would allow the appointment of the best, rather than the most British, postgraduate students to EPSRC DTA studentships.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

- 112 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by University of East Anglia (2)

Being relatively small and somewhat specialised there is an incentive for UK environmental chemists to be outward looking and to join in relevant international activities. In almost all the topics listed above the UK community plays a key role in international activities, both in global scale research and its leadership.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

We interact at many levels internationally. For example, we recruit the best PhD students and RAs worldwide. Our staff are international. There are 21 current EU grants with associated networks in the school and virtually all groups have intercontinental collaborations. We have a high profile visiting professor scheme which attracts the worlds leading researchers.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

There are opportunities for engagement of “best with best” international interactions, however, the funding opportunities are too few and lack realistic levels of support. These include sources from the NSF, EPRSC, Royal Society, British Council etc. However, the main routes for developing and accessing consolidated and longer term research funding opportunities with international partners are not clear. Within Europe it is much easier due to the existence of framework programmes and the development of larger longer term research consortia.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What is the nature and extent of engagement between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, India and Japan? We have programmes involving links with the US (a specific tripartite alliance with Georgia Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory [http://www.atlanticcalliance.org/]) which focuses on themes including “Biomass to Biopower, Biofuels and Bioproducts”, “Materials for Energy” and “Enabling Technologies”. There are several EU-funded programmes that involve researchers from one or more additional member states. The department has in recent years received considerable funding from Mitsubishi (Japan) for research into genetic therapies. In addition, there are many links between individual research groups and their counterparts in these countries.

How effective is the engagement between the UK and the rest of the world? We have an active programme of cooperation with South Korea, forming part of a “Focal Point Programme” in nanobiotechnology, one of only 7 Korean government-supported UK- Korea science and innovation initiatives. We are also active in the Singapore A-star programme which is an Imperial-Singapore partnership activity.

Are there particular issues for the chemistry research area? What could be done to improve international interactions? The main issues concern funding obstacles. UK research council funding is not generally geared towards collaborative funding with non-UK partners. Interactions with the Far East

- 113 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B are ripe for increased interactions, particularly given the growth of chemistry research in India and China, but the difficulty in procuring funds discourages such international ventures.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University College London

There are very good interactions with international groups and these are driven by a desire to put together a complement of research groups to address important problems. EPSRC have tried to assist in this process (the NSF joint funding scheme) and for Europe I think that sufficient funding opportunities exist through EU schemes. However EPSRC could build on its existing activities and in particular opportunities to encourage overseas postdoctoral fellows from USA, India, China etc. to attract the very best international workers could be of considerable value.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

What is the nature and extent of engagement between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, India and Japan? EU links are good, facilitated by good availability of funding for travel. The EU-funded postdoctoral fellowships (Marie Curie etc) have been a good way to build ties. There is also a lot of Japanese money for travel to Japan, but not so for the US. The NSF and EPSRC have started a joint funding scheme for UK/US collaborative projects, though, which is helpful. Some laboratories in China and India have excellent facilities, but the quality of science coming from those countries can be variable.

How effective is the engagement between the UK and the rest of the world? Not as good.

Are there particular issues for the chemistry research area? What could be done to improve international interactions? Japan organised a bi-lateral three-day conference on “Coordination Space” in London three years ago, which was very successful at encouraging interaction between supramolecular chemistry research groups in the two countries. This may be an effective model for initiating collaborations between specific countries. The Marie Curie scheme and other EU fellowships are very effective at building relationships between labs within the EU. Comparable schemes involving other parts of the world could be very helpful.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

What is the nature and extent of engagement between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, India and Japan? Many UK researchers have strong collaborative links with good researchers overseas, but these are arranged on an individual basis. Getting funding for joint projects is difficult (Royal Society will pay for travel etc. only). EU grants are possible but very cumbersome and success rates are low. Most collaborations are therefore perforce carried out on an informal ad hoc basis (rather than through unwieldy and artificial multi- partner ‘consortia’) where both parties are already well-funded and both also see additional synergies and better quality science resulting from the collaboration. How effective is engagement between the UK and the rest of world? It underpins many successful collaborative research programmes and so is very effective. However, it requires UK scientists to be well-funded in the future (‘well-found lab’) and therefore appealing to international collaborators.

- 114 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B What could be done to improve international interactions? Remove the requirement that PhD studentships (DTC / DTA) are UK-only. Develop joint funding schemes between granting agencies in different countries that would allow a project to be jointly funded between UK and non-UK groups (e.g. joint EPSRC / NSF fellowships have been beneficial). Find an efficient mechanism to fund the recruitment of the best overseas (non-EC) PhD students. End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation UK researchers are well represented in best with best interactions although participation at the very top of the subject in the UK appears somewhat limited. Many interactions with best in Europe, USA, Japan, India and China exist. Good examples in NSF/EPSRC call and China/UK joint funding. Industrial collaborations can be as part of funded programmes but often are as a directly funded activity e.g. contract synthesis in India and China UK researchers interact effectively with the scientific community via conferencing. It is to the UK’s credit that it is represented at most major worldwide events. International research collaboration is much weaker. Although there are funding streams that encourage international collaboration, more support of international collaboration and travel/networking would be helpful End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation At the Chemistry/Biology interface, UK researchers are engaged at the highest level with their international peers. End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics The UK community does a good job of interacting internationally. Many individual UK research groups are linked to European networks through EU or ESF funding schemes. UK scientists are frequently asked to speak at major international conferences and travel to central facilities across Europe and the Atlantic is common practise. End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of I.Chem.E

IChemE has, particularly in recent years, been pursuing an internationalisation agenda, which is helping to develop links with chemical engineering communities around the world. In many ways this is reflected in the activities of researchers who have been developing international links, though we feel that there is still a great deal to be done. The UK’s chemical engineering research community probably needs much more international exposure and contact in general, though there are outstanding examples of internationally competitive groups who are very well-known. Programmes of the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering and other funding agencies promoting international visitors and international links are greatly appreciated. The EU also promotes an international agenda of course, though the huge bureaucracy of applying for and driving EU-funded research is notorious. The importance to the health of the research community of a vigorous international exchange, of staff and students (and thus ideas) should not be underestimated. We would like to see more collaborative funding mechanisms spanning borders, for example where the EPSRC co-operates with other funders such as the US National Science Foundation. End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 115 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by AstraZeneca UK synthetic chemistry researchers are not typically engaged with research that crosses disciplinary or national boundaries. Incentivisation and structure would seem necessary for this. Notwithstanding, the EU Framework provides significant funding which should incentivise pan-European research, but UK researchers are not involved as much as European counterparts. It isbe important to understand why this is (bureaucracy, lack of scientific partners/networks etc). Informal networks exist and new connections are being made with eg researchers in Asian nations, but there is not outstanding evidence of true research interaction. UK researchers however, probably have good awareness of the research of leaders in other countries. There are few examples where UK researchers are leading external engagement agenda. Moreover, in the public perception there would be few (if any) chemistry dominated global projects akin to those in astronomy or particle physics etc. International academic exchange could prove popular for engagement. However, before embarking upon a funded exchange programme, it would be helpful to understand why current exchange programmes in the UK across industry-academia are rarely taken up (e.g Royal Society Industrial Fellowships). US universities have always had varying but significant demand for UK and other international post graduate students to satisfy its research programmes. Joint programmes may act as catalysts to promote interactions. End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Dstl UK research chemists certainly engage with high calibre counterparts in other countries and are frequently invited to participate in the organisation of conferences and/or be guest speakers. Joint authorship of research papers with other nations is much in evidence, often where research interests happen to intersect by default rather than by design. International interactions could be catalysed by research councils (or their equivalents) in two or more nations initiating jointly funded programmes. Dstl targets the most appropriate researchers (academic, industrial, or international). International links are usually with Government laboratories. End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester The recent RAE assessment has shown that the majority of outputs were either internationally agenda setting or internationally competitive. International conferences have a high proportion of UK researchers in the delegate list and a higher than expected proportion of plenary lecture presenters. This expertise is, however limited to certain areas as highlighted by the recent RAE review. Mobility of researchers (to/from UK) and collaborative research activity are good, but could be improved. Engagement is strongest within Europe/America, with links to China, India and Japan generally at a fairly superficial level (small grants, travel grants, modest exchange schemes. Funding streams for speculative international collaboration could be simplified and improved. End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 116 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by Keele University

There is good interaction with the USA and Europe, particularly at the post-doctoral level. It is still noticeable that there are significant numbers of UK chemists holding distinguished positions in the USA, but few US chemists moving eastwards. Links with China, India and Japan are less well established.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Reading Collaborations with the countries listed are extremely variable. However, there are substantial collaborations with European countries, supported by EU programmes which lead to networks of universities and (often) industrial organisations, working on specific large scale projects. On a smaller scale the fact that EU students can study in the UK at UK-level fees means that recruitment of PhD students from these countries is reasonably straightforward and most UK chemistry departments now contain significant numbers of EU PhD students. This is a good route to future collaborations in that a proportion of these students may return to academic positions in their own countries once their PhD studies are ended. With the USA, collaboration is certainly not so extensive as it could and should be, given the dominant position of the US in Chemistry research and the absence of very much in the way of linguistic or cultural barriers. This is, it seems, finally being recognised, with the Royal Society removing its bar on funding for collaboration with US researchers, and EPSRC extending its annual grant scheme with NSF to include programmes in both Chemistry and Materials. Even the small sums allocated by EPSRC to its recent programme "Collaborating for Success Through People" enabled, in our experience, a remarkably high level of interaction with leading US groups to be achieved over a relatively short timescale (< 1 year). It would surely be in the UK's interest to promote further collaborations of this type as it is still relatively rare to find US PhD students (or even postdocs) working in UK chemistry departments, though of course it is very common to find UK nationals doing research in the USA. This imbalance is not to the UK’s advantage, and formulating schemes to bring more US researchers to UK Chemistry Departments would surely be a productive use of EPSRC funds. Similar comments apply to Japanese and Korean researchers, except that here the situation is exacerbated by language and cultural barriers. With India and China, the flow of researchers has traditionally been westward, with substantial numbers of Indian and Chinese researchers seeking, and gaining, research positions (PhD or postdoctoral) in the UK. The quality of many such researchers is excellent, but the very high tuition fees charged by UK universities make it difficult to fund individual students, even of the highest quality. A small number of current schemes, e.g. Felix scholarships (tenable at the Universities of Reading and Oxford) and Commonwealth Commission scholarships, do provide support for PhD students of Indian nationality, but substantial collaborations between UK and Asian universities including those in Japan, China, and India are still relatively rare and, overall, this must be to the detriment of UK research in Chemistry. The Royal Society provides some limited funding for collaborative international research (mainly travel and subsistence costs), but the fact that EPSRC has successfully implemented joint grant schemes with its US counterpart means that analogous schemes with the rapidly-developing science base in Asia might also be feasible. These should fund researchers at PhD, postdoctoral and academic staff levels, and in particular should encourage Asian researchers to work for extended periods in UK Departments, and vice- versa. End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 117 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by Aston University

There has been a growing interaction but again this is especially in applied areas where funding is available for collaboration between groups and individuals. It is important, in this context, not to overlook the links between outstanding scientists who are employed in (e.g. US) industry and UK academia. Additionally, funded inter-group activities in Europe and the Asia-Pacific regions have grown. One of the advantages of EPSRC programme and platform grants is that it increases the size and visibility of UK groups, which facilitates interaction opportunities for emerging young group members within those groups. Again it is the funding mechanisms that drive and facilitate these growing interactions. Genuine interaction between the UK and international partners will be more influenced by funding than any other single factor. End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Hull There is considerable collaboration between UK based chemists and their European colleagues. This is primarily due to the multinational research programmes sponsored by the European Union, i.e., framework 7. There are long-established bilateral exchange programmes between individual departments in the UK and Europe, e.g., the chemistry departments of Cambridge University and the ETH in Zurich originally for research into vitamins. There are bilateral programmes between individual countries, e.g., the Alliance/British Council between France and the UK, that stimulate and foster international collaboration with the best European institutions and researchers. There are similar collaborations between the UK and leading institutions in the USA, but to a much smaller extent. This is being actively promoted by the EPSRC/NSF joint programmes, for example. The Royal Society stimulates interaction between many countries and specifically India, China and to a lesser extent Japan. However, the available funding is much more limited and concentrated on fostering scientific exchanges, visits and collaboration, rather than funding major research projects themselves. The number and intensity of these international collaborations and contacts clearly depend on the amount and nature of funding available for them. End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast The number of “best with best” collaborations is small, probably strongest within Europe and then with the USA. The funding from the EU has certainly been an influence here but I doubt that there has been real value for money due to the chaotic way in which the EU judges research proposals. International collaborations depend on two factors. First, and most important, is the individual researcher – do they really want to invest the time to collaborate? Second, is the time to do this. The pressures on academics in chemistry departments to teach and administer leaves little time for research at home never mind creating time for overseas trips. There is a fundamental, and well recognised problem of funding for chemistry. The government model has never fully covered the cost of teaching chemistry. Only if an individual university sets aside the funding model and makes a strategic decision to support chemistry will time and space be created for worthwhile international collaborations. In many chemistry departments, sabbatical leave is now seen as a luxury. End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 118 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by Queen Mary, University of London Although there is good interaction and exchange of ideas with the USA in terms of the number of publications by UK Chemists which appear in American Chemical Society journals, the feeling continues to be that research interactions largely cease after a UK chemist has experienced a period as a PDRA in a US lab. Paradoxically, whilst a period as a PDRA in Japan is more unusual for a UK PhD, true research collaborations appear stronger here. Much better mutual interactions with the USA (and also Japan) could be nurtured through more focused funding streams, such as those provided by the Royal Society and to some extent EPSRC, for collaboration with China. European collaborations are much more prevalent as a result of geography, the number of mechanisms available to facilitate collaborative research e.g. ERC, Framework 7 and the share of central facilities either through the Framework mechanism, or inter-governmental agreements and these have all been very positive for European chemistry per se. However, whilst the UK appears to be a popular location for EC funded fellows, reflecting the excellence of UK chemistry, there is an underlying feeling that the UK community is underrepresented at least in terms of funding levels and steps to improve this could only benefit UK chemistry on the global stage. End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘B’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey Many of “the best” UK scientists mingle with their peers at international meetings, but that does not guarantee joint working. There are patches of active interaction between high profile UK teams and overseas teams. Such interactions occur through a variety of routes, with funding at very different levels and for differing purposes being available from the British Council (very occasionally), the Royal Society, the European Commission and EPSRC. Royal Society funding is typically geared to development of new interactions (via International Travel Grants and Collaborative Programmes) between active researchers. While this is admirable, there appears no mechanism to identify funding even for travel when associated with a longer term collaboration, other than including a request in a bid of programme funding to another body (without any guarantee of success). This mechanism, by design or otherwise, does tend to promote short term (no more than a very few years) links. Funding of joint work by UK and European teams has become more difficult to gain from the European Commission with expansion of the membership of the European Union. Chemists have nonetheless been active in FP6 and FP7 programmes, even though many have no explicitly chemical context, but the chances of success of a bid to such programmes (never high) have decreased appreciably. EPSRC has explicit schemes promoting establishment of collaborative complementary programmes. Thus the NSF/EPSRC scheme promotes UK-US collaborations (separate Chemistry and Materials programmes), but only a small number of awards are available (ca. 5 annually to each programme). Other schemes may be multi-disciplinary (e.g. UK-China Energy programme) with no pre-requisite that chemistry-focussed themes be funded, and again fund only a very small number of programmes. Competition for funding of substantive collaborative programmes is very high, and the number of such programmes is low. There is a case for the commitment of more resource in this area. The various INTERACT programmes (majoring in team visits) have been well subscribed but it is not clear that subsequent funding opportunities directly linked to such programmes can always be identified. End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘B’ response list)

- 119 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to B Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

The RSC believes mechanisms are in place to encourage collaboration between the UK and Europe, aided by the EU Framework Programme which provides significant funding mechanisms which should incentivise pan-European research. The resource allocated by the European Research Council is welcomed and, in the 2008 distribution, we were very encouraged by the success of five UK projects in securing major grants. A report6 by Evidence Ltd. commissioned by the RCUK office in China found that UK-China collaborative research output roughly doubled in volume between 2002 and 2006, from about 1000 to almost 2000 papers per year, with outputs clustered in the physical sciences. However, there is room for improvement: over the period 2002–2008, there were 1030 joint UK-China papers in Physics and Applied Physics/Condensed Matter and 331 in Earth Sciences, compared with 239 for Physical Chemistry/Chemical Physics and 128 for Organic Chemistry & Polymer Science. The recent summit of UK and China prime ministers confirmed the commitment to a total of 11,000 joint publications between 2008 and 2102, a goal which chemistry needs to play a significant part in achieving. Out of 19 UK-China Summer Schools funded by the RCUK China Office in 2008–1010 (after peer review in both the UK and China), 3 out of 19 are in the chemistry area.7 The RSC is promoting a number of activities in China. For example, the RSC has an office in Beijing and is looking to extend its local presence. We are also looking to extend local partnerships and build influence through targeted events such as 3rd CHEMCOMM symposium in Organic Synthesis and Methodology, Shanghai, Beijing. The RSC is also engaging internationally with India, Africa, Brazil, South East Asia and the Middle East. In India the RSC has just launched the Chemistry Leadership Network, an initiative aimed at building on existing RSC networks both in India and worldwide to enable contact between the top chemical scientists in India and the UK. In addition, the RSC Organic Division have been interacting with the National Organic Synthesis Trust (the premier organic synthesis organisation in India) by arranging for the UK’s best academic and industrial researchers to interact with India’s best academic and industrial researchers at NOST meetings in 2007 and 2009; and sponsoring some of the best UK postgraduate students to participate in India’s prestigious jNOST (junior NOST) meetings in 2007 and 2008. The chemistry community needs to remain aware of funding opportunities for international collaboration in interdisciplinary areas where chemists can play a part. For example, the UK - China Partnership in Science has identified materials, and in particular nanomaterials, materials for energy and biomaterials, as a key area for collaboration between the two countries. USA universities have always had varying demand for UK and other international post graduate students to satisfy its research programmes. Joint programmes may act as catalysts for these interactions.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘B’ response list)

6 Evidence Ltd. : Bibliometric analyses of UK-China research publications: Report 1 – Summary Statitstics (Feb. 2008); Report 2 – research sponsorship (March 2008); Report 3 – China bibliometric database (June 2008) http://www.rcuk.cn/rcuk/uploadfile/File/Consultancy/final%20report%20for%20web.pdf 7 UK-China Summer School Competition http://www.rcuk.cn/rcuk/fore/s_ncontent_cnt_en.php?ncnt_id=131

- 120 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C C What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous research base and portfolio? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• Several contributors felt it was difficult to define adventurous research and suggested it could only be identified after the research was completed.

• Some felt that research described by the RAE as 4* and world leading was transformative and using this measure, national volume was at about 15-20%.

• Others alluded to the high proportion of publications from UK academics being published in leading chemistry journals and world leading broad-scope journals like Nature.

• Evidence also put forward to demonstrate adventure included specific examples of work; awards won and new research areas created in the UK.

• Good indicators of adventure were felt to be; the proportionally high number of UK academics asked to lead international projects, UK chemists becoming involved in multidisciplinary projects and contributing to work in other disciplines such as biology and materials.

• Much evidence was presented of adventurous work, however, some felt the volume was less than in other countries and not as much as it should be.

• Conservatism in peer review is felt to favour ‘safe’ research, with risk being seen as a reason not to fund something. It was noted that the Research Councils are trying to encourage the research community to see risk as a positive.

• Low success rates do not encourage adventurous research as applicants feel they need to “play it safe” in order to increase the likelihood of being funded and thus be able to publish (both measures used by the RAE). It was suggested that there should be ring fenced money for adventurous research, although it was noted that EPSRC recently had a call into Adventurous Chemistry.

• Highlighting research areas/challenges for funding is considered detrimental to adventurous research. Researchers need the opportunity to do fundamental curiosity driven research and not be stifled by the drive to combat key challenges. The best mechanism for funding this kind of research is responsive mode and the budget for this must be protected.

• Detailed work plans are not conducive to adventurous research – flexibility is key; • the EPSRC policy to encourage longer larger grants should mean applicants have more opportunities to do riskier research • this is available to younger academics in the form of fellowships

• Adventurous multidisciplinary research that falls between different council remits is often disadvantaged and improved mechanisms for judging and funding multidisciplinary projects need to be found.

- 121 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 122 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Response by University of Bath

The current volume of transformative research in the UK could be increased. Peer review in responsive mode still favours somewhat ‘safe’ research proposals, particularly in the current highly competitive funding climate. For example, a single peer reviewer with a criticism of a research proposal being very risky or not clearly enough defined is perceived to have a veto on funding an adventurous piece of research. This encourages the submission of very well- defined, narrow proposals which, it could be argued, inhibits transformative and adventurous research.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Volume of Transformative Research. The most useful metric is the percentage of researchers producing 4* outputs in the 2008 RAE. Defined as ‘quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour’, nationally 17% of academic staff returned to the Chemistry UOA were rated as 4* whilst SoC’s figure was 25%. The outstanding position of chemistry in UK science is demonstrated by comparison with other UOA such as physics (14%) biological sciences (15%) and earth systems and environmental sciences (16%). A further indicator is the number of publications in the World leading, broad-scope journals: Nature and its associated journals (6); Science (3); J. Am. Chem. Soc. (11); Angew. Chemie (18) and Pro. Natl. Acad Sci USA (2). The numbers indicated give the total published by the SoC in the last 26 months and represents ca. 25% of total output.

Barriers to Adventurous Research. Referees can be too conservative when assessing high risk, adventurous research. This tendency towards conservatism may be exacerbated by the introduction of an ‘impact summary’ for all applications. Another barrier is the time between submission and funding. When recruitment is taken into consideration it can be well over a year between conception and project initiation. This can be alleviated to some extent by the provision of longer and larger grants which allow a higher degree of flexibility.

Research Council Policy. By far the most effective method for funding adventurous and creative research is through the responsive mode. However the levels of responsive mode funding are currently static and there is likely to be increasing pressure on the pot with the introduction of more top-down directives, signposting, ‘grand-challenges’ etc coupled with global downturn.

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

We feel that the UK “punches above its weight” in terms of adventurous research but that this position can only be guaranteed in the future if there is sufficiently strong support for adventurous science. Two areas stand out as prerequisites here; (i) the availability of Research Fellowships for early career researchers plus other schemes (e.g., First Grants) to allow young researchers to compete at an international level and; (ii) platform schemes to fund large and ambitious fundamental research programmes for periods exceeding the “standard” EPSRC 3-year timescale. Our perception is that a significant proportion of EPSRC proposals submitted are somewhat incremental in scope, despite the Research Councils’ efforts to encourage adventure in research. We ascribe this mostly to low success rates for proposals and a perceived need (right or, more likely, wrong) to “play it safe”. This is potentially damaging, particularly for early career researchers, and there is a concomitant need for careful mentoring of this group by more experienced researchers. For example, it is very tempting (and in the short term often quite successful) for early career researchers to base their careers on “me too” studies following major successes in established international groups. We believe that schemes such as the Career Acceleration Fellowships should aim

- 123 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C to fund truly innovative proposals and there is at least anecdotal evidence that this is indeed occurring in that scheme. In general, we feel that the volume of “transformative” research is still somewhat lower than it should be in comparison with more incremental studies. The Research Councils need to do more to encourage and support adventurous research and not to confuse this with focussed mission programmes and over-prescription in fields of activity. This is also however an issue for the peer review community. A conservative research community will review proposals conservatively and thus perpetuate a conservative research culture. The identification of Grand Challenges is a positive idea here but there is risk in this being misinterpreted by the academic community as a driver to “force-fit” essentially all proposals onto applications. The request for impact statements will significantly increase this risk and appears at first sight to be the polar opposite of encouraging adventure. This might be managed by appropriate reviewer and panel instruction, or possibly by requiring these statements for audit purposes only and not linking them at all with peer review. There is significant risk to UK Chemistry in the introduction of mission programmes where chemistry only plays a minor role and in the reduction of funding for fundamental chemistry research. Peer-review in certain subjects can confuse building on world-beating platforms that a PI has established as “incremental”. Thus, many researchers are forced to take up brand new issues every 2 or 3 years – this seriously affects our ability to retain and extend world-leading positions. A fundamental concern is how to improve the peer review and panel selection process so that the most creative and adventurous science has at least an equal opportunity. We suggest that it is important for the constitution of panels to include the best scholars and that panel input should be significant – not to “re- referee” proposals but to weight appropriately, for example, referee comments which are deemed to be overly-conservative in nature. It is difficult for a peer review group or panel to moderate adventurous research and large programmes effectively unless a sizeable fraction of the peer review group & panel used has experience of this kind of research.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

There is extensive evidence of adventurous research in Chemistry at the University of Manchester (see the principal research groups submissions as the main evidence of this). There are many papers published from the School in the leading chemistry journals (Ang. Chem, J.Amer Chem.Soc.) and an increasing number in journals such as Nature and Science. Several members of staff have made important contributions in other disciplines, again most notably in biology or materials but also in physics and the development of crystallography.

Agenda driven research is essential for a significant portion of the chemistry community, providing the necessary focus and targets. However, the elite researchers who are capable of highly innovative and novel world-leading chemistry without a steer, require the freedom to explore completely new areas of science for which no immediate economic or social impact may necessarily be evident. So far, research councils have supported individuals doing such work and it is essential that this continues.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

Nottingham Chemistry is at the forefront of a number of creative concepts. For example, the £4.5M ‘DICE’ project (Driving Innovation in Chemistry and Engineering) extends innovative multi-disciplinary research across the chemistry/engineering interface and provides new approaches to the training of young scientists. It is also heavily engaged in the area of novel materials for energy storage, in cross faculty initiatives in nanoscience and technology and in a wide range of collaborative projects at the interface with biology and medicine. In exploiting our chemical assets for healthcare applications, we are about to establish (with

- 124 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C the School of Pharmacy) a managed chemical compound library for drug screening - one of only a few to be established in the UK outside industry.

The UK is well placed to undertake adventurous and creative research. However we think that it is important that support for fundamental curiosity driven research by high quality individuals is not neglected in the drive towards key challenges / exploitation and collaborative projects. The impact or relevance of such fundamental work is often unclear at the outset but may prove to be an essential component of addressing current and future challenges we cannot put all our faith the targeted initiatives that focus on so called priority areas.

End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford

The answer depends on the definition of ‘transformative research’: if one defines transformative as “world leading” for this response then the volume in the UK is around 15% and is 30% in Oxford Chemistry (= 4* in RAE 2008) We suggest that one way to reduce barriers would be to ring fence some funding for really adventurous research. More money should be made available in responsive mode to support adventurous research, with large grants awarded without necessarily requiring a detailed plan in advance – assess the success of funding at the end, and re-fund if high levels of success are achieved. At the same time it must be recognised that adventurous research does not only originate from large collaborative programs. Individual investigators must be given support to develop their blue skies ideas too. Continuity of funding is also important, and the research councils are addressing this by encouraging and funding longer research programmes. Longer term (3-5 year) grants are required for programmes focused on high-risk/high-gain research. EPSRC has increasingly tried to encourage referees and panels to consider adventure in research as a positive feature and has also had some directed funding streams. But this remains an area where more progress needs to be made.

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

A significant barrier is the current low success rate for responsive mode funding, the lack of baseline funding in Chemistry Departments, and the trend to use DTA funding strategically to support initiatives or younger staff. Too much of the EPSRC’s limited resource is diverted to initiatives or schemes (such as “Sand pits”) and DTCs.

The trend towards ever less specialised grant panels is also a barrier to adventurous research since such projects need informed champions to make the case for funding against other projects.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

The Department has successfully set up major programs in new areas of research. Examples would be the Microdroplets Project (Abell, Robinson and Huck), introducing new technology to biological problems. The six-year program funded by Pfizer into developing a materials science perspective into drug delivery has involved two Departments (Chemistry and Materials Science) along with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre and was the first such Centre created in the UK. The creation of the Unilever Centre for Chemical

- 125 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Informatics allows Cambridge to work closely with Unilever on key issues as well as underpinning fundamental studies and creating a set of uniquely-trained researchers. Various research programmes initiated in the Department have resulted in the creation of highly successful spin-out companies.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Durham

We would argue that the vast majority of our research is creative but it is also true that the larger part is founded on existing methodology or is an extension of existing themes within a research group. Counter examples (often from unfunded research) that illustrate highly novel discoveries include • optical binding of particle arrays (Bain) • negative thermal expansion materials (Evans) • rewritable multifunctional surfaces (Badyal) • small molecule that control stem cell differentiation (Marder, Whiting) • responsive ratiometric cellular probes for bioactive species (Parker) • click chemistry for aqueous phosphorylation (Hodgson)

Barriers to adventurous research include the highly structured nature of research proposals with detailed milestones and work plans, the peer review system that disfavours research in entirely new areas (no enthusiastic expert referees), an aversion to risk in the research councils, and an emphasis on identifiable applications and pathways to exploitation. Programme grants, in principle, provide greater flexibility but in practice the requirement for a large existing grant portfolio in the area of the programme grant limits the opportunities of exploratory work in new fields and discriminates against younger researchers (unless they ride the coat-tails of senior colleagues). A number of Fellowship schemes aimed at younger researchers do provide a high degree of flexibility and autonomy, including Royal Society University Research Fellowships, Career Acceleration Fellowships, Leadership Fellowships and ERC Starting Grants. Attracting follow-on funding once the initial fellowship period is over remains a hurdle to career development. The EPSRC also need to find more effective mechanisms for funding interdisciplinary research.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

Chemists have over many years proved to be extremely creative and always willing to explore new avenues. This has on more than one occasion been perceived as a major administrative problem: an overwhelming number of grant applications. The quality of the resulting science can easily be judged by the excellent impact factors of the journal publications.

There are no barriers to adventurous research, other than the low funding success. Research Council funding policy lessens creativity and adventure: Shortage of funds, or funding few select areas only, cements the status-quo, limits adventure and leads to targeting key areas determined by politics rather than science.

There are also examples to the opposite: scientifically ill-founded projects are supported because they respond to the target area of the day, so rigorous selection criteria are set aside.

There is considerable creativity in biological chemistry in the UK leading to adventurous projects but there could be much more. It is not lack of ideas but the lack of funds, in part flowing from the misguided fEC model of funding (itself based on the original flawed TRAC research exercise) leading to a reduced volume of research, and in part from an inadequate

- 126 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Research Council structure that leads to many adventurous projects falling at the interface between BBSRC and EPSRC. In combination, BBSRC and EPSRC are a stifling influence in this area: adventurous ideas must first be worked up (using indirect funding) to the point where they are no longer considered risky and therefore become fundable. The current funding squeeze makes the situation even worse.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

Best evidence is that UK environmental chemists are often asked to lead international projects, far in excess of what might be our expected share of such leadership roles. The community is well represented with respect to international (e.g. EU medals etc) and UK honours (e.g. FRSs).

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

High quality outputs dominate this evidence from EaStChem, and we publish in excess of 400 papers a year from 76 staff. Furthermore we have garnered a wide range of significant prizes: examples from Senior staff include: Leigh RSC Supramolecular Chemistry Award 2003; RSC Interdisciplinary Award 2004; FRSE 2005; Institute of Chemistry of Ireland Chemistry Award 2005; Swiss Chemical Society Troisieme Conferencier in Chemistry 2005; FRSE 2005; EPSRC Senior Research Fellowship 2005; RSC Nanotechnology Award 2005; RS-Wolfson Research Merit Award 2005; Izatt-Christensen Award 2007; Feynman Award for Nanotechnology 2007; Bruce RS-Wolfson Merit Award 2001; RSC Beilby Medal 2003; RSC Interdisciplinary Award 2003; RSC John Jeyes Lectureship & Medal 2004; RSE Gunning Jubilee Prize Lectureship 2004; RSC Solid State Award 2005; FRS 2007; Naismith Colworth Medal 2004; FRSE 2005; RSC Corday-Morgan Medal 2004; BBSRC Fellow 2002; Leverhulme Prize 2002, Bradley Van't Hoff Lectureship prize - Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science 2003; Leo lectureship 2002; Novartis Lecturer 2007. Futhermore, approximately 20 Fellows have chosen to hold their prestigious awards and develop their careers in EaStCHEM. The strength and depth of our Chemistry research also has been bolstered by the 19 younger academics who have been granted underpinned University posts since 2001.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

We believe that the UK chemistry base remains imaginative and vibrant, with great ideas that can develop not only as excellent and world-leading chemistry but also as part of more applied and research. The UK has been criticised in the past for being too follow-on and derivative. We would disagree with this statement in that there are a number of significant areas of research which have been created and instigated from the research base despite the difficulties one faces in obtaining decent levels of support to pursue these adventurous ideas. One example of this is that the UK has been the major innovator in the birth and development of plastic electronics.

The funding environment to encourage “transformative research” has been developing. There has been a push within the UK to encourage more adventurous research thinking and, to support this, the major funding bodies have created an adventurous aspect to the assessment process for some research applications, and indeed there were specific calls for

- 127 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C “Adventurous Chemistry” research. Although this operated for a period, the deployment of this programme was very varied across the country and although adventurousness is still encouraged as one of the major factors for assessment of funding applications, such adventure has to be coupled with a quality threshold to ensure research excellence is maintained. The recent establishment of bodies addressing the Transformative Research agenda should help develop further the embedding of adventure in research by facilitating the development and application of the excellent ideas that exist.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What is the current volume of transformative research and is this appropriate? There has been a growth of translational research in recent years, which is matched by increased presence of university “technology transfer” organisations.

What are the barriers to more "adventurous research" and how can they be overcome? One of the biggest barriers is that with the current low rates of funding success, any funding proposal that carries even a hint that it could fail is unlikely to be supported. There is therefore a tendency towards “safe” research proposals that limits the degree of adventure. Specific “blue-sky” initiatives are occasionally supported (and are welcome), but are often in very prescriptive areas and frequently with very limited budgets. The best way of ensuring that truly innovative ideas can surface is to continue to support high-quality research without restricting this too tightly to “flavour-of-the-month” funding initiatives. While there is certainly a need to encourage specific thematic areas, the hot areas of tomorrow are not necessarily those of today and we need to maintain a vibrant responsive mode funding stream.

To what extent does Research Council funding policy support/enable adventurous research? Funding, or lack thereof, is the biggest barrier to adventurous research.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University College London

RAE 2008 tried to measure this in terms of impact of outputs. However it is hard to know how to measure creativity and adventure.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

What is the current volume of transformative research and is this appropriate? Unknown. Schemes do exist within individual universities to fund “Transformative research”, but successful projects are highly interdisciplinary and Chemistry forms only a part of the effort.

What are the barriers to more "adventurous research" and how can they be overcome? Peer review is inherently conservative, which is a major barrier for funding adventurous research. Risk-reward is a metric used to evaluate research proposals. NERC has a new theme in technology which funds higher risk projects at their initial stages. An emphasis on LOLA’s could be counterproductive for adventurous projects. Adventurous projects are inherently blue-sky so industry is less interested, as there is little immediate commercial benefit. Any shift towards EKT-based funding may therefore diminish opportunities for adventurous research. Industry tends to fund projects where there is a definite problem to

- 128 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C solve, and a clear capability elsewhere to solve the problem. There is some pressure at Universities for academics to become increasingly involved in LOLAs (safer research, more money), and this could be at the expense of academics applying for smaller blue-skies grants which are higher risk, but could lead to major breakthroughs. To what extent does Research Council funding policy support/enable adventurous research? EPSRC actively encourages adventurous projects, indeed there have funding calls for “Adventurous Chemistry”. End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield All the data collected for the RAE: the publication track record of UK academics; citation rates; indicators of esteem and international reputations; conference invitations; etc. Since ‘Transformative research’ correlates with 4* in RAE terms, the extent of this has been quantified. A major barrier to adventurous research is the current policy of allocating UK research funding to areas that are felt by government to be important now (and therefore, almost by definition, ‘incremental’). To ensure that adventurous research is done ‘responsive mode’ should be protected to let curiosity-driven academics set a substantial proportion of the research agenda. Top-down management of research themes is more or less incompatible with adventure in research. End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of York Chemistry as a subject is often successful at attracting funding from a wide range of research councils. It is probably unusual in this respect. For example, at York researchers are successful in attracting funds from EPSRC, BBSRC, NERC, MRC and AHRC. End of response by University of York (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation In recent years the portfolio has seemed academically of high quality while appearing to lack adventurous edge. The previous review’s attribution of the description ‘scholarly’ has some resonance. Adventurous work at the subject boundaries particularly between chemistry and biology/ engineering/ physics appears to have been pursued less than in other major countries. Although the UK has done some creative and adventurous fundamental research in the chemical sciences both in academic and industrial labs this is being put at significant risk by the push to do ever more applied work especially at a time when industry is under such pressure that it doesn’t have funds to spend on either internal blue skies research or on co- funding that in collaboration with Universities. Research collaborations involving more than two partners (so not just a company and a university) are much more common than in years past. Similarly, collaborations involving different sectors with a common theme (e.g. previous CIKTN programmes involving controlled flocculation encompassed industrial interest from a wide variety of industries). A view has been expressed by some companies that the American system, where academics are tenured and receive a proportion of their income from the University, with the academic receiving income from research income which they bring in, would act as an incentive. End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘C’ response list)

- 129 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Response by Biosciences Federation

Barriers to adventurous research include the current, highly structured funding mechanisms (including cross-boundary peer review), for research proposals that cut across the boundaries of the UK Research Councils.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

There are pockets of initiative and brilliance distributed throughout the UK.

The targeting of more and more Research Council funding at ‘favourite’ topics is not generally seen as promoting ‘adventurous science’. From this point of view it would be better to increase the support for individuals, if necessary at the expense of some big projects.

The recent extension of this ‘targeted’ approach to PhD studentships through Doctoral Training Centres is also detrimental for individual creative or adventurous activities, particularly in chemistry where research relies particularly heavily on PhD students.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

There is no doubt that low success rates in the responsive mode application mechanism lead to highly risk-averse decisions on funding. It is too easy to reject an application which is innovative, because one peer reviewer at least will point out the many (well-reasoned) ways in which novel research can fail. Part at least of a balanced portfolio of research should be dedicated to “adventurous research” and probably this needs to have a protected route through the peer-review system. In helping to create and protect such research, the funding councils need more scientific and engineering expertise in-house and we would like to see more (short-term) positions available to career researchers who would return, after a posting, to academia. This is common in the US.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca Transformative research is difficult to identify, but equally much chemistry research takes time to become embedded and established (eg olefin metathesis) ie the transformation is not usually observed overnight. A sound skills and academic research base in synthesis has significantly grown a chemistry industry in the UK, spanning chemistry services to R&D driven SMEs. If universities adopt more target-driven cultures, this is likely to become a barrier to more adventurous research. Peer review is perceived to inadequately recognise or support adventurous research. Doctoral Training Centres appear to be a very good initiative to ensure a holistic approach to good scientific research supporting applied outcomes and discipline strength, but it early yet to see evidence in support of this. It is hoped that the DTC experiment will support the right centres promoting good quality research and in turn act as focal points for future funding – thus giving impact to investment. End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘C’ response list)

- 130 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Response by Dstl

Dstl is not aware of much evidence that adventurous research in chemistry is well supported in UK academia. Grants are awarded typically for three years and failure is ‘not an option’. Consequently, many academics are unwilling to put forward high-risk ideas on the grounds that a perceived failure is likely to jeopardise prospects for future funding. Shorter-term precursor research (say one year) on more adventurous ideas that could have high impact is an option that might help to overcome this barrier.

Dstl encourages innovation and adventurous research - novelty is key to our work. Dstl provides internal “capability development” in order to develop novel ideas. These ideas show returns on investment through gaining additional customer funding and patent status.

Dstl also encourages innovation through external engagement, by providing information on our requirements to a wider community in order to initiate novel research proposals.

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

The proportion of UK papers appearing in Journals that only publish innovative and creative science is extremely high. This is no doubt driven by the fact that the Central Funding Councils demand such criteria as a prerequisite for funding. This is leading all researchers to put high risk innovative science into their proposals. While this is good it means that a significant body of fundamental science goes unfunded and is ultimately not fully explored.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Keele University

There are some barriers to ‘adventurous research’. Inevitably taxpayer funding must be seen to be contributing to the quality of UK life. Funding of adventurous research must be balanced against acceptable chances of success rate, and PIs need to feel that well- conducted blue-skies projects that aren’t hugely successful won’t damage their careers. The current funding policy may be too strictly directed to well-defined, achievable targets with a clear chronological plan, whilst truly innovative research often cannot anticipate its applications. There is some justification for more emphasis, in part, on ideas of promise and potential rather than projects that ‘look’ certain to work.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

As “transformative" research can rarely be identified until several years after it has been carried out, quantifying this is virtually impossible. The research councils do their best to support this type of work, but the risks involved in taking on such challenges mean that much research which will never have significant utility, or which simply fails to achieve the hoped-for results, must also receive support.

The current system of research assessments at regular intervals makes the support of truly adventurous research more difficult and the proposed “metrics-based” system will probably make it even worse. Much really transformative research would have scored a very low metrics value until its true value was understood and, as mentioned, to support this type of research means that quite a lot of studies which will produce a very low level of outputs must also be funded.

- 131 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C

At an individual level administrative demands are making it increasingly difficult for creative scientists to carve out the thinking time necessary to produce genuinely new ideas. Overall it seems likely that this type of research is in decline, and the increasingly strident governmental demands for "economic impact" in research mean that the proportion of such work will inevitably continue to decline.

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Aston University

Several things operate against creative and adventurous research in the UK. The apparently increasing focus of funding bodies on priority areas inevitably limits funding for innovative work outside of these areas. Inability to obtain a steady stream of funding in adventurous research areas coupled with the pressure within universities to generate overhead-bearing funding draws academics to applied research, not out of interest but out of necessity. This is an increasing problem for young academics and one that seems set to modify the historic academic traditions of which the UK is rightly proud. The developing reliance on metrics in the assessment of research quality and volume is also likely to militate against adventure in research. There will be a disinclination to publish in fledgling journals - which are often associated with the emergence of new research areas. The responses to questions in later sections provide a different perspective but offer no expectation that freedom, creativity and adventure in research will increase greatly in UK universities. Additional comment made under F is relevant here.

End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

Transformative research is almost impossible to define and so to quantify in any useful form. Scientific discoveries with the ability to create whole new industries, such as LCDs and plastic electronics, are often made with several PhD students in arcane areas of research driven by individual scientific curiosity and insight. The importance of individual researchers with unusual scientific backgrounds and interests and the freedom of those scientists to carry out idiosyncratic research in unusual areas of chemistry that could be really transformative appears to be somewhat misunderstood by the Research Councils.

A significant barrier to adventurous and innovative research in the UK is the funding policy of the Research Councils themselves and especially that of the EPSRC for Chemistry. The direction of research subjects by directed funding automatically restricts innovation and adventure by defining the research area to those specialised in that field with an appropriate track record. The concentration of funding on a smaller number of larger research projects limits the opportunity for adventure and the ability to take risks in research. This policy may well contribute to an ossification of chemistry research in the UK. This trend will be strengthened by the award of DTCs to the same institutions in the same areas of research specialisation and excellence.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘C’ response list)

- 132 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C Response by Queen’s University Belfast

Both pure and applied research can be transformative but the UK is probably better at the former. I would estimate that around 10-15% of the research is truely agenda setting.

Barriers to adventurous research include the perception that panels will struggle to fund “crazy” ideas which they may not fully understand. Panels prefer to support “safe science”. Short-termism is a barrier because some very novel opportunities may not emerge immediately nor indeed be what was anticipated from the original idea. There is also a barrier in some funding panels which seem to take the view that applied research cannot also be adventurous, especially when this crosses traditional subject boundaries. In fact, if world class researchers could be encouraged to develop collaborations of critical mass to work on real applied problems there is no reason why, as in Victorian times, we could not lead the world in wealth generation. Note, however, all the earlier comments about time constraints.

RCUK funding, based on traditional peer review, will always struggle to identify real, useful adventurous research, not least because most ideas will turn out not to be of any value so how do you pick the tiny proportion of winners?

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

There is concern that the increasing levels of bureaucracy associated with the current funding model are resulting in Research Councils not funding ‘adventurous research’. By requiring researchers to produce extensive justification with the emphasis on readily achievable goals, which represent small incremental improvements in scientific knowledge, it is unlikely that truly transformative research can be funded. At the present time an enormous amount of time is also being wasted through the peer review system, due to the low success rates. Steps to reduce this could only be beneficial to the output of the community.

A perceived strength of the UK chemical community (at least within the UK as evidenced by discussions at the Heads of Chemistry UK meetings) continues to be its use of PhD students to undertake more adventurous research. However due to the increased focus on large multi-disciplinary projects which consequently focus DTAs on fewer departments, as well as the reduction in industrial support through the CASE system, this is increasingly difficult.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

The UK has recognised excellence in a number of areas, in which adventurous world leading research has been to the fore. Many of these have persisted for a substantial number of years. In a number of areas, key players are approaching retirement and advance in fundamental science has slowed. There is, nonetheless, a perception that it is less likely that younger academic researchers will obtain funding.

Taking the example of solid state chemistry, the excellence of UK work in this area historically is unquestionable, as is the excellence of current research training. However, several of the constituent themes have persisted for over 2 decades and it is arguably time to move more strongly from characterisation of structure and properties to real application

- 133 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to C and device focussed research. This area constitutes an example of an historically very strong research base on which to build further towards technological application.

The launch of focussed managed programmes has led to collaborations that have bridged, with great accompanying benefits, conventional discipline boundaries. Thus teams (14 consortia) funded under the SUPERGEN (sustainable power generation) initiative have allowed the strengths of researchers who would not otherwise have worked together. Chemists bring their own skill set and top level research to these consortia, and science as a whole benefits from the broadening of experience and perspective that working with colleagues from areas as disparate as electrical engineering and microbiology brings. The chemistry developed as an essential part of such programmes has stimulated significant step advance (often breakthrough) in areas such a fuel cell technology, hydrogen storage and photovoltaics; in all of these areas the work of chemists is a key component and the associated funding has led to seminal advances in the discipline.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘C’ response list)

Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

The RAE 2008 concluded that UK chemistry remains buoyant and internationally competitive. Substantial investment in infrastructure and the development of more focussed institutional research programmes have led to virtually all the research submitted to the exercise being of at least good national quality, while there is clearly world-leading research in many key areas of the subject and in most institutions. In a number of institutions with a record of continuing long-term investment there is a world-leading presence across a very broad spectrum of Chemistry. The RSC believes that one of the biggest obstacles to ‘adventurous research’ is the inability of the UK system to respond to applications that cross the borders between the remits of the four scientific research councils (EPSRC, NERC, BBSRC, and MRC). Efforts are required to address this situation to reduce the obstacles at these interfaces. There is a concern within some of the chemistry community that Research Council’s do not allow renewal grants but rather expect all proposals to include an original idea. Although this system encourages originality, it strongly discourages the very long term, challenging research. A further barrier is that there are limited funding sources for chemistry in the UK and no funding bodies focused entirely on ‘adventurous research’ such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), The Gates Foundation or the Army and Navy in the US. The RSC would like to see further mechanisms put in place within funding structures to encourage truly adventurous research. In addition, new academics are under huge pressure to bring in research grants so may be discouraged from ‘adventurous research’ as they have a greater chance of success by proposing ‘safe’ research in priority areas. The RAE puts a large amount of pressure on all academics to continually produce papers and bring in funds which could have the effect of discouraging ‘adventurous research’.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘C’ response list)

- 134 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D D To what extent is the UK chemistry community addressing key technological/societal challenges through engaging in new research opportunities? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• The key technological and societal challenges faced by the UK chemistry community were given as: Provision of alternative (non-fossil fuel) energy sources Climate change Provision of healthcare for expanding and ageing world population Security Sustainable chemical synthesis/processes

• The broad research base of UK chemistry means that many in the UK chemistry community are involved in research relevant to addressing these challenges.

• UK research in medicinal chemistry and drug design is well placed to tackle healthcare challenges.

• Theoretical and computational chemistry are strong in the UK and will play an important role in tackling key issues.

• The UK has a number of world leading groups undertaking research into alternative energy sources

• Initiatives such as the RSC Roadmap project, EPSRC Grand Challenges and EPSRC Mission programmes are helping to focus research direction towards key societal and technological challenges.

• There is, however, a concern that greater focus on strategic funding may restrict blue skies research that may also ultimately lead to unexpected societal benefits of the future.

• In some key areas the UK is limited by funds and thus finds it difficult to compete with US and European research programmes.

• There is a need for more leaders that are in tune with key societal and technological challenges. It can be difficult to recruit such leaders due to more attractive opportunities outside the UK or outside of the academic sector.

• There is a concern that multidisciplinary proposals addressing societal issues may ‘slip through the cracks’ of cross council initiatives and can also come across difficulties in the peer review system.

• Structure of UK universities (i.e. single discipline departments/faculties) can be a barrier to the multidisciplinary research which is necessary for tackling broad societal and technological challenges. The creation of multidisciplinary research centres would encourage more interdisciplinary working that could address such challenges.

- 135 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 136 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Response by University of Bath

The key technological and societal challenges facing chemistry are those associated with environmental, social and economic sustainability. The UK chemistry community is engaging in new research opportunities in clean energy, use of renewable resources, clean processes, efficient synthesis, medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry, well-being (e.g., environmental and medical sensors, biomedical materials, etc). The chemical sciences are well placed to take the lead in many of these areas for which multidisciplinary activity is imperative.

The research community is not ideally structured to deliver multidisciplinary solutions to these challenges. Cross research council funding and difficulties of objective peer review of broad, multidisciplinary proposals remains an issue. Also, we believe that, following international models, the provision of geographically coherent, multidisciplinary research centres provides a highly effective means of tackling large, multidisciplinary problems (in contrast to geographically disparate ‘virtual’ centres). The single-discipline, departmental/faculty-based structure of most UK universities provides a barrier to the formation of such centres led by chemical sciences. Also, addressing this issue requires significant, long-term funding commitments and close involvement of industrial users of research and other stakeholders.

We believe that in many research areas there are sufficient outstanding individuals in the UK to take advantage of such a structural change by becoming leaders of large, multidisciplinary research groups of internationally leading status.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol Key technological and societal challenges. UK chemistry has recently undergone both EPSRC ‘Grand Challenges’ identification and RSC Roadmap exercises and the results from both are pending. In the meantime our research is and will continue to be engaged with the major challenges facing modern society and we have been and will continue to be responsive to how those needs change. However, we are concerned that funding mechanisms for new initiatives and challenges come at the expense of existing research streams. If there are new challenges, they need to be funded with new income in order to maintain the healthy, PI-led, curiosity driven research base funded though responsive mode. Under supported areas compared with overseas. All areas would probably consider themselves to be under-supported to some extent and diminishing resource from many traditional funding sources both nationally and globally during economic downturn is likely to hit most if not all areas, although the government’s very recent commitment to protect science funding is heartening. Is the community structured to deliver solutions to emerging challenges? Research need not be targeted at societal and technological challenges in order for these challenges to be met. Indeed the applications of X-rays for medical imaging, NMR, high-temperature superconductors, lasers, liquid crystals, organic conducting polymers, and the development of nanoscience and the DNA revolution, to name but a few, all derived originally from curiosity-led research. The broad research base in the UK maximises the chance of success in key areas, provided that flexible funding is maintained. The key then becomes whether momentum can be built and maintained after the discovery stage, again the responsive mode proves invaluable here by the provision of programme grants. Extra, new government funding in key areas would be welcomed, provided it was not at the expense of the current, already stretched resource. End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘D’ response list)

- 137 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Response by University of Liverpool

The UK Chemistry community is addressing a wide range of key challenges and has done this historically since the community came into existence, certainly before the current focus on this issue. Again, the concept of Grand Challenges is useful however these must be implemented without eroding the fundamental science base and converging on “lowest common denominator” – that is, focussing on universally understood and important problems but at too great an expense to more conceptually difficult (and harder to popularize) but nonetheless key enabling capabilities. Step-change solutions are required to address many societal problems. There is ample historical evidence that fundamental science has led step change technological advance. An obvious example would be nuclear energy where the very substantial engineering challenges involved in harnessing this power source was nonetheless secondary to the underpinning fundamental physics. Societal issues which do not so much directly affect the UK (e.g., malaria, water purification) should not be dismissed as “not relevant” but considered as opportunities for the UK research base. We need to be supporting the very best science in an area, rather than trying to direct research.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

Without doubt climate change and our over-reliance on fossil fuels are related issues, which are at the forefront of the global social, political and scientific agenda. Chemists have been quick to respond to this problem, and are ideally positioned to develop new alternative energy sources and new sustainable approaches for the synthesis of many essential products using renewable precursors. For example, in Manchester we have some of the UK’s leading radiochemists working with physicists to develop new approaches for the production of safer nuclear energy. Within biological chemistry we have a world leading centre for biocatalysis, including biosynthesis. Using engineered enzymes and microorganisms this grouping is developing completely clean and sustainable approaches to produce new biofuels, natural product based therapeutics including blockbuster antibiotics, along with high value chiral precursors and fine chemicals for drug and polymer synthesis. In organic chemistry we are developing new and more efficient and greener synthesis. Finally, several members of the School are investigating a number of new and novel solar cells, made from both organic polymeric carbon-based materials and small particles of inorganic semiconductors, in an attempt to produce a more efficient system for generating green energy.

Providing food and healthcare for the expanding and ageing world population is also a major global concern. In Manchester we are at the forefront of developing a systems biology approach to understanding the complexities of living systems, drawing from our expertise in bioanalysis, particularly proteomics and metabolomics. Such systems models will prove invaluable in diagnostics and preventative medicine, as well as establishing new therapeutic strategies. Already our chemical biology, synthesis and pharmaceutical researchers have begun to work even more closely with biological and medical colleagues to establish a University led chemical intervention pipeline which will command new strategic links with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘D’ response list)

- 138 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Response by University of Nottingham Key issues for society include energy, healthcare and cleaner chemical synthesis, and the UK (and Nottingham) is heavily involved in all three challenges. One of the first European Research Council awards has just been made to Nottingham in relation to energy and chemical capture. The award of 2.5 million will support new research in the area of energy and sustainability by developing new nanoscale framework polymers for the storage and activation of gases and volatile organic compounds, new catalysts for the reversible oxidation and photochemical production of hydrogen from water, and the clean and selective recovery of precious metals from process streams and ores by supramolecular recognition and binding. In healthcare, work at the chemistry – biology interface increases our understanding of the molecular basis of disease, providing insights that will lead to potential therapeutic solutions. Nottingham also has an international reputation for its work in cleaner chemical synthesis developing providing solvent-free solutions to a range of chemical problems, new and efficient catalysts, particularly for asymmetric synthesis, and new cleaner reagents and methods, in developing new spectroscopic methods with wide ranging applications across medicine in disease diagnosis, and in the design and development of new catalysts for chemical transformations. In the current climate ‘new research opportunities’ most frequently take the form of Mission Programmes which target priority areas. These areas serve to focus research interests towards addressing issues of economic interest, such as energy and the digital economy. End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford

Research addressing key challenges such as climate change, sustainable energy sources, healthcare, and transport is all underpinned by UK chemistry research. But there needs to be more emphasis on the Chemistry element of the research into societal challenges – the Chemistry community needs to boost the general understanding of how much chemistry is a core science which will address these challenges. Waste remediation – including nuclear – is one area in which UK research is under- supported, compared to overseas. Cross-council “initiatives” do not always improve our ability to meet these challenges, as novel interdisciplinary ideas may fall through the cracks and budgets are left unallocated. More free cross-council collaboration is needed, i.e., when appropriate research proposals are identified these should be funded from appropriate budgets across the councils. The chemistry community also needs “champions” at a high level across academia and the funding councils to identify the technological / societal changes and lead research efforts. In terms of international research leaders in the UK, there are continuing deficiencies in areas such as physical-organic, nuclear chemistry and mechanistic chemistry. We need well-funded research Chairs in such specialist areas.

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

The UK chemistry community is well aware of, and responsive to, the applicability of its research. In part this is a heritage of the old CASE award scheme (now defunct) and the good ties between academic groups and industry. With the introduction of FEC and the abolition of CASE these are weakening but still remain stronger that in Germany, France, Japan or US. More support is required. KTN (which replaces CASE) is much more development oriented than research oriented and serves chemistry badly. The engagement

- 139 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D with UK Pharma is strong (but with some signs of a decline) but synthesis needs more funding to maintain this, in catalysis the industrial engagement is disappearing.

Within EPSRC there is a tendency to chase the US following initiatives in US chemistry rather than to develop a unique national agenda attuned to the national funding and research landscape. The NSF operates with a system where there is baseline funding to support PhDs through teaching assistantships and where the NSF programmes are driven by respected research scientists who have the experience necessary to define future research areas. This is not the case in the UK.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

By deliberately undertaking research in areas covered by all the major funding bodies we believe we can respond to changes in research directions as implemented by various funding agencies.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Durham

Restructuring of the EPSRC programmes has been designed to focus effort on technological and societal challenges, including ageing, healthcare diagnostics, security and sustainable chemical processes. This funding emphasis provides a threat to the fundamental base of chemistry research that underpins the application of chemical ideas in diverse fields: the word ‘chemistry’ no longer appears in any EPSRC programme title. Areas at risk include advanced instrumentation, novel synthetic chemistry, molecular and material properties under extreme conditions, electronic structure theory, statistical mechanics, main group and organometallic chemistry. The best preparation for emerging technological challenges is a healthy and diverse science base, not a herd of cattle that charges from one funding pot to another. Three key questions need to be addressed: (i) Does the quality of research in managed programmes justify the levels of funding that those programmes attract? (ii) Do the managed programmes provide an environment that attracts the best researchers into the academic profession? (iii) Are we maintaining the depth of subject skills actually required to challenge complex interdisciplinary problems? The Grand Challenge consultation is designed to identify key societal and technological questions where chemistry plays an important role. The long-term nature of these challenges (20–40 years) should lead to an increased emphasis on underpinning and fundamental research. Areas in which Durham can reasonably claim international leadership include surface functionalisation (e.g. the swimsuits used at the Beijing Olympics), lanthanide probes for bioanalysis, structural chemistry of highly correlated materials, theory of ultracold gases, mechanisms of herbicide resistance, and ultralow temperature X-ray crystallography.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

Since Chemistry covers everything from the detection of molecules in interstellar space to drug delivery and the environment, it is rather difficult to single out particular, usually relatively short-term “challenges”. Chemists have always been particularly adept in spotting opportunities. Current topics that are being addressed include the energy agenda (harvesting, photochemistry, fuel cells, hydrogen storage), drug discovery, delivery and detection, nano chemistry (as opposed to physics-dominated nanotechnology), emission

- 140 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D control and waste reduction (always an integral part of research into industrial processes). Other important areas are metrology for the life sciences, for nanoscience, for analysis, and ultrafast and single-molecule spectroscopy. The EPSRC “signposting” areas largely bypass chemistry; they look for engineering rather than creative science solutions and cover rather narrow ground.

Areas such as total synthesis, high throughput technology, materials and nano are much better funded in the US; others like main group and supramolecular are much stronger in continental Europe. Most leaders in these areas are located overseas.

Provided diversity of funding can be maintained, the current research community is certainly structured to deliver the solutions for any emerging technological challenges.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

UK environmental chemists are deeply involved in climate and other environmental policy issues, both in giving advice to UK Government and also as part of the IPCC process. End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

We have significant groupings geared towards the major societal issues such as energy conversion and storage, health and sustainability headed by senior academics eg Bruce, Irvine, Bradley, Tasker. Excellence and step change innovation is also taking place in individual research groups and our broad research base and multidisciplinary connections allow us the flexibility to respond to challenges and opportunities as they arise in this fast moving technological age. The UK tendency towards longer, larger grants is compatible with addressing these challenges; smaller grants are also valued, as they facilitate lower level funding of adventurous programmes, selected by peer review. Peer review is the main mechanism to ensure that excellence is funded. This chemistry can have real impact: for example, it is estimated that at least 10 blockbuster drugs have reached the global market, led by individuals who carried out their basic training and developed their research expertise in synthetic organic chemistry within the UK. This technological/societal impact therefore often arises from a critical mass of excellent basic research.

We have specific support staff who are fully employed in developing and promoting our links with industry and commerce and we have a nurturing environment for developing spin out companies. We have made major contributions to the development of 13 spin-out companies (see G). We recognise the importance of outreach activities and have active programs for secondary school teachers and visits to secondary schools. We have won several prizes for public engagement from the Royal Society (Pulham), the Saltire Society (Philp) and the RSE (Baddeley, Morris). We have had several major EPSRC/BBSRC grants to develop these activities (Pulham, Yellowlees). Research activity has been frequently highlighted in the national and international press, popular science publications (e.g., New Scientist), and on radio and television.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘D’ response list)

- 141 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

The UK community appears to be addressing key technological and societal challenges but perhaps in more of a visible way than has previously been the case. We suspect that there is not necessarily a huge change in research priorities as driven by these challenges, as much of the underpinning research is de facto addressing these important issues. We feel that the challenges are there and the scientists interested in these challenges will already be active in that field. One issue that is not yet clear is how the identification of these challenges will lead into direct influence on research prioritisation and, perhaps even more uncertain, whether this will lead to an enhancement of research quality and excellence.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What are the key technological/societal challenges and research directions in chemistry research? To what extent is the UK chemistry research community focused on these? Are there fields where UK activity does not match the potential significance of the area? Are there areas where the UK has particular strengths? There are several areas of chemistry research that will have enormous societal impact in the near future. The urgent need to replace fossil fuels as sources both of energy and materials will increasingly dominate chemical research. Energy futures research will include hydrogen storage and photovoltaic cells. Climate change is of global importance, and there are chemical imperatives concerning CO2 release/capture.

In terms of the defined remits of the relevant research council and other funders programmes, are there any areas which are under-supported in relation to the situation overseas? If so, what are the reasons underlying this situation and how can it be remedied? Imaging Chemistry - lack of facilities and infrastructure. Catalysis and Ligand Design - is heavily reliant on industrial funding, which could dry up.

Is the research community structured to deliver solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges? If not, what improvements could be implemented? We could create more interdepartmental or interuniversity research centres. For instance, Singapore is able to very quickly create and establish research centres in key areas by this mechanism.

Are there a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature evident in the UK? If not, which areas are currently deficient? If the measure of success is “Nobel prizes won” then in recent years the UK has not performed as well as our counterparts. High international esteem comes from innovative paradigm-shifting research. It could be argued that the research funding mechanisms, which tend to spread research funding thinly and arguably focuses on “safe” areas, do not help. It is not obvious that there is a specific area in which we are deficient—we lack strength across the board.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘D’ response list)

- 142 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Response by University College London

To a very great extent. For example the growth in Chemical Biology community within the UK is remarkable and this has largely taken place since the last International Review. There are many UK Centres for Chemical Biology which interact particularly well with other disciplines in the UK. Of considerable note in the last few years has been the resurgence in academic medicinal chemistry activities which may indicate (a) changes in business models for many large companies (a move towards Development) – offering a fantastic opportunity for drug discovery in the academic environment; (b) the impact of the genome project and the vast number of targets available.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

What are the key technological/societal challenges and research directions in chemistry research? To what extent is the UK chemistry research community focused on these? Are there fields where UK activity does not match the potential significance of the area? Are there areas where the UK has particular strengths? Understanding/predicting climate change and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a key challenge. Chemists are well placed to evaluate the efficiency of renewable or biofuels, and their environmental impact on the atmosphere. EPSRC and NERC and funding significant efforts in this area, mainly through collaborative fieldwork and running models. Funding has fallen behind in the support of laboratory studies of chemical kinetics and photochemistry to provide basic and essential data required as input to the air quality and climate models, limiting the accuracy of the predictions and the confidence with which they can be used. The outcome of the EPSRC grand challenges has helped to identify areas.

In terms of the defined remits of the relevant research council and other funders’ programmes, are there any areas which are under-supported in relation to the situation overseas? If so, what are the reasons underlying this situation and how can it be remedied? Funding for combustion chemistry is less than it was in the UK, whereas DoE funds a significant research effort in this area in the USA.

Is the research community structured to deliver solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges? If not, what improvements could be implemented?

EPSRC Grand Challenges will fund work to find solutions, also DTC fund large groups in societially important areas. Too large a focus though on delivering these solutions may restrict funding of blue skies research that could lead to unexpected solutions to some of these problems. Theory and computation have an important role to play and facilities need to be funded adequately.

Are there a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature evident in the UK? If not, which areas are currently deficient? Yes, in certain areas.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

Many technological/societal challenges have been identified by EPSRC (energy and environment; health; nano-technology; food and water security; terrorism) as ‘strategic priority’ areas; further input from academics is being sought via the ‘grand challenges’ exercise. Research is inevitably becoming more focussed in these areas because it follows the funding. As a result other areas – currently bluesky and of no short term societal benefit,

- 143 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D but from which will arise the as-yet unexpected societal benefits of the future – are being squeezed. It should be remembered that responsiveness to interdisciplinary and target- oriented research is predicated on having strong disciplines to underpin It – a healthy diversity of expertise, even if ‘off-message’ with respect to current initiatives, is vital. An interesting contrast is with the Canadian funding model which is more based on supporting active researchers in curiosity driven research – grants are on average smaller, and the funding process much lighter touch, but active academic researchers have base-level funding and so can plan long-term research projects with the assurance of some continuity (thereby allowing adventurous projects to be tackled). UK academics waste a lot of time chasing grants with a very low likelihood of success. Is the research community structured to deliver solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges? If not, what improvements could be implemented? The research community largely consists of independently-minded academics whose interest is in pursuing curiosity-driven research, and as such is rather ‘unstructured’ – a strength from the point of view of research quality and innovation. Two areas in which academics are used to thinking in terms of delivering solutions to specific problems are pharma and materials (with a strong industrial driving force in the first case, and an applications-oriented engineering bias in the second). A funding model that would allow this trait to develop would be to combine targeted research grants in priority areas with ‘free’ PhD studentships. Many departments try to do this by allocating DTA studentships – not tied to any specific research theme – as a reward for those who have won grants, but the freedom to do this is disappearing as the real value of the DTA grant decreases. Are there a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature evident in the UK? The UK punches above its weight in terms of leading researchers and transformative research. This question implicitly assumes that internationally leading research can only be conducted in a structured environment with a defined “leader”. The real nature of academic research is that many people make incremental contributions which over time result in a transformation of our collective understanding.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of York

York, like many departments, is active in addressing the issues raised by climate change. York has a large and active atmospheric chemistry group.

End of response by University of York (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

Engagement with key technological societal challenges where adventurous chemistry has a powerful role to play has been slow to take off. Encouragingly the recent EPSRC ‘Grand Challenges’ initiative seems to have focused the minds of the community in these critical areas. The relatively conservative approach may be due to discomfort in working at subject boundaries in C above.

CIKTN has organised several workshops to facilitate discussion of further areas of collaboration with sustainable technologies, synthetic methodology, formulation, modelling for chemistry and innovative manufacturing emerging as significant challenge areas.

The UK is involved in key areas, but it is clear that this is limited by funds. The equipment available in US universities often dwarfs that in the UK. Cuts to departments after the latest RAE, have not helped and may facilitate a further round of closures of chemistry departments in UK universities. There is a perception that it is becoming increasingly difficult for academics to obtain funding for more speculative research both from industry (who are now much more constrained by budget) and from EPSRC.

- 144 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D

The increasing use of networks, discussion forums and roadmaps does encourage work in key areas. However, these tend to be UK only and hence limit the scope.

End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

Key societal challenges including climate change, ageing and bio-security demand biological responses that must be informed by good chemistry. Hence, sound chemical education and a ready supply of young people enthusiastic about entering the discipline are essential. The UK needs to address the attractiveness of the science curriculum at all levels from primary upwards. More 16 year olds need to choose the physical sciences (and mathematics) in addition to biology, but the foundation for this must be laid much earlier in the educational process.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

There are significant programmes in traditional preparative chemistry such as drug discovery and preparation. In addition, there are significant programmes in biophysics/biochemistry, soft matter, colloid and interface science, novel catalysis design and many others. These address key social challenges, ranging from living longer, to enhanced oil recovery and environmental issues. These represent some of the most significant challenges that will face our children. Often these activities rely on studentships funded by interested companies, which are increasingly difficult to obtain.

The long term provision of scientific benefit to the UK has broadly two parts (i) fundamental underpinning science with no obvious technological goals and (ii) technological exploitation of the understanding that fundamental science provides.

Long term provision of part (i) is the raw material that supports part (ii). There is a risk that we currently have too great a preoccupation with ‘technology’ to the detriment of the ‘fundamental science’ will not lead to long term prosperity.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

We feel that both chemistry and chemical engineering communities are responding well to technical and societal challenges, as represented by EPSRC priority themes (though see C and H for the need also to boost responsive mode “non-managed” innovative research). There is a serious need for more leaders within the research communities who are attuned to these specific research challenges, but we are greatly encouraged to see the success of a number of young researchers in this regard – frequently those who have “hopped” discipline.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

Key challenges in medicinal chemistry have been identified and outlined for which the chemical sciences may play an important part. Other challenges exist in the areas of formulation science and analytical technologies.

- 145 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D It will require support and incentivisation for the research community to become engaged on these and other challenges (eg through EPSRC Grand Challenges).

Until recently, physical organic chemistry in the UK had become a ‘cinderella subject’. Recognised and acted upon by EPSRC, professorial physical organic chemists have now been recruited from overseas. Association with industry is also helping to strengthen this science, although there is a gap yet to fill with physical organic chemistry more widely embedded in university training and education.

Organic synthesis is not singled out for reduced funding, but owing to funding strategy changes there is less support available. Although not critical yet, this could become so in a few years time. Conversely, biology-led subjects are benefiting from funding from multiple research councills. This is not an argument against funds directed towards biological sciences but questions the overall balance at the expense o chemistry.

In providing answers to the above question, a fundamental concept for higher education and what it delivers should not be lost ie the provision of quality scientists who can deliver research that satisfies technological and societal benefits.

International Research leaders can be difficult to attract to the UK. Many large, high profile UK universities have had considerable difficulty in recruiting overseas research leaders to prestigious chairs and have more often than not, failed. Several factors may be involved: personal compensation, ability to attract significant funds in the UK and to achieve continuity of funding etc. It would be interesting to invite input on this prevailing issue from eg US researchers who have been invited to UK positions and refused them.

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Dstl

The challenges are well known: climate change, environmental pollution, recycling, ‘green’ chemistries, alternative energy sources, to name some of them. An example of a key technological challenge is storage of hydrogen for fuel cells and combustion. The research councils need to develop strategies with industries that could exploit the results of fundamental research directed at meeting challenges of this type.

Dstl maintains a state-of-the-art knowledge of chemistry developments through technology watch and monitor potential future directions through horizon scanning activities. New “blue sky” research can be undertaken within Dstl, and this is particularly supported by Dstl’s Associate Fellow Scheme (which has a number of chemists in it).

Dstl/MoD and wider government receives relatively few proposals for chemistry research relating to the nation’s security and counter-terrorism requirements.

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

Key challenges are in sustainability {energy (hydrogen economy); renewable resources; waste minimisation}, interrogation/intervention in biological processes, functional materials, atmospheric monitoring/control. The EPSRC Grand Challenges are helping to focus research direction. These themes are also reinforced through EU funding schemes and at a regional level through I-NETS.

RAE2008 suggests that the research community recognises these challenges and research has evolved in these directions during the last review period.

- 146 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D Funding regimes in Europe/America/Asia are more flexible in terms of providing scope/opportunity for individuals to adapt/respond to evolving challenges.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Keele University

The following areas can be identified as being particularly significant for chemistry in the next 10-20 years: (1) new materials, molecular novelty and nano-technology; (2) chemistry relating to the environment and sustainability; (3) chemical intervention in biological processes, including pharmaceutical research, and chemistry’s contribution to healthcare and food production; (4) analytical chemistry; (5) theoretical chemistry. UK chemistry would benefit from more effort in category (1), which strongly links new science with new applications. Category (2) is reasonably strong in the UK, but this is an area of the highest priority, and for which the potential benefits (and problems) are likely to increase substantially over the next few decades – this requires much more investment. Many important challenges will be presented by healthcare and food production [category (3)], including resistance to existing drugs; as combinatorial and computational approaches have been less successful than many had predicted for drug design, the more traditional approaches to medicinal chemistry (which are nevertheless multidisciplinary and academically very challenging) will continue to be important to the troubled pharmaceutical industry. Category (4) is increasingly important for research, quality control and security, but finds limited systematic treatment in UK universities, and is unattractive to many undergraduates; more effort needs to be made to attract and motivate able researchers to this highly skilled area. Category (5): historically UK chemists have been very strong in theoretical (including computational) chemistry; this is an area that could have increasing importance in molecular design, and theoretic/computational groups with a clearer remit to collaborate could be of great benefit.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

Key technical/societal challenges for Chemistry in the 21st Century include (i) the replacement of current energy-generation technologies which depend on fossil carbon by fully-sustainable and non-polluting processes, (ii) the sustainable provision of food and clean drinking water, and (iii) the amelioration of disease, especially conditions such as Alzheimer's disease which are associated with increasing longevity of the population, and (iv) the understanding and control of atmospheric chemistry, which are needed to limit the environmental and climatic impact of humankind's activities.

The UK is making significant efforts to fund research in Chemistry with a high potential for societal benefit, for example through the EPSRC "Supergen" (Sustainable Power and Energy Generation) programme, and also though the TSB which funds an extensive programme of industry/university collaborative research in fuel-cell and other potentially low- carbon energy technologies. Indeed, the EPSRC Platform grant on Nanostructured Polymeric Materials which has just been funded in this Department is intended to support work on the design and synthesis of new polymers with specific applications in sustainable energy generation, water purification, and disease-control. This type of work may, of course, be to the detriment of the type of work discussed in part C. The two types of research are not mutually exclusive but they do require a different mindset in initiating the studies.

- 147 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D UK strengths in research with evident potential for societal impact include: (i) atmospheric chemistry/climate change, (ii) rechargable-battery materials, (iii) photovoltaic materials and (iv) high-temperature, solid oxide fuel cells. The UK has a number of world- leading groups in each of these areas.

A weakness is the very limited research activity and funding for what is currently the most promising of all fuel-cell technologies, that based on polymeric electrolytes. The US DoE budget for the latter research currently exceeds that for all UK work on fuel cells combined, and there are extensively-funded EU programmes in the same field.

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Aston University

The involvement and engagement of chemists in UK academia in these challenges is growing. This is a consequence of reconfigured departments, the availability of funding from many sources for health-related research and the ever-growing competition for funding for curiosity-driven chemistry research. Chemistry is such a central discipline – providing as it does a molecular underpinning to essentially every area of technology – that it becomes a logical partner subject in research teams that are drawn together to address major societal and technological challenges. We believe that the current departmental structure of UK universities is not well-suited to these challenges and at Aston we recognise this in the formation of more appropriate multi-skilled units (examples in section E). End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

The UK chemistry community is already addressing key technological/societal challenges generally, but also in response to the Grand Challenges and priority areas identified in the EPSRC Delivery Plan 2008-2011 and Draft Action Plan - 2008 International Review of UK Materials Research. The Research Councils are attempting to focus the activities of the chemistry community on what they consider to be the most important technological/societal challenges by creating managed programmes and publishing calls for proposals for specific areas of research. The TSB and the KTP programme further direct research activity to key technological/societal challenges.

The UK chemistry community is making crucial contributions to addressing the issues of environmental pollution, global warming and renewable energy in a variety of ways, including developing green chemistry, improved catalysts for producing biofuels, developing organic photovoltaic cells and plastic electronics in general to replace high-energy-cost silicon, etc.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast

Key challenges for the future relate to security of energy supply, especially from renewable sources, zero-waste chemistry, development of advanced analytical methods (single molecule analysis, non-destructive complex materials analysis for medical applications), conversion of renewable feedstocks into novel new materials – a biorefinery is not a renewable version of a traditional hydrocarbon oil refinery. Far more resources need to be allocated to these areas. The funding in the USA for some of these areas is massive.

The structure of research in the UK is too fractured and there is insufficient incentive for individual researchers to do anything about it. There are certainly very few groups of critical

- 148 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D mass with multidisciplinary skills who have a real collaboration. Groups come together to apply for funding under a specific initiative and then dissolve when the funding ends. We need a national policy so that, for example, there could be a single very large programme on a specific theme but this would need professional management with a willingness to terminate unproductive parts of the programme. In addition, to develop good collaborations, there should be long-term financial support (5-10) years at a substantial level (>£1 million per annum) but this must only support real collaboration to work on priority areas.

There are not a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature in the UK. Attrition due to more attractive opportunities abroad or outside the academic sector, coupled with the ever diminishing time available for research in chemistry means that the UK will continue to fall behind our competitors.

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

The contribution of UK chemistry to technological challenges on the fundamental level is extensive. For example in the area of energy the development of polymer melts for application in solar panel design taking advantage of the flexibility and the transparency of these materials, is very promising. The continuation of the recently targeted funding in this area of science would be beneficial in the long-term. The area of nano-particles for targeted drug delivery mechanism and the recent advances in the area of bio-sensors using self- assembly techniques are all notable examples. However, there is a concern that this is driven by a top-down approach in which a select group identifies key research areas based on perceived needs. Whilst there is no doubt this approach is important and should continue, this to some degree self-serving and perhaps there is a need for more creative bottom-up processes where fundamental research is done for the sake of doing it and we then investigate whether this has application helping with these important problems.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

The key challenges from a societal point of view are sustainability, the impact of mankind and its endeavours on the environment, and the role of medical and pharamacological advance (in which medicinal chemistry can be key) in approaching an aging population. Less to the fore perhaps (in this time of financial crisis) is the expectation (without justification) of a continually increasing standard of living and the development and marketing of new products to generate national (and personal) wealth.

In the area of sustainability the key issues are the move from fossil fuels (with concomitant necessity for substitute energy sources) and of limited resources of other materials that are increasingly in demand (e.g. platinum). In the area of managing impact on the environment, key issues include minimising carbon dioxide emissions and very substantially reducing the amounts of materials counted as waste that is simply dumped (e.g. to landfill) rather than recycled/reused. In the area of challenges in medical practice, chemistry continues to play a key role in new drug discovery and development.

While many chemists undertaking “pure research” may not take issues such as this as relevant to their particular personal endeavours, it is certainly true that there are many in the UK chemistry community who are already directly involved in research directly relevant to addressing these challenges. Thus many aspects of sustainability and environmental challenges are addressed under the Research Councils’ Energy Programme, with chemists in programmes addressing renewable energy (photovoltaics), alternative energy vectors to

- 149 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to D fossil fuels (hydrogen, biofuels), electrochemical energy storage and new technologies for production of electrical energy (nuclear, fuel cells). Such research is often described as “applied” but essential parallel “pure” work and progress in underlying fundamental understanding constitute major advance in pure science.

The question appears to assume that chemistry has a major role to play in tackling these challenges. That it certainly does, but research in other areas is also essential. Those other areas may well provide key insights well outside their own confines, including areas and concerns as yet unidentified (future challenges the approach to which could be hindered by concentrating exclusively on current ones). To restrict chemical research to programmes directly geared to tackling current challenges would very substantially hinder the development of new science in other areas; the findings of “pure” research have historically contributed massively to practice and to technological and medical advance.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘D’ response list)

Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

The RSC Roadmap project has, in collaboration with the UK chemical science community, identified 42 challenges where chemistry research can contribute towards a scientific 5 solution. In addition, the EPSRC has been working closely with the community to identify Grand Challenges for chemistry.8 The UK chemistry community is responding positively to these challenges and the EPSRC has introduced mission programmes in certain priority areas where funds are ring-fenced to address these challenges. The RSC believes that UK chemistry research groups at different universities have a healthy balance of competition and collaboration with other research groups. To deliver solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges knowledge exchange needs to be encouraged further. This could be in the form of virtual hubs associated with a centralised equipment testing facility in specific areas of research. Also, the UK chemistry community should be aware of challenges they have not previously addressed. Research in both nanotoxicology and synthetic biology are dominated by the USA. Via the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency, the USA has dedicated funding streams for assessing the environmental risk of nanotechnology. To our knowledge, neither the US nor the UK has dedicated funding to explore environmental risks from synthetic biology at present. In Europe, the FP6 funded New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) programme is analysing the safety and ethical impacts.9 The UK needs to increase activity in these areas to remain internationally competitive.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘D’ response list)

8 EPSRC Grand Challenges in Chemical Sciences and Engineering http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/PhysSci/RC/ConsGrandChallengesChemSciEng.ht m 9New and Emerging Science and Technology Programme ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nest/docs/5-nest- synthetic-080507.pdf

- 150 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E E To what extent is the chemistry research base interacting with other disciplines and multidisciplinary research? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• In general it was highlighted that levels of knowledge exchange with other disciplines are good but can always be better. Chemists have collaborations locally, nationally and internationally with evidence for this from collaborative grants and published outputs.

• Chemistry research in the UK is often at the centre of multidisciplinary effort with a wide variety of disciplines including: atmospheric science, biochemistry, bioinformatics, biology, chemical decontamination, chemical engineering, computer science, earth sciences, engineering, environmental sciences, explosives detection, geography, materials science, mathematics, medicine, physics, plant science, social sciences, and, zoology.

• The chemistry-biology interface is highlighted as an area of extreme importance in the UK the growth of which has largely taken place since the last International Review. • The general feeling is that one moves knowledge by moving people and as such there is a growing trend towards: o Concentrating activities in centres which accommodate core facilities and colleagues from chemistry and other disciplines physically co-located centres which have many competitive advantages. o Increasingly, major support equipment is provided and managed on a faculty- wide basis; use of central facilities also brings disciplines together and facilitates collaborative research. o Joint appointments and embedding academics and their research groups into schools outside their core subject. o Support from joint grants, through basic technology and doctoral training centres have created strong collaborative research projects.

• Barriers to multidisciplinary research were identified as: o Physical and financial separation of departments. o Researcher’s tendencies to stay very focussed in their own areas of expertise, as evidenced by the topics and attendance at most chemistry conferences. o Cross research council funding between EPSRC and BBSRC, MRC, Wellcome Trust, CRUK, NERC. It is often the case that multi/inter-disciplinary research risks falling between the cracks that separate the different agencies, applicants are often not sure what constitutes EPSRC and BBSRC remit o Perception of difficulties of objective peer review of multidisciplinary research which often scores harshly when assessed by a pure discipline referee. Currently, many feel that such research is often criticised by referees, who don’t really grasp the problems associated with multidisciplinary projects. o Communication difficulties between disciplines particularly the use of technical jargon.

- 151 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 152 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by University of Bath

Chemistry research in the UK is often at the centre of multidisciplinary effort. As the domains of biological, materials and engineering sciences increasingly focus on advances made at the molecular level, chemical sciences are becoming increasingly central to making progress across a wide range of research areas.

See D above for further comments relevant to this section.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Interdisciplinary interactions. UK chemists work on some of the main challenges facing society, which often demands that they work across traditional discipline boundaries. Bristol’s biogeochemists illustrate this exceptionally well, having over a hundred collaborators in the earth, soil, agricultural and geographical sciences and from dozens of countries and have extensive interactions with governmental agencies (DEFRA, MOD) and other organisations such as the British Antarctic Survey, the National Oceanography Centre, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, CEH and Rothamsted Research. The University’s high level of commitment to multidisciplinarity is evidenced by, for instance a significant (£11m) investment in the building of the NanoScience and Quantum Information (NSQI) building. This centre is forging overlaps between life and physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. The appointment of Wolfson jointly between chemistry and biochemistry brings together research groupings between two faculties. In addition there are numerous PI- developed synergies. Selected examples include: Davis collaborates with Gundy (Civil Engineering) in the Bristol-led development of Aqautest 2 ($13m from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, see http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2007/5633.html); Wass with Bond (aerospace engineering) in the development of self-healing polymers (£260k, QinetiQ); Wolfson leads the Synthetic Components Network (£150k, BBSRC) to promote interactions across centres at Bristol, Durham, Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield and Sussex covering a variety of disciplines and departments (including chemistry, biochemistry, biology, physics mathematics, engineering, ethics, social psychology).

Transcending barriers to multidisciplinarity. Nationally this is done by specific RC- funded networking events with widely varying degrees of success. Locally this has been achieved by the instigation of the Faculty Research Opportunity Grouping (FROG) – based on the SoC’s highly successful ROG model (remit: to promote synergistic interactions across the breadth of chemistry (and beyond) and to use the wealth of experience available at Bristol to create new research vistas beyond conventional boundaries) and the development of University research themes (see: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/research/policy/themes/uniresthemes.html).

Influence of funding programmes on multidisciplinary research. EPSRC Doctoral Training Centres are a new way of developing multidisciplinary research and two of the three centres with chemical involvement at Bristol are discipline-spanning: Functional Nanomaterials (chemical, biological and materials sciences and physics) and Advanced Composites (engineering with chemical and physical polymer science). The EPSRC Life Science Interface platform grants have supported growing interdisciplinary research at the interface. Bristol chemists have been successful in two applications: Willis (Probing drug receptor binding sites driven by solid state NMR - An interdisciplinary approach with Watts, Oxford; £408K) and Cosgrove (Bioresponsive polymer therapeutics; synthesis and characterisation of novel nanomedicines with Duncan, Cardiff; £418K). By contrast the RCUK-level Basic Technology call had little impact on chemistry, at least at Bristol.

In many respects, the BBSRC/EPSRC interface works extremely well: for example the representation of EPSRC on the old BBSRC committees such as BMS and EBS has

- 153 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E allowed the EPSRC to spot opportunities for part funding of certain proposals at the interface; it would be good if this were maintained in the new BBSRC committee structure. Similarly, the joint effort and funding of Synthetic Biology has and will continue to foster the emergence and development of this area in the UK. There is some lack of clarity and consistency in certain initiatives such as the LSI and applicants are often not sure what constitutes EPSRC and BBSRC remit. Historically there have been issues with NERC funding for specific projects that should fall in their remit, e.g. development of innovative analysis. End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool Interdisciplinary programmes are increasingly the norm – this is a good thing up to a point although there is extreme danger in this becoming a pre-requisite for funding (see A, above). As well as multidisciplinary working between groups there are numerous examples in the UK Chemistry community of larger teams building multidisciplinary skills in house (for example, synthetic groups developing a modelling activity, materials groups developing some Chemical Engineering capability). The argument that one cannot have interdisciplinarity without the strong separate disciplines themselves is losing ground, for no good reason. If unchecked, this will make the UK a more technology based community relying on the fundamental advances of others. The strategy of utilizing basic science to stimulate collaboration can be very powerful and there are international precedents (e.g., the Max Planck Institutes in Germany and the Beckman Institute in the United States) where bringing relatively multidisciplinary activity together in a single location has led to world- leading activity that might not have been achieved on the same timescale by specialists working between institutions. However, in these cases, the individual discipline components themselves are exceptionally well-supported and world-leading. In general, we would suggest that virtual networks are powerful but that physically collocated centres (albeit expensive) have many competitive advantages. Leading groups could be empowered with funding that is more flexible allowing responsive and transformative work to flourish. End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester Interaction between chemistry and biology has been one of the major areas of expansion in Manchester and now 14 members of Chemistry are housed in the Manchester Interdiscplinary Biocentre (MIB). The MIB is based in a £38M building that houses research laboratories and core facilities and accommodates colleagues from chemistry and other physical sciences, along with biological scientists and medics, all tackling interdisciplinary research at the interface between physical and biological science. Interaction with Material Science is also extremely strong, including joint appointments (notably O'Brien), and has led to new insights and collaborations in materials chemistry. There is a joint M.Sc. in polymer chemistry, an extant area of interest in both Schools. Work at this interface has led to funded collaborations with Computer Science, Physics and Electrical Engineering. In addition to this, chemists in Manchester also have strong links with physics, particularly in the area of Photon Science. Indeed a number of members of the School of Chemistry are housed in the Photon Science Institute (PSI) which, like MIB, fosters interdisciplinary research, in this case aimed at understanding how light interacts with matter. The Institute director (Muller-Dethlefs) is a joint appointment between the Schools of Chemistry and Physics. Finally, radiochemists in Manchester also work closely with colleagues in Earth and Environmental Science, including a joint appointment (Livens).

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 154 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by University of Nottingham The range of inter- and multi-disciplinary research current at Nottingham extends across the medicinal and biological areas to physics and engineering. These collaborations, many of which find Chemistry centre-stage, are mutually beneficial to chemistry and the collaborating disciplines. Developments in infrastructure targeted at encouraging interdisciplinary approaches (Centre for Biomolecular Sciences) and the emphasis that SRIF/CIF funding allocations be used to promote a more broadly based approach to interdisciplinary facilities/centres has proved to be a successful University strategy. Multi-disciplinary doctoral training centres may further encourage this, although it is absolutely essential that core disciplines are not neglected in the stampede to meet the Grand Challenges. Nottingham is establishing a forum for multidisciplinary analytical science (UNICAS) to foster a collaborative framework for solving challenges within its own research environment. Nottingham Chemistry is also an active partner in the Midland Energy Consortium with Birmingham and Loughborough Universities with new DTCs recently announced in carbon capture and in hydrogen and fuel cells. However, it is a cause for concern that so much research money is being channelled towards “managed programmes” designed by administrators, leaving too little resource for fundamental curiosity driven research. By its very nature, research cannot be managed – you cannot plan for discovery and invention. Fundamental research in core disciplines has underpinned most of the major discoveries in chemistry. Indeed, in the summary from the RAE Chemistry panel, "The science community cannot know where future developments will come from, and attempts to focus funding too narrowly into priority research areas will limit rather than enhance the prospects of breakthroughs at the highest level." Bridging disciplines would be helped if funders had confidence in the ability of researchers to generate new ideas in fields that are not their own. Very often good applications are turned down on the grounds that ‘Dr X has no experience in this area and so cannot possibly make a useful contribution to new knowledge’ There is a strong relationship between this sentiment and the lack of adventure in funding. End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford In Oxford we have strong funded collaborations with Biochemistry, Clinical Medicine, Computer Science, Physics, Engineering, Geography, Materials Science, Mathematics, Plant Science and Zoology departments. These collaborations, which are growing rapidly, highlight the role of chemistry as a central science and emphasise the need for increased investment in chemistry as a core subject. We are also working hard at multidisciplinary initiatives with social sciences, through, for example, the newly formed Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. Physical and financial separation of departments is often a barrier, but interested members of the community will always find a way to talk to each other. End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton Interactions between Chemistry and other disciplines are very strong. Support from joint grants, through Basic Technology and DTCs have created strong collaborative research projects. In Southampton this is strengthened by embedding academics and their research groups from other Schools (Electronics and Computer science, Engineering Sciences, School of Medicine, Physics) within the Chemistry research space to interact and share facilities. Chemistry has moved away from the traditional I, O and P groupings towards themes which reflect these interdisciplinary interactions. Use of central facilities also brings disciplines together and facilitates collaborative research. End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 155 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by University of Cambridge Chemistry has links with numerous departments in Cambridge including Biochemistry, Materials, Physics, Chemical Engineering, Engineering, Earth Sciences, Applied Mathematics, the Clinical School, together with MRC units and the European Bioinformatics Institute. It has international links with the major research centres in the EU and worldwide. End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Durham Departmental boundaries are increasingly irrelevant in Durham. Our most recent appointments have been jointly with Physics and Biology; five Biology and one Engineering group are based in the Chemistry building, several interdisciplinary Centres and Institutes have been created, covering not only the sciences but the other faculties as well (e.g. Centre for Bioactive Chemistry, Photonic Materials Institute, Institute for Advanced Study). There are also strong links with the clinical medical groups in Newcastle. Increasingly, major support equipment is provided and managed on a Faculty-wide basis (high- performance computing, mass spectrometry, electron microscopy, X-ray scattering). Faculty Research Groups provide a regular forum for the Directors of Research to meet. We are also implementing cross-department training at the graduate level from 2009; this builds on ten years of interdisciplinary undergraduate training via the natural science programme. Aside from some minor administrative hurdles, there are no obstacles to multidisciplinary research in Durham. End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

Chemists are effective as intermediate communicators between other more widely separated disciplines - this is in itself an important consequence of maintaining a vibrant chemical research base. There are no real barriers to multidisciplinary research and to knowledge exchange from the side of the scientists.

The success of multidisciplinary research is evident from reading the literature. However, as the RAE panel stressed, strong core areas need to be maintained as a prerequisite to multidisciplinarity.

Threats: Within EPSRC, having a single Chemistry review panel has reduced the enthusiasm to fund any areas at the periphery of chemistry, where the best opportunities for multidisciplinary research lie. Multidisciplinary research ought to thrive; it does not need separate funding programmes, but its proper funding does necessitate the selection of appropriate peer review personnel.

In protein chemistry, the limitations of successive chemistry RAE panels combined with the restricting nature of EPSRC and BBSRC are major culprits.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

Environmental chemistry by its very nature is an interdisciplinary subject so inevitably researchers have to interact with environmental physicists, biologists, and modellers, inter alia. Such is interaction is strong both in the UK and internationally.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 156 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

Staff in EaStChem were the driving forces in establishing and continue to contribute to a wide range of interdisciplinary centres located at both University sites.

The Centre for Biomolecular Sciences (CBMS, StA, 1999-) was one of the first integrated units to comprise staff from both Chemistry and Biology and has become a model for such developments within the UK and overseas. CBMS, which studies infection and immunity, is internationally recognized as a centre of excellence and has been officially recognized by the Wellcome Trust and the BBSRC as containing amongst the most successful grant applicants in the UK. It contains the BBSRC Structural Proteomics Facility.

The Collaborative Optical Spectroscopy, Micromanipulation and Imaging Centre (COSMIC, Ed, 2000-) spanning Chemistry, Physics and Biology has a unique suite of optical facilities for the advanced characterisation, visualisation and control of molecules and molecular materials, particularly biological systems. COSMIC uses ultra-fast real time spectroscopy to probe dynamics, advanced imaging to view chemically-tagged molecules in complex environments including living cells and optical micromanipulation for non-invasive trapping and movement of microscopic species.

The Edinburgh Protein Interaction Centre (EPIC, Ed, 2000-2006) studied the interaction of proteins with other biomolecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, metals and low molecular mass ligands and co-factors and linked biological and chemical discovery with medical and biotechnological advancement including protein science. All these facilities are now fully integrated into the School research infrastructure.

The Edinburgh Materials Micro-Analysis Centre (EMMAC, Ed, 2001-) linking Chemistry, Engineering and Geosciences provides integrated and interdisciplinary facilities for the application of microbeam analytical techniques to heterogeneous materials analysis. The facilities enable micron-scale investigations of the chemical composition, atomic structure and surface texture of both natural (mineral) and synthetic materials.

The Organic Semiconductor Centre (OSC, StA, 2001-) aims to develop the next generation of organic semiconductors. OSC has extensive organic semiconductor fabrication and characterization facilities. It focuses on conjugated polymers and dendrimers and their combination with quantum dots.

The Centre for Science under Extreme Conditions (CSEC, Ed, 2003-) involves Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Geosciences and Biology and explores fundamental science under extreme conditions – pressure, temperature, electromagnetic radiation - in all of these disciplines, and has developed research infrastructure and technology to enable such research. It enjoys strong links with central facilities for X-ray synchrotron and neutron scattering. The Scottish Instrumentation and Resource Centre for Advanced Mass Spectrometry (SIRCAMS, Ed, 2000-) is a unique national facility for ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry of biomolecules. Following this, Radical Solution to Researching the Proteome (RASOR, Ed, 2005 with Glasgow) at the interface between Chemistry, the Life Sciences and Biomedical Research aims to design new technologies for application in proteomics including devices for single cell proteomics and subcellular fractionation mass spectrometry for functional proteome analysis, the integration of proteomics with clinical research and the integration of genomic and proteomic data. This has enabled the first continuous imaging of multiple rounds of

- 157 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E mammalian cell division.

The Centre for Translational and Chemical Biology (CTCB, Ed, 2006-), involves Chemistry, Biology and Medicine. Its goal is to study molecular recognition and signalling processes in biological systems and the effects of chemical intervention, with potential applications in such areas as drug discovery, diagnostics and screening technologies, using biophysical techniques developed by chemists. The Scottish Centre for Interdisciplinary Surface Spectroscopy (SCISS, Ed, StA 2007-) an SFC funded project with key personnel from Chemistry and Physics in Edinburgh and St. Andrews. This provides EaStCHEM researchers with world class facilities in photoemission and scanning tunnelling spectroscopy.

Through these facilities and other contacts, EaStCHEM has major research activities and funding at the interfaces with other disciplines, including biology, physics, engineering and medicine.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

This is a significant activity for the chemistry research base and has been a natural consequence of the position of chemistry “at the centre”, with opportunities to influence and collaborate with a wide range of colleagues in engineering, physics, environmental sciences, biology and medicine. Chemistry is such a key aspect to modern interdisciplinary science that to allow consortia to tackle large and ambitious projects, chemistry involvement is crucial ands this the chemistry academic community is ideally placed to benefit from the funding available in multidisciplinary environments, if correctly appreciated and nurtured. In this case chemistry can either be central to the problem or supporting, but either way we feel that this is one of the largest areas in which chemistry can and does have a major influence in UK research; one only has to look at the number of multi-author and multi-departmental papers which are published annually from the UK sector to get an indication of this multidisciplinarity.

This of course benefits chemistry and also the other disciplines that are interacting with the chemistry community.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What evidence is there that there is sufficient research involving investigators from a broad range of traditional disciplines including life sciences, materials, physics and engineering as well as chemists? At Imperial College, we have extremely strong activities that cross the boundaries of Chemistry into related disciplines. We have a joint doctoral training programme with Biological Sciences, a separate joint doctoral training programme with Medicine, a third joint doctoral training programme with Physics/Materials. We have joint academic appointments with Bioengineering and with Chemical Engineering. Our research portfolio has a significant number of grants that include investigators from a related discipline.

Are there appropriate levels of knowledge exchange between the chemistry community and other disciplines? What are the main barriers to effective knowledge and information flow and how can they be overcome? At Imperial College we feel that knowledge transfer to other disciplines is working well. Existing barriers frequently involve funding mechanisms, where multidisciplinary research

- 158 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E often scores harshly when assessed by a pure discipline‖ referee. Although the research councils are aware of this, it remains a major obstacle. Another significant barrier also concerns the UK funding system. Multidisciplinary research in chemistry is eligible, in principle, for funding by a large number of agencies: EPSRC, BBSRC, MRC, Wellcome Trust, CRUK, NERC. Each of these has a distinct remit and it is often the case that multi/inter-disciplinary research risks falling between the cracks‖ that separate the different agencies.

What evidence is there to demonstrate the influence that funding programmes has had in encouraging multidisciplinary research? The LSI (Life Sciences Interface) initiative of EPSRC has certainly encouraged interactions between the physical and life sciences.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University College London

See D

End of response by University College London (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

What evidence is there that there is sufficient research involving investigators from a broad range of traditional disciplines including life sciences, materials, physics and engineering as well as chemists? In atmospheric science, chemists and physicists (structure of the atmosphere, dynamics, weather forecasting) are interacting very strongly to tackle air quality and climate change problems. Chemical biology is very strong in the UK – at Leeds there is the Astbury Centre which is split between Chemistry and Biology Departments. At Leeds there are strong interactions between Chemists and Engineers (joint process chemistry research institute).

Are there appropriate levels of knowledge exchange between the chemistry community and other disciplines? What are the main barriers to effective knowledge and information flow and how can they be overcome? Lack of time in an age of increasing demands on academics. Better video conferencing facilities are needed to maintain contact with other institutions.

What evidence is there to demonstrate the influence that funding programmes has had in encouraging multidisciplinary research? Research Councils recognise that proposals can fall between funding panels. EPSRC is introducing a new peer review panel system with “roving” panel members between Chemistry, Physics and Materials.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

What evidence is there for sufficient research involving investigators from a broad range of traditional disciplines... ‘Sufficient’ is hard to quantify. There is a lot of interdisciplinary research centred around chemistry, especially in Sheffield (materials, chemical biology; Sheffield chemists have collaborations locally, nationally and internationally with physicists, biologists, mathematics and computer science). Evidence for this is clear from collaborative grants and published outputs. Are there appropriate levels of knowledge exchange between the chemistry community and other disciplines… The language of Chemistry frightens most Physicists

- 159 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E and Biologists, as we in turn are often put off by their particular technical jargon. Successful inter-disciplinary collaborations require constant dialogue and a willingness to (re)explain technical points. However, they also offer the possibility of genuinely important breakthroughs that chemists will not achieve alone. What evidence is there to demonstrate the influence that funding programmes has had in encouraging multidisciplinary research? Research activity naturally follows funding, so schemes to fund multidisciplinary research will of course be successful if any grants are awarded. In Sheffield the Tissue Engineering field – a particular local strength – has benefited from the LSI and Materials targeted funding to allow a vibrant community in this area to develop.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of York

See section C.

End of response by University of York (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

There are some examples of good practice involving the interaction of chemistry with other disciplines. Two specific examples are the Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre and the Imperial College Chemical Biology Centre, both of which draw together researchers from different scientific disciplines to work on specific projects which benefit from this approach. There are several other initiatives around the UK focused on nanotechnology for a range of applications, and also collaborations between engineering and chemistry in areas related to manufacturing processes and to novel flow chemistry techniques. However there is considerable scope for extending this practice in other areas and departments. It is also important to ensure that existing knowledge is used, rather than re- inventing it – for example some of the nanotechnology research in progress could make use of colloid science knowledge established over the past 40 years. There is further potential for increased collaboration at the interface between chemistry and mechanical engineering. For example, tribologists will study the thickness of films formed and resultant properties (friction/ wear etc.); however, further information can be obtained (such as the chemical structure and formation mechanism) from the study of surface chemistry In many cases underpinning disciplines, such as analytical science and modelling, can facilitate the interaction between the different disciplines. End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

The interaction of the chemistry research base with the biological sciences has strengthened considerably in recent years. However continued support for the fundamental research base of the subject is also important to facilitate future developments.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Insitute of Physics

It is widely felt that multidisciplinary research is thriving. Interconnections between chemistry, physics, biology and chemical engineering exist in many areas now with the aim of addressing a wide range of scientific goals. In some areas these links are very strong.

- 160 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E UK polymer science is a good example (among many) of a highly successful multidisciplinary exercise.

A general view is that the Research Council does not need to promote multi-disciplinarity actively because genuinely common research interests are the best driver. If good science is supported interactions will follow.

Education is also a key method of promoting multidisciplinary science. The Natural Science tripos at Cambridge is built around such an approach. IoP goups also promote interdisciplinary interactions, particularly between postgraduate students, through various winter and summer schools.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

We note that the number of FTE submitted to the chemical engineering UoA in RAE 2008 was 235.3, down from 293.5 in 2001 and 333.1 in 1996. Over this period the number of submissions also fell, from 21 in 1996 to 10 in 2008. The number of Universities offering education in chemical engineering has however hardly reduced, and the statistics thus illustrate a growing trend for Universities to group activities. In many cases chemical engineering is grouped with other engineering disciplines, and not with chemistry. There is a growing trend towards concentrating activities in larger groups, whose size and scope then gives greater international competitiveness.

The RAE panel noticed however a huge, and growing, range of interdisciplinary topics being researched in the chemical engineering community – energy, food, healthcare, imaging, materials, pharmaceuticals, as well as topics interfacing with biological systems and chemistry. In many cases this research is being carried out by scientists with training in chemistry, biology, physics, and materials science etc. The panel found that there was “plenty of evidence” of collaboration across the chemistry/chemical engineering interface, which is a very satisfactory conclusion.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

Contrasting evidence for cross-discipline research, there exists a concern that the quality of research being funded through some multidisciplinary channels is mediocre and not subject to proper, in depth review (as is the case for basic research).

In best business tradition, one moves knowledge by moving and integrating people. Passively, this may not happen effectively (again pointing to eg exchange programmes to support this).

In the current environment, the RAE objectivity may not support this objective.

Generally, academics will pursue the sources of money, so provision of funding against mulit-disciplinary research will encourage this objective but not.

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 161 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by Dstl

Cross-disciplinary interaction is improving, and is considerably better than 10 years ago, evidence being the fact that there are many more cross-disciplinary proposals being submitted to Research Councils. This has been encouraged by Research Council calls for cross-disciplinary proposals, together with a general push by researchers themselves to look beyond their own work, but is also naturally occurring as the nature of research itself drives the necessity for researchers to look “outside the box”. However, there are still issues, and despite what is stated above, one of the main barriers still is researcher’s tendencies to stay very focussed in their own areas of expertise. This can be overcome by: improving communication between disciplines (perhaps through more cross-professional institution initiatives), and by encouraging researchers to better communicate between different departments in their own and other universities.

The majority of Dstl’s research relies critically on a multidisciplinary approach. For example, Dstl research on BW detection relies critically on multi-disciplinary interactions and almost all internal research teams comprise of scientists from the main scientific disciplines – biology, chemistry and physics. Interactions with engineers, statisticians etc are also common. When Dstl relies on extramural capabilities we often find that we need to partner with a range of organisations to assemble this type of team, which implies that cross disciplinary teams are rare. Our experience of industry is that companies tend to specialise in distinct fields, although they assemble teams from various disciplines to deliver their programme.

Our evidence in other areas, such as explosives detection and chemical decontamination, from extramural research supported by Dstl/MoD is that the extent of cross-disciplinary research is reasonable (eg Univ of Southampton: sonically induced decontamination with Institute of Sound and Vibration and Dept of Chemistry; Univ of York: ionic liquids as media for enzyme activity).

One serious problem is that many universities are closing their chemistry department (e.g. Exeter University) or amalgamating them with other disciplines to form interdisciplinary departments. Whilst there is some evidence that interdisciplinary departments bring some advantages in terms of promoting cross-discipline working, Dstl has noticed that it has become more difficult to recruit some types of chemist: the additional breadth of candidates is off-set by a less deep knowledge of the subject.

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

Chemistry, perhaps uniquely, provides the greatest degree of flexibility with interactions into the greatest number of other disciplines: maths, computing, engineering, physics, environmental sciences, biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, toxicology, medical sciences (cancer, immunology, infection); evidence: joint applications, joint publications, knowledge transfer of chemical processes into genuine applications in commerce/medicine. In short, few technological advances take place without positive contributions from chemistry.

Knowledge exchange mechanisms are reasonable. Issues concern the mathematical abilities for chemists interacting with the more physical sciences and the chemical appreciation of those in medical/biological sciences, in light of the genuine reduction in molecular sciences taught within these disciplines. “Can collaborators communicate effectively in light of the language barriers between disciplines.” Additional issues are generated by the compartmentalization of research funding (EPSRC, NERC, MRC, BBSRC).

- 162 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Solutions build from effective (and broad) curriculum specification and attainment levels in secondary education. Greater emphasis on cross-disciplinary delivery at tertiary levels. Financial support/incentives for discipline hopping.

Genuine multidisciplinary research collaborations arise/are generated from groups of individuals appreciating common goals/aspirations in their individual research activities. Crucially, funding mechanisms must then be available to ensure that such innovation can be supported. Funding should not merely be the motivator, but rather the facilitator of multidisciplinary research.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Keele University

Multidisciplinary activity of chemists could be much improved. Whilst there are pockets of multidisciplinary excellence, much chemistry research is inward looking, as evidenced by the topics and attendance at most chemistry conferences. Moreover, collaborations often need significant lead periods before useful developments emerge; a significant number never flourish. So perhaps two specific issues are: 1) What sort of funding might successfully pump-prime inter- and multi-disciplinary research? 2) What mechanisms might be put in place to encourage scientists to submit multidisciplinary proposals? Currently, many feel that such research is often criticised by referees, who don’t really grasp the problems associated with multidisciplinary projects. (For example, it might be essential to start with some ‘routine’ chemical synthesis in order to allow collaborators to carry out exciting biology, physics or engineering …. but successful projects often then use the results to guide more imaginative synthetic work that is much more innovative, and can lead to the key breakthrough).

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

Chemistry is perhaps the most central of all the sciences, and as such it should have strong interactions with the other major disciplines. Overall it succeeds quite well in this role in the UK, but more could certainly be done. The chemistry-biology interface is clearly an area of extreme importance. For example, many of the recent enormous advances in molecular and cell biology rely on a strong input of chemistry, and organic chemists are central to many of the research teams involved. This must be seen as a success for chemistry and the research councils overall do a good job in supporting this area of research. Collaborations with environmental science (including meteorology) are also strong, generally reasonably well supported and clearly of importance. With physics, collaborations often revolve around large national (or international) facilities, and the new Diamond synchrotron is already proving to be a powerful catalyst for such work. However, a problem for this latter area lies in the difficulty of attracting high quality researchers to the more mathematical parts of the discipline. This is a fundamental problem that goes back to pre-university teaching in mathematics, and as such is likely to take years to rectify.

Funding programmes clearly do influence multidisciplinary research. Areas flourish when researchers have more access to funds to support their work. By contrast, collaborations will not develop if obtaining funding is impossibly difficult, so this is clearly an area where research councils can play a major role in influencing the work that is done. Multidisciplinary collaborations should in fact lead to the most effective progress of all, since the partners' contributions are by definition complementary, rather than simply additive.

- 163 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E A final point worth making is the importance of personal relationships between researchers in generating successful collaborations. This cannot be overemphasised. Collaborations that are seen to be imposed from above are unlikely to flourish, whereas those that are developed by individual researchers, where all parties feel that they have an equal stake in the success of the work will lead to a far more effective collaboration. End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Aston University

The point has been made in previous reviews that “chemistry, by virtue of its ability to provide concepts, processes and materials to all disciplines, is uniquely suited to link them. That is, chemists can talk with physicists, biologists and engineers, and can help these fields to communicate with each other”. Chemists in UK universities interact increasingly with other disciplines. Within Aston there are many examples. We have a strong bioenergy activity (manifested in the recent formation of the European Bioenergy Research Institute) that grew within Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry and benefits from the close association with chemistry colleagues, a longstanding chemistry-driven activity in soft tissue biomaterials that has extensive clinical, biological and engineering links and the newly- formed Aston Research Centre for Healthy Ageing which involves chemistry-related activities within both the School of Life and Health Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Science There is abundant evidence that the UK chemistry research base is strongly involved in multidisciplinary research. Although initial involvement may arise through a variety of circumstances, it is the ability to align with funding sources and programmes that sustains activity. End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Hull The Whitesides Review of Chemistry in the UK in 2003 highlighted the fact that the UK is a world leader in the multidisciplinary research areas of nano-materials and plastic electronics, for example. The preeminent position of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK chemical industry means that much industrially funded or sponsored research is multidisciplinary in nature. The multidisciplinary contribution of the chemistry research base to research in the UK is sometimes masked by being referred to as materials research, although it may involve higher innovative synthetic chemistry. The success and size of the materials programme of the EPSRC is evidence of significant multidisciplinary research involving the chemistry research base. End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast Too much chemistry is still done in a silo as a single subject discipline with only a nodding acknowledgment of other disciplines. The exchange of information is not good, but there is a problem of language. It takes a lot of time to be learn how to interact productively with an engineer or a microbiologist. Many people are not willing to take the time or simply do not have the time. The ways research groups form and dissolve in response to funding initiatives is clear evidence of the influence of the funding bodies. This rise and fall is not productive nor effective in the longer term. RCUK needs to identify and nurture real collaborations that have the quality and critical mass and the desire to work together to address major issues. Funding then needs to be long-term, 5-10 years. End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 164 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Response by Queen Mary. University of London

There is evidence for research collaboration between chemistry and a number of different disciplines. Examples of these are at the interface between chemistry and biology and chemistry and materials science, with particular emphasis in the area of healthcare. These activities have been targeted and supported through interdisciplinary funding mechanisms, although the perception in the community continues to be that such research is difficult to get funded due to the rather haphazard nature of the refereeing process. The UK continues to lag behind competitors at the interface of biology and chemistry yet this is an area in which the UK should be a world-leader.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

EPSRC-managed multi-disciplinary programmes (e.g. SUPERGEN) have stimulated a fully appropriate set of interactions (teams, consortia), bridging traditional disciplines; such working would otherwise be substantially less in quantity. In some cases, the teams assembled at the outset have been fully defined by EPSRC; there is a case that, in future, such teams should have more freedom in defining their membership, to ensure fully appropriate membership and as part of quality assurance.

There is a perception that funding such as that above can create a “planning blight”, financial and balance considerations preventing further EPSRC-funded work in the target areas by teams not in the consortia. While this is not correct, it can be hard to identify what funding may be available for multi-disciplinary funding (e.g. of chemists with biologists and engineers) outside of these consortium structures. Without such funding, it may well be problematic for researchers to carry out complementary research across discipline boundaries.

The interface to the Life Sciences has been repeatedly highlighted and is an active area of development in chemistry. The actual management of the interface is perhaps problematic due to the existence of a wall (actual or perceived) between the operations of BBSRC and EPSRC. There may be a case for explicit and joint funding and management of programmes bridging this interface; the extent of active joint working by chemists and bioscientists should arguably be greater.

There is certainly a strong case that multi-disciplinary working most definitely does not lead to lower grade fundamental chemical research. It does, however, change the directions and perspectives in which such research is undertaken.

The Surrey Materials Institute is multi-disciplinary, combining the capabilities and infrastructure of many chemists, engineers, physicists and materials scientists. Multi- disciplinarity is part of the university’s commitment to multi-disciplinary working as part of its research profile, and this is also evident in chemists accessing facilities and expertise in bioscience divisions (e.g. enzyme purification, anaerobic digesters). While Chemical Sciences at Surrey is in itself well equipped with the infrastructure essential to chemical research (such as NMR spectrometers, research optical spectrometers, chromatographies, X-ray diffraction etc.), this particular local emphasis provides access to a wider range of facilities than would otherwise be available e.g. ion beam facilities, surface spectroscopies, raman and electron microscopies, DGGE. Similar encouragement to establish multidisciplinary facilities centres in other universities with small chemistry units would be likely to benefit those units also.

The repeating pattern of correlation between RAE outcome and unit size under the Chemistry unit of assessment discourages submission of small, but research active,

- 165 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E departments to that unit of assessment. In contrast, appropriate chemical research is highly regarded in significant topics considered under other units of assessment to which universities are submitting (e.g. analytical science under Allied to Health, electrochemical research in the energy area under General Engineering). For these reasons, university planners may elect to submit chemical researchers for consideration under RAE units of assessment other than Chemistry.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘E’ response list)

Response by Royal Society Of Chemistry (RSC)

The RSC is keen to highlight that chemistry is often at the centre of interdisciplinary research. The Face to Face report10 produced by the RSC in collaboration with BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC and Wellcome Trust provided details of researchers funded at the Chemistry: Biology interface (1718 in total). 1,000 researchers were contacted and 543 responded to a questionnaire regarding working at the interface. 18% of respondees were no longer working at the interface reducing the sample size to 446. Of this 446: 52% had a degree in chemistry; 21% in biochemistry; 14% in a biological science; 5% in physics; 2% in medicine; 2% in pharmacy; 2% in a joint biophysical science; and 1% in engineering. The report demonstrated that levels of knowledge exchange at the chemistry-biology interface are good but can always be better. It was found that most common collaborations are local; many are cross-departmental within an institution. As mentioned previously, one of the biggest obstacles to working at the interfaces is the inability of the UK system to respond to applications that cross the borders between the remits of the four scientific research councils (EPSRC, NERC, BBSRC, MRC). Another obstacle results from undergraduate degree courses. The structure of most UK degree courses (but not all) allows for little cross-disciplinary work at an advanced level. Thus most students on chemistry degree courses will only take courses in subjects other than chemistry in the first year of their degree. The Face to Face report10 suggested ways in which barriers to interdisciplinary working can be overcome. These include: facilitate physical proximity and promote interaction at personal and departmental level; formation of interdisciplinary centres; regular interdepartmental seminars; joint undergraduate course provision; cross departmental PhDs; joint faculty appointments; and physically adjacent science labs. Learned societies, including the RSC, have an important role to play in facilitating interdisciplinary working and knowledge exchange. The RSC and IChemE workshop The chemistry/chemical engineering interface in the UK highlighted a number of major scientific and societal needs upon which the chemistry and chemical engineering communities, working together, will have major impact.11 These included energy, sustainable chemical technology and biosystems/bioengineering. While both disciplines were already working in these areas, it was recognised that more could be done to enhance cross-disciplinarity. Following the workshop, the EPSRC funded and facilitated two ‘Discipline Hopping’ events that encouraged early-career academics to explore collaborations at the interface between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. There have also been a number of subsequent funding calls specifically targeting the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface. This activity has resulted in number of collaborative research proposals demonstrating an increase of interaction at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface.

10 Face to Face: the UK Chemistry Biology Interface http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/facetoface.asp 11 The Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface in the UK report http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/Chemicalinterfacereport.asp

- 166 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to E Each year the RSC organises a range of conferences and events with development and networking opportunities at the cutting edge of science aimed at encouraging knowledge exchange and promoting collaborations. Included within these are events targeted at bringing specific communities together. An example of this is the ‘Analytical Tools for the Life Sciences’ series which aims to bring together researchers from chemistry and life science to discuss problems and opportunities and to facilitate collaborations between the two disciplines. The RSC has 83 interest groups which focus on different aspects of science across the whole spectrum of chemistry and its interfaces. Interest groups are led by RSC members and, in addition to arranging scientific meetings, several Interest Groups produce their own newsletters and many provide bursaries to help students attend conferences thereby encouraging knowledge exchange and collaboration. Another key tool for knowledge exchange is scientific journals; RSC Publishing publishes around 30 peer-reviewed scientific journals, with many covering chemical science interface research. Examples of these journals include Soft Matter, Molecular BioSystems and Lab on a Chip. The Research Councils have recently restructured to help facilitate multidisciplinary research. It is still too early to tell if recent programmes have had a positive effect on encouraging multidisciplinary research.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘E’ response list)

- 167 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F F What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• A key barrier identified for working with industry was the Full Economic Costs model.12 It was argued that this made working with universities expensive.

• There is a good flow of people from academia to industry but not the other way round – more Industry to academia schemes would help in this regard. The transfer is especially good at student level but not as well developed at a more senior academic level.

• There was strong support for the CASE Award Scheme13 and the Technology Strategy Board’s KTP scheme as mechanisms for good knowledge transfer. However, there was caution that knowledge exchange was not always two-way after the scheme.

• Many universities referred to spin-out companies as an effective mechanism for knowledge transfer.

• Industrial R&D in Organic- and Pharma-chemistry was highlighted as strong in the UK. However, with frequent takeovers and mergers and globalisation in recent times, working with UK companies is becoming harder.

• Credit crunch: Coupled with the last point the current economic climate was cited as another barrier to knowledge exchange.

• There was strong support for Research Council schemes such as the Follow-On Fund14, but there was a feeling they should be better publicised.

• There is a need to engage with more SMEs but this can be harder than working with larger R&D companies due to budget constraints.

• The RAE fails to recognise industry-related work.

12 All research grant proposals and fellowship applications submitted after 1 September 2005 are costed on the basis of full economic costs (fEC). If a grant is awarded, Research Councils provide funding at 80% of the fEC. The organisation must agree to find the balance of fEC for the project from other resources.

13 CASE studentships (where a company provides extra funding to a student in addition to EPSRC funding) are allocated directly to a number of businesses. The company takes the lead in defining a student project and selects a university to work with. The university and company recruit a suitable eligible candidate. Projects must be in the engineering or physical sciences and are jointly supervised by the academic and industrial partners

14 The Follow-on Fund helps researchers to bridge the funding gap between traditional research grants and commercial funding by supporting the very early stage of turning research outputs into a commercial proposition.

- 168 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

Others: Chemistry Innovation Biosciences Federation Institute of Physics (IoP) Institution of Chemcial Engineers (IChemE) AstraZeneca Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) University of Leicester Keele University University of Reading Aston University University of Hull Queen’s University Belfast Queen Mary, University of London University of Surrey Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)

- 169 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by University of Bath

In general, the level of knowledge exchange between academia and industry in the UK is good with a number of schemes (KTN, KTP, TSB, etc) promoting such collaborations. In addition, Doctoral Training Centres and, to a lesser extent within chemistry community, Industrial Doctorates are set to enhance the level of exchange in the future. Recent EPSRC calls such as for flow chemistry have specifically addressed industrial concerns for fundamental research of benefit to UK industry. In Bath, the chemistry community has a good track record of taking advantage of a number of funding mechanisms to enhance collaborative research between academia and industry (e.g., KTP, TSB, Industrial CASE, full industrial funding, etc.). In addition, large-scale focused activities such as Doctoral Training Centres and SUPERGEN consortia have attracted significant industrial collaboration to Bath.

Flow from industry into academia is less well catered for. The creation of senior applied chemistry posts in UK universities that are attractive to talented senior industrial chemists would be beneficial to knowledge exchange between industry and academia.

RAE2008 identified a decrease in industrial funding for UK chemistry compared to RAE2001 levels. If allowed to continue this trend will have a long-term negative impact for the UK research community. One factor in this reduction in industrial funding may be the introduction of full economic costing (fEC) into UK academic research. This makes the UK uncompetitive relative to international universities in, for example, the cash cost to industry of a fully-funded industrial PDRA. Financial incentives to industry, or government subsidy of the fEC for industrially-funding academic research would help to address this issue.

We note an increasing trend for industrial partners to form ‘strategic alliances’ with centres of excellence. For example, the DTC in Sustainable Chemical Technologies at Bath has already been very successful in attracting new industrial interest that perhaps individual researchers would not have been able to achieve.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Flow of trained people. ~40% of PhD students at Bristol over the last five years have gone straight into the industrial sector. There is a lower flow of industrialists moving to the permanent academic sector (e.g. Wass). The SoC has four Visiting Industrial Professors (Leonard, AZ; Beale, Rothamsted; Allen, CCDC; de Vries, DSM). Over the last 5 years the SoC has had several visiting fellows from industry and government agencies/NGOs (including: Klein, HP; Manuvelpillai, Revolymer; McCulloch, independent consultant; Jenkin, independent consultant; Simmonds, Home Office).

Relationships between UK academia and industry. This is very strong, with a wide range of interactions at all levels across the research base. Examples of these interactions at Bristol include: student exchanges and placements; delivery of industrialist-led courses; graduate first destinations; the establishment of spin-outs (e.g. Revolymer); co-funded research (2.6M UK industry funding, 2004-8) and strong involvement of the industrial advisory board. The IAB comprises a grouping of senior scientists and directors drawn from a range of major companies active in the petro-, fine-, agro-chemical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as UK SMEs. The board meets annually to provide advice and direction to the School on current activities and future directions and as necessary to address specific urgent issues, for example major new initiatives that will impact on the educational or research activities of the School.

Research Council Scheme Enablement of Knowledge Transfer. By far the most powerful and frequently employed scheme for knowledge transfer in the SoC is the CASE

- 170 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F funding mechanism, either through top-up from industry or the provision of full Industrial CASE grants. Specific initiatives have also been run that engender both direct knowledge transfer and focused training such as the EPSRC/GSK/AZ/Pfizer Synthetic Studentship Initiative which aims to give synthetic students a strong basis in chemical research methodology tied into a greater understanding of the requirements of end users. Most of the research funded through the scheme is not tied to specific short term objectives, but rather reflects emergent themes (such as CH activation, novel catalytic methodology, sustainable chemical synthesis). ~10% of the total grants awarded were to Bristol. Doctoral Training Centres also offer a chance for high levels of knowledge transfer; this is demonstrated by the significant industrial ‘buy-in’ to Bristol’s Synthesis DTC (18 half-funded and 7 fully studentships so far in addition to the 50 provided by the EPSRC funding). In contrast KTPs have had little impact on the SoC (1 in the last 5 years – Brereton/Triton Technology).

Changing Scale of Industrial Chemistry Nationally. It is very difficult to answer this question with any degree of accuracy during a period of such sharp global downturn. Furthermore the pharma sector, which has historically been very strong in the UK, is undergoing substantial reorganisation. As described earlier (see q. A) this restructuring can, however, lead to new opportunities.

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

The interaction between Universities and industry has been in a state of flux in the last 5 years. Sustainability arguments aside, the introduction of Full Economic Costing had a negative impact because the “established norm” was changed quite abruptly and is now cost prohibitive. A potential solution to this problem will be to reduce the FEC costs for industrial partnerships to stimulate collaboration rather than driving it offshore. Although there will always be a place for short-term research contracts between academia and industry, we do not see this “transactional model” as the future. We believe that there is greater mutual value in the development of long-term partnerships, shared-risk shared- reward ventures, and sharing of cost-intensive facilities. There is also far greater scope for the cost-effective and impactful protection of IP, as opposed to the model where Universities “guess” which breakthroughs might be of future value. At present, there is a greater flow of trained personnel from academia into industry as opposed to the reverse. This is entirely appropriate given the remit of publicly funded academic institutions although we see potential for better sharing of industrial best practice with Universities – indeed, this tends to develop naturally as a result of longer-term strategic partnerships. In measuring the impact here it is important to consider timescales; for example, a new concept can take 20 years to get to the market. Well known examples would be the development of pharmaceuticals but in the majority of cases it is unrealistic for an academic concept (even in a tightly constructed and well managed collaboration) to go from “lab to market” within the timescale of a 3-5 year EPSRC project. The EPSRC “Follow-On Fund” addressed this issue and we strongly support such initiatives in the future. A hard-to-quantify but nonetheless vital aspect of knowledge transfer is the skills which our Chemistry graduates, postgraduates, and postdoctoral researchers take with them to their industrial positions. The invention of competitive and valuable new technologies in UK Chemical industries and Chemical end- user sectors would be dramatically lowered if this “skills supply chain” were broken. Globalisation notwithstanding, it would be impossible for even very large companies to offset this by hiring internationally. The long-term result would be a contribution to these industries departing the UK for countries where this resource is in greater supply; this is one of the most important UK assets for us to protect by nurturing the Chemistry research base.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 171 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by University of Manchester

The majority of those trained in chemistry in Manchester take up positions in the chemical or related science-based industries. Some scientists from industry have opted for re-training or further training in chemistry within the University. However, on the whole, these individuals are far and few between. Some senior industrial scientists have moved on to take up academic positions in the School (e.g. Prof Yeates, Dr Budd).

The relationships between UK academia and industry are reasonably robust. However, corporate changes (mergers and re-organisation) in industry can often be frequent and this can affect the relationship with academia. For example, the pharmaceutical companies have for a long time supported synthetic organic chemistry in UK universities (particularly training through PhD CASE studentships). However, more recent changes to this industry have jeopardised this traditional link and it will be necessary for Universities to establish alternative modes of interaction, which could involve more strategic collaborations including more synergistic groupings of chemists and biologists.

Within Chemistry, we have a number of key centres (e.g. OMIC, KCMC, CoEBio3) that have been established to attract industrial collaborations. One particularly successful model is that adopted by CoEBio3. In addition to more traditional one to one contracts between an academic group and industrial partner, CoEBio3 has a consortium of 16 industrial affiliates who collectively contributed £1M to fund a range of basic research projects. In addition to gaining early view of the results as they emerge from the research programme, the industrial affiliates also receive samples of the biocatalysts for evaluation in-house against their own target molecules in development.

Spin-out companies (e.g. Nanoco, Plasma Clean) have proved an effective mechanism for technology transfer. Technology licensing has had some success in relation to polymers of intrinsic microporosity and drug discovery. The School files around 10 records of invention each year and a few of these lead to further activity.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

The School of Chemistry at Nottingham has a dedicated Business Partnership Unit that has the specific objective of enhancing industry-academe collaboration and exchange. The research of the School is incorporated in four spin-out companies and significant financial and other support is provided by industry to underpin aspects of the research portfolio. However, in many cases the flow of knowledge and personnel appears to be one-way from academia to industry. Consideration of a balanced flow in both directions may be more beneficial to all partners. Recent RCUK initiatives may have begun to recognise this imbalance.

We have extensive links with industry. While we have engaged with a number of government initiatives to support such interactions (eg. KTP, EMDA, SBRI, TSB) we have identified a general need for more flexibility to maximise opportunities and respond rapidly to industry’s needs. At Nottingham we have developed a number of novel approaches such as Business Science Fellowships that have allowed us to address this issue.

End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 172 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by University of Oxford

There is a good flow in Organic chemistry – on a par with or better than internationally. All good organic chemists get employed – there are not enough people leaving UK universities with a solid chemistry grounding to meet the demand. There is trend for the scale of industrial R+D to be dropping like a stone. The UK research infrastructure is not well placed to pick up the research, which industry needs to place outside its own infrastructure.

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

The EPSRC/Pharma initiative has brought knowledge transfer from industry but in general the flow is predominantly in the other direction through KTN and before that the Teaching Company Scheme although both of these are much closer to development than research and not ideally suited to Chemistry. The movement of trained students and PDRAs to industry is an important form of knowledge transfer but there is relatively little use of industrial secondment into Universities to transfer knowledge/experience back the other way and this should be strengthened. Knowledge transfer to local spin-out companies is particularly strong.

The current trend is for large companies, particularly Pharma, to move R&D to emerging markets (Singapore, India, etc.). Smaller companies in UK are still a strong source of recruitment for PhDs.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

Various companies interact strongly e.g. BP via the BP Institute, Unilever via the Unilever Centre for Chemical Informatics, Pfizer via the Pfizer Institute for Pharmaceutical Materials. These represent different funding models for working together. Various successful spin-out companies that have developed from BBSRC and EPSRC funding. Successful spin-outs from the Department include: Astex Therapeutics- a drug discovery company co-founded by Abell and others Solexa, founded by Balasubramanian and Klenerman to develop a new approach to genome sequencing based on single molecule spectroscopy and sold to Illumina in a deal valued at $600 million. Reaxa, founded by Ley, to exploit new encapsulated catalysts and chemical scavenging techniques. Akubio founded by Abell, Klenerman and others to develop novel detection technologies for bacteria and viruses IonScope is a joint venture of Imperial College and Cambridge, commercializing single-ion conductance microscopy as a technique for studying the surfaces of single live cells (Klenerman) Cambridge Atmospheric Measurements, founded by R. Jones and Cox.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 173 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by University of Durham

Approximately half of the academic staff at Durham have current or recent funded research programmes with industry and a similar number act as consultants to industry. There are 5- 10 patents filed per year and an average of one spin-out and one licensing deal per year. There is a substantial amount of service work performed for industry (~£100k p.a.) which both assists local companies and can lead to subsequent research collaborations. Durham has a small number of secondments to and from industry, through KTP and TSB programmes.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

The UK Chemistry community is strong in collaborations and knowledge exchange with industry, e.g. via the CASE scheme. This does not necessarily imply an exchange of researchers between industry and universities. There is of course a very important technology transfer in the form of postgraduates and postdocs entering industry.

The Synthetic Chemistry PhD initiative makes an important contribution.

Opportunities to enable knowledge exchange are generally taken up enthusiastically. The CASE scheme has generated many strong relationships between sectors but funding from companies for these schemes has fallen dramatically over the last few years. The scale of industrial R&D in chemistry within the UK is sector-dependent and particularly strong in the pharma industry. However, there is a tendency to outsource jobs to countries like India.

The fEC cost model and high overheads make the UK very unattractive as location for industry-funded research. For example, in Canada both regional and national governments add a dollar for every dollar of industrially funded research at universities.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

Interaction of environmental chemists and industry is rather limited. Greater interaction would be to their mutual benfit.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

EaStChem is embedded in UK industry and has a strong commitment to knowledge exchange. For example, we have strong portfolio of collaborative grants with industry and successfully obtained 12 SPIRIT studentships last year (these studentships, jointly funded by Scottish Funding Council and the Universities are aimed at enhancing PhD student interaction between HEI’s and SME’s). EaStChem attracted SASOL to establish its first research centre outside South Africa in our midst and we have major collaborations with, for example, Samsung and Toyota.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 174 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

There is a high level of activity and knowledge exchange between the research base and industry which is beneficial to both sides. Within WestCHEM we have a number of license deals, spin-out companies and industrially funded research programmes which all indicate a strong knowledge exchange ethos and expectation. For instance there are UK based companies, European and International companies all funding research at WestCHEM.

Outwith WestCHEM we would also say that knowledge exchange across the UK is very high indeed, as we are a high-tech country and we suspect that this will remain so for the foreseeable future.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What is the flow of trained people between industry and the research base and vice versa? Is this sufficient and how does it compare with international norms? One of the main roles of the university sector is to provide trained scientists for industry. We have a long a successful track record of doing this and Imperial College is justifiably proud of being one of the universities of choice for industrial recruitment.

The recommendations of the Lambert review [Lambert, R. (2003) “Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration” (HM Government)] are still relevant and there is scope for improved interactions, particularly in regard to the flow of information and people from industry back to the university sector.

How robust are the relationships between UK academia and industry both nationally and internationally and how can these be improved? There are strong links, but in a climate where industry funding is under extreme pressure, maintaining relationships is something that cannot be taken for granted. As is the case in many areas, this is something that requires investment.

To what extent does the chemistry community take advantage of research council schemes to enable this knowledge exchange? Is there more that could be done to encourage knowledge transfer? Such schemes are as not as well-known as they should be.

What is the scale of industrial R&D in chemistry nationally and internationally and what is the trend? What are the implications for the UK chemistry research community and to what extent is it well-positioned to respond? Is there any way that its position could be improved? For the pharmaceutical sector, please see the figures from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (http://www.abpi.org.uk) and the UK government Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (http://www.berr.gov.uk). For the trend in the pharmaceutical sector please see the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers [Pharma 2020: The vision – Which path will you take?‖ June 2007. (http://www.pwc.com/pharma2020)]. There is a desperate need for innovation in the sector, which can only be achieved with investment.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 175 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Response by University College London

In some areas of Chemistry this is high, particularly traditionally between the synthetic, polymer and materials communities and there respective industries.

EPSRC have worked hard at the KT / translational agenda and there are many examples of good models including EPSRC / GW (Combichem initiative) GSK / EPSRC Arrays, EPSRC / GSK Respiratory disease organic synthesis studentships, IDC’s, KTP and many others.

It will continue to be important for the UK industrial communities to make best use of the knowledge base available in the UK, to demonstrate the competitiveness associated with being located in the UK.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Leeds

What is the flow of trained people between industry and the research base and vice versa? Is this sufficient and how does it compare with international norms? There are some excellent examples to allow secondments at each. e.g. Royal Society Industrial Fellowships. Regarding a career, change, academics go into industry, but very rarely the reverse.

How robust are the relationships between UK academia and industry both nationally and internationally and how can these be improved? The relationship between academic organic chemistry and pharmaceutical companies continues to be very strong, less so in other areas. Industrial funding for a specific project is often short term, and if renewed, is often done so at the last minute, making it difficult to retain key staff, and rarely translates into a longer term relationship, although examples of long term relationships exist.

To what extent does the chemistry community take advantage of research council schemes to enable this knowledge exchange? Is there more that could be done to encourage knowledge transfer? The sandpit model can work well, but are discontinued. There are also LINK and KTN schemes which are popular, but many are not aware of the schemes.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

Trained PhD students / postdocs get employment in industry. The flow of people the other way is almost non-existent; engagement of industry with academia is via funding research projects. We are trying to improve genuine bilateral knowledge exchange via e.g. KTPs.

The relationship between UK academia and Industry is very strong; the latter has played a major role in supporting the former, although current economic circumstances threaten this. Links between UK Universities and UK industry are closer than in many countries (France, Japan, USA) with the CASE system being one good reason for this. However, Germany is probably better than us – the Fraunhofer Institutes are specifically designed to foster strong

- 176 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F academic-industrial interactions and there is no real UK equivalent. The possibility of damage to our industrial links from a combination of FEC and the present credit crunch is worrying.

The UK chemical industry has had a poor decade in terms of takeoffs, down-sizing and rationalization. The demise of ICI and Courtaulds are prime examples. Big pharma have been the big exception and a relative success story, but even this sector has shed many thousands of UK jobs recently. This situation does not help the recruitment of Chemistry undergraduates/PhD students.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of York

The CASE studentship scheme remains a very important method of research collaboration between industry and academia.

End of response by University of York (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

CIKTN is at the heart of knowledge transfer between the chemistry using industries and the academic base. It promotes collaborations, helps put together collaborations and supports projects approaching £70m driving a value (or wealth to the companies) of £700m. It initiates and develops discussions to identify critical areas of need for the community.

The interactions between large companies and the UK research base in knowledge transfer are broadly satisfactory and generally based on close individual historical relationships but it is much more difficult to engage the smaller companies who are often engrossed with short term issues although there are some good examples.

There is an opportunity for the academic base to deliver more long term industrial R&D as the industrial R&D community continues to shrink but individual university policies in charging Full Economic Cost to collaborating companies have caused perturbations in some relationships.

The current policy on the UK Research Assessment Exercise for Physical Sciences to pursue bibliometry as the dominant metric for excellence is failing to reward effective industrial interactions adequately. Encouragingly the development by EPSRC of Knowledge Transfer Accounts is to some extent redressing this balance.

There is a definite need for a mechanism (broader and less restrictive fellowships would be one obvious idea) to enable the current wave of often very senior and experienced ‘refugees’ from industry to establish academic careers. These could allow them to maintain the link to their originating industries, while at the same time allowing academia to benefit from the hugely relevant expertise of those with a long career in industry; typically such chemists may not be able to land academic positions at an appropriate level of seniority, due to having ‘weak’ publication and grant-earning records, so that neither industry nor academia can benefit from their huge expertise and experience. If these positions were funded with a reasonable lifetime (4 or 5 years?) they would offer a way to conserve expertise rather than risk its loss, while we attempt to ride out the worst of the current economic downturn. An additional important advantage would be the chance this would offer to pass the expertise on to PhD students in the host department, thus simultaneously benefiting the next generation of chemists.

UK industrial R&D shrinking so UK chemistry base doing more for non-UK companies.

- 177 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F In general, academic research groups are more aware of the modus operandi of industry. However, a challenge is that companies are often reticent to talk about requirements/ problems as these may be considered as commercial weaknesses. Not only is this an issue for academic- industry collaboration, but also for developing consortia. This may be an area in which CIKITN can help, acting as confidential, 3rd party technology brokers (putting companies from different sectors with common research interests in touch with each other and with academics with the appropriate skills).

End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

There is good interaction between biological chemistry in many universities and research institutes and the biotechnology industries, big pharma and agri-foods. Many spin-out companies have been launched in these fields, but they generally need time to develop and become profitable.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

Some individual cases of interaction have been strong and longstanding. For chemistry this has particularly been true with the pharmaceutical industry, oil majors and domestic product manufacturers (such as Unilever or Proctor and Gamble). However, some of the links that existed 20 years ago have diminished significantly (e.g with ICI, BP, Shell).

A key generator of beneficial interaction is the Industrial CASE award scheme. For large companies, £25k per studentship over 3 years is manageable at a local level. However this is a huge commitment for small companies. Government should consider more heavily subsidised awards

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

The relatively poor state of knowledge transfer into industry is a worrying feature, both for chemistry and chemical engineering researchers. Whilst there is collaboration with industry, and funding support, the Chemistry RAE 2008 panel noted a “disappointing decrease in the volume and proportion of industrially sponsored research activity” between 2001 and 2008. Many researchers in chemical engineering in the UK would echo this disappointment. The chemical and process industries are global in nature, and undoubtedly use their global presence to support research where business reasons dictate – which is mostly outside the UK. The UK research base needs to address this perceived lack of competitiveness with some urgency.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

Exchange at research staff level is not typically observed (see previous comments) At student level it is very good. The CASE award system is an excellent initiative and is envied by many outside the UK. Relations between industry and academie are generally very good and dialogue fairly easy to initiate (depending upon universities and their prevailing cultures). There are platforms in place to help this process (eg KTNs).

- 178 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F Relations with pharma tend to be good, and academic researchers are usually inclined to identify pharma collaboration. This may be a legacy of the historic availablility of funds as well as other benefits.

Larger industries frequently liaise at source to progress its objectives. Smaller industries are more dependent upon external initiatives to further their business aims and may be more engaged with research council initiatives (if they can tolerate the time delay in receiving a grant following an initial call, and setting up the collaboration).

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Dstl

From Dstl’s point of view, there are good links from our research base to industry, which benefit both Dstl and UK industry. There are good examples of where Dstl’s chemistry research has resulted in patent production (some joint with industry) and the formation of a successful spin-out company.

Industrial R&D in chemistry is strategic in a few areas: e.g. pharmaceuticals; cleaning products, agrochemicals, petrochemicals, but the level of investment in research depends heavily on economic drivers. Traditionally, the UK MoD/research councils joint grant scheme has stimulated exchange of knowledge with academia but funding from the MoD has been variable recently. A scheme needs to be put in place which is immune to economic drivers to ensure continuity of knowledge exchange between academia and Government/Industry.

Dstl has several formal MoD programmes designed to aid technology transfer to industry. The Portable Integrated Biological Battlespace Technology (PIBBDT) is a good example. This programme seeks to transfer technology from a successful Dstl research programmes to a partner in manufacturing industry. The original research was led by Dstl and based around elements of Dstl intellectual property. It was supported by contributions from a range of partners drawn from academia and commercial small to medium enterprises (SME).

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

Collaborative research has been a strength of Chemistry nationally, however, the globalisation of the chemical industry has had an impact on the value/number of this activity in recent years.

The strength of TSB funding schemes encouraging innovation into industry is a real bonus to UK manufacturing. These schemes should be expanded where possible. The Knowledge Transfer Networks are a real catalyst in this process and should be supported. KTP schemes also encourage the exchange of information. Universities are also more engaged in third mission outputs.

Graduate/postgraduate movement from u/g and PhD programmes to industry remains high with ca 50% of trained individuals pursuing a career in the chemical industry.

Mobility of academics (under sabbatical schemes) for periods in industry is poor; this is an area that could/should be improved.

Mobility of industrialists for periods in academia is, similarly, poor. Industry typically has highly trained individuals and their knowledge base is maintained through fundamental research and attendance at academic meetings. Schemes to support/promote this would be attractive.

- 179 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Keele University

Interaction between UK chemistry and industry is generally very good. Collaborative research is strong, and probably better than in most other countries. A great advantage in the UK is the high density of industrial and academic departments which makes visits and meetings easy, a situation found in relatively few other locations around the world, and upon which the UK should capitalise. However, collaborations are usually industry led (and financed) and this does not necessarily lead to long term innovation.

There is much potential benefit in schemes for academics to spend 3, 6 or 12 months in industry (and vice versa). One of the most successful and innovative molecular design projects of recent decades originated in this way in the early 1980s, but this is now being exploited in the USA.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

The flow of knowledge and researchers in chemistry from universities to industry is strong; in the other direction it is rather less so. Most chemistry PhD graduates move on to work in the chemical industry, and to some extent training for work in industry (e.g. industrial placements) should be seen as an important part of a PhD students’ education. Few researchers move from industry into academia – though there have been some notable exceptions. The body of PhD graduates working in the chemical industry provides one of the strongest platforms for collaborative research. As noted above it is generally a successful interaction at the level of the individual scientists, not imposed schemes, that leads to the best and most robust collaboration. This is one of the ways that strong collaborations between individuals in university chemistry departments and in industry are forged. The Royal Society's "Industrial Fellowships" Scheme represents one of the few funding streams which enables industrial chemists to work full-time or part time in academia for any substantial period, and is generally regarded as a highly successful programme.

Links between UK academic chemists and overseas industries are probably not so strong, though the EU Framework programme does provide an enabling mechanism for this. Nevertheless, is often more difficult for UK chemists to collaborate with industry overseas, where the legal and organisational systems are different and may be much more complex. There is also not the body of industrialist researchers who have come through the UK university system and hence know something of what is expected.

To facilitate industrial interactions, schemes promoting PhD students on placement and collaborations with Small/Medium Enterprises are important. The EPSRC Industrial CASE scheme is very good in this regard. The EPSRC Doctoral Training Grant is also excellent, as such funding can be used as a lever to enable collaboration with industry. The use of DTG funds to provide half-studentships, matched by industrial money, is in our experience a particularly valuable mechanism for promoting industrial-academic collaborations in Chemistry.

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP's) are also very valuable here. Funded by the TSB and strongly industry-led, they support a research project of specific interest to the industrial partner. They provide a very good mechanism for university-industry collaboration, albeit one closer to the "development" end of the R&D spectrum than most other university research programmes. They provide an excellent pre-industrial training for the KTP associate.

- 180 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F

Regrettably, the UK chemical industry has declined markedly over the past two decades. The break-up and sell-off of ICI (not so very long ago one of the world's great chemical companies) is perhaps the most clear-cut evidence for this. The pharmaceutical industry remains, for the moment, a stronghold of UK industrial excellence in chemistry, but even here research is beginning to be outsourced to the low-cost economies of China and India. It will be harder for universities to develop meaningful collaborations with industries which are not themselves carrying out a significant level of research. In the short term of course there may be some benefit to UK universities, in that industries may be inclined to fund their research through university departments, but this seems unlikely to be a sustainable model for industrial research and innovation in the longer term.

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Aston University

The dramatic changes in the chemical industry in recent decade have reduced the innovative research base within the industry. This led to a greater dependence on research activities within universities – but without an adequate budget to make good the situation and support total need. The interactions that developed often had an element of inventiveness and innovative thinking that arose from the mutual interests of the university and academic partner in science and discovery although actual exchange of trained people was, and is, relatively rare.

Two more recent developments within the university sector have worked against that freedom. The first is the (very necessary) contractual interests of both university and industry in the IP that results from sponsored research. The second is what the RSC has described in its response to the EPSRC Review of UK Materials Research as “the very negative effect that FEC has had on the support of UK academia by UK (or any other) industry”. One aspect of this arises from the fact that the industry funding budget has not expanded to meet the demands of FEC. Consequently, the effect is that less funding is available to the academic – and therefore less money for exploration of unplanned avenues of research. Additionally, industry is much more conscious of the cost of university research which results in more constrained goal-oriented research programmes. This has reduced the “element of inventiveness and innovative thinking that arose from the mutual interests of the university and academic partner in science and discovery”.

The overall position in relation to “knowledge exchange” between university academics and industry is that that the level of activity is, in our experience, increasing – fostered by KTP and CASE programmes. Set against that is our local observation that industry sponsored research is much more “managed” by company and university. This reduces free exchange of ideas and innovation within a project envelope and has replaced it by more dedicated pursuit of the predictable outcomes that formed the framework of the initial proposal and agreement.

End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

The volume and value of research sponsored by the Research Councils with direct contributions from industry or with industrial support, the equivalent programmes sponsored by the TSB, RDAs and the European Union, which require collaboration with industry, as well as the KTP programme itself are evidence of strong interaction between academia and UK and international industry. This information is freely available and could be readily collated and evaluated. Equally the flow of trained people from academia to industry is something that can be quantified from available employment and recruitment data, c.f., the

- 181 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F RSC. Most universities have active Knowledge Exchange & Research Support Offices involved in the formation of spin-out companies, the licensing of IPR, setting up contracts with companies and other kinds of technology transfer. The magnitude and technological/societal value of this interaction will depend on the originality and creativity of the research undertaken in academic institutions and its overall volume across the chemistry departments in the UK.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast

Knowledge exchange through movement of people from university to industry is good but there is little movement in the reverse direction. This is in contrast to the USA and parts of Europe. One reason is the RAE where it would be difficult to justify recruiting an industrialist who probably would not have any significant number of publications or research income.

The relationships between academia and industry are very mixed but overall probably not strong at the deep level of information exchange that could create genuine opportunities for breakthroughs.

Industrial research in the UK continues to decline. In some cases this creates opportunities for academia to fill the medium-term research gap left by industry.

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

In some areas, such as the pharmaceutical and fine chemicals industries, there have traditionally been strong collaborations with academic research communities, although this is not as extensive as it was and is increasingly focussed on fewer departments. This has been supported by funding mechanism such as KTPs and the DTI/TSB. However the relationship to a large extent is one way. More is still required to encourage industrial partners to participate on much longer time lines. Perhaps an underlying problem is the lack of input from industry at the undergraduate level both in terms of informing and delivering the curriculum.

The increasing globilisation of chemistry R and D to developing economies is a very significant concern to UK plc which can only be addressed by ensuring that the UK HE system provides these global industries with graduates, postgraduates and post-doctoral researchers that are fit for purpose.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

There is no baseline of permanent non-teaching academic research staffing in the UK; central laboratories (CCLRC) in this country can employ only a small fraction of those motivated towards university-linked research. This does mean that the vast majority of PhD students and post-doctoral workers will eventually seek employment outside of the university sector, in secondary or higher education, in industry or outside of the discipline altogether.

The precise contribution that the output of trained workers can make to industry most definitely depends on the nature of their training and their adaptability. Thus questioning of

- 182 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F the expectation of a career working in pure research for a major company in the chemical industry should perhaps be de rigeur, and postgraduate training should be broadly based and encourage flexibility. This is particularly relevant in a time of economic downturn and after the extended cycle of mergers that has occurred in the pharmaceutical industry. Retention of trained, flexible and motivated chemists (for UK plc) and a resurgent entrepreneurial domestic chemical industry would both benefit the UK. Industrial employment of trained researchers should arguably be the dominant career pathway.

Industry-linked research programmes undertaken within universities can be of several types: industry as collaborator (rarely providing more than ‘in kind’ support), industry as co-funder (possibly of a CASE-style project) and direct involvement with industry under a Technology Strategy Board programme (as partner under a TSB contract). Omission of full direct industrial funding from this list is consequent on all but the largest industrial concerns having major issues in meeting the expectations of universities in the era of “full economic costing”, which has led to substantial inflation in “bid prices” offered to industry for university-based programmes. In this context, the continuation of the MOD co-funding scheme is a notable exception, with up to 50% co-funding of programmes under EPSRC auspices.

It should be noted that reporting requirements and the close-to-industry emphasis under TSB programmes do have the consequence that even “basic research” programmes are framed in the perspective of potential future (but not distant) industrial application and that reporting is, at least initially, confidential to programme partners and TSB.

In terms of information transfer to industry, the UK lags seriously behind (e.g. there is no equivalent to Fraunhoffer Institutes). It should also be noted that the historical freedom of thought and action (within the company’s area of interest) of some industrial researchers has now largely disappeared; industry will more typically look to academia to answer its questions as they arise, rather than look to spot new opportunities arising from university research.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

Industrial R&D is increasingly spread across high-tech SMEs including many spin-outs from university departments. This shift away from the highest concentration of industrial R&D occurring in large multinational companies creates new collaboration and support opportunities from the UK research base. To respond well the community must forge wide links and adapt its collaboration model to be more flexible on intellectual property issues. Big industry is able to collaborate with the international research community. For the UK chemistry research community to benefit from industrial collaboration, it must compete internationally with the highest quality research and crucially have the flexibility and willingness to work with industry. There has been an increased focus on knowledge transfer through the Technology Strategy Board programme including the Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTNs) and Partnerships (KTPs). An increase in the number of collaborative projects and a challenge-led focus to funding mechanisms has encouraged these exchanges which are highly regarded throughout Europe. The KTP programme is more engineering friendly and the programme could benefit from being adapted for science research-led activity. It is apparent that there is predominantly a one-way flow of personnel between academia and industry. Researchers may leave academia to work in industry but very few will return. The RSC believes that insufficient flow could have a detrimental effect on knowledge exchange between the two communities. One reason cited for the one-way flow is the salary differential between the two communities. Another is the lack of academic output and esteem in industrialists as UK industry tends not to publish. There are, however, situations

- 183 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F when trained people move from industry to academia. This situation usually occurs when someone is either made redundant or retires. At times of recession the flow can be greatly increased. UK academics tend to work with companies which have a base in the UK but may be international. The RSC believes that many relationships between UK academics and industry are extremely robust e.g. the Unilever Centre for Molecular Science Informatics at Cambridge University, which opened in December 2000, is still ongoing.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘F’ response list)

Response by ABPI

UK pharmaceutical companies have a high level of interaction with the academic research base, high quality scientific research is supported, wherever that may be. Both large scale collaborations and small scale links are supported, with benefits to both the academic community and to the pharmaceutical company.

Some activity is driven by a single company; for example the GlaxoSmithKline chemistry LINK scheme, where a GSK chemist acts as a key contact with a university. This has been in operation for 20 years and currently supports long-term relationships with 26 of the best universities for chemistry in the UK, and more recently, France

In contrast, one of the largest UK collaborations, the Division of Signal Transduction Therapy at the University of Dundee, involves five international pharmaceutical companies, the Medical Research Council and thirteen research teams based at the university. It has the aim of accelerating the development of improved medicines to treat global diseases such as cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.

This type of ‘pre-competitive’ research is also the focus for the European funded Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) The research stimulated by the IMI will concentrate on the discovery of better methods for prediction of the safety and efficacy of new drugs, particularly in fields such as mental disorders, cancer, and inflammatory, metabolic and infectious diseases. This approach is expected to stimulate an increase in private investment in research and development, the sharing of knowledge between the public and private sectors, and the training of scientists.

Pharmaceutical company investment in collaboration with universities provides a substantial contribution to higher education training and research through both direct funding and access to state of the art equipment and expertise. In 2007 606 postgraduate studentships and 327 post-doctoral grants were part, or fully, funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 530 undergraduate industrial placements were provided in pharmaceutical laboratories15. Although total numbers for the 2007-8 year are not being collected, we understand that just one company, GSK, currently have 64 undergraduates in synthetic chemistry on one year placements in their labs.

Two clear emerging trends are seen in these interactions when compared with data from 2005 and 2003; the numbers of interactions are decreasing, and an increasing number of studentships, grants and placements are with institutions outside of UK. The percentage of PhDs from outside the UK is still small, at just under 3%, but over 10% of postdoctoral grants are in institutions in Europe and USA, and nearly 13% of undergraduate industrial placements. One of the top 10 universities for industrial placements is in France.

Academic/industry interchange of personnel is of benefit to all and should be encouraged. Industrial placement chemists are fully integrated into the company, working on projects that

15 Research Fortnight, 3 December 2008

- 184 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to F contribute to their business unit’s objectives whilst working towards their own professional and personal development. Whilst interaction at student level is very good, through industrial placements, CASE studentships etc, exchange at research staff level is less common but should be encouraged.

End of response by Sarah Jones, Education and Skills manager, ABPI (return to ‘F’ response list)

- 185 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G G To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• Research of relevance to the pharmaceuticals industry was identified as being of clear economic benefit to the UK.

• Other areas of academic research which benefit the UK economy include; catalysis, energy, sustainability, analytical techniques, smart materials e.g. light emitting polymers, organic semiconductors and research of relevance to the emergent plastic electronics industry.

• The training of post-graduate research students is fundamental to maintaining global competitiveness in a range of sectors. The productivity of the UK chemical industry relies on a constant supply of highly trained personnel.

• UK academics are very good at generating spin-out companies and creating intellectual property. There has been a growing involvement of venture capitalists in helping university researchers to commercialise their ideas.

• There is, however, a lack of funding for longer term development work which can hamper exploitation.

• There is a concern that an overemphasis on short-term, highly applied research in UK universities would be detrimental to UK chemistry in the medium and long term.

• A strong science base will benefit the UK economy in the long term; the academic community should exist to discover new knowledge that may help with wealth creation in the future.

• There has been a reduction in industry’s capacity to collaborate with academic research; mergers, take-overs and SMEs have led to a different industrial environment.

• The decline of the manufacturing industry and its migration overseas has led to a mismatch between academia and industry. Developing companies are also increasingly bought for further growth by non-UK giants.

••• The UK pharmaceutical industry no longer funds much basic research in the UK but does work with EPSRC through strategic partnerships.

••• Full Economic Costing and the IP demands made by some universities, are making collaborative research overseas increasingly financially attractive.

••• The UK should look to benefit from the exploitation of research under licence by overseas organisations and industry

• The Research Councils could involve more industry-based reviewers for grant applications purporting to be of industrial significance/ relevance.

- 186 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 187 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G Response by University of Bath

The drive towards sustainability provides a major focus for UK chemists to benefit the national economy and the UK’s global competitiveness. In areas such as utilization of renewable resources, provision of clean energy, green chemistry, biomedical devices and materials, benign and heterogeneous catalysis, the UK (and Bath) is making significant contributions to international advances in sustainability.

In the context of this question it is important to stress the essential role played by fundamental underpinning science in benefitting the UK economy. An over-emphasis on short-term, highly applied research in UK universities at the expense of these underpinning activities should be guarded against since it will be detrimental to UK chemistry in the medium and long term.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Current and emerging innovations. Growing opportunities for the UK research base are found in, for example, organocatalysis, nanoscience, synthetic biology and theoretical method development, all of which are likely to have a significant impact on the industrial sector. Research grounding in emerging and developing fields and innovative training through DTCs and e-learning will provide the next generation of high quality personnel. An example of top quality e-learning is provided by the SoC’s development of the Dynamic Laboratory Manual (DLM; originally for innovative UG skills training through BristolChemLabs, now being extended to PG training through the Synthesis DTC and to AS level for schools, see: www.labskills.co.uk).

Wealth Creation. The UK’s manufacturing sector is essentially focussed on high tech. The academic sector is world class and improving at training the research base that underpins this sector. In addition to training there are a wide range of academically generated outputs that have been or are in the process of being adopted by the industrial sector, illustrated in the Soc by: the use of chiral sulfonium ylides for chiral epoxide production (Sanofi Aventis, Celtic Catalysis); synthesis of diamond-coated wires, fibres and carbon nanotubes (Element Six, Photek, AWE); novel annulation for the synthesis of morpholines, thiomorpholines and piperazines (exploited by for instance, UCB Celltech, Amgen, GSK); particles and particle charging in liquid crystals for display applications (HP, patent); tooth remineralization treatment (under review with GSK); low adhesion chewing gum (Revolymer); collaboration with ClearSpeed on parallelization of electronic structure methods for the pharmaceuticals sector; predictable catalysis through chemoinformatics analysis (AZ); simulation of plant leaf wetting by insecticides (Syngenta); development of ethylene oligomerisation on scale (Sasol). In addition there is direct, in-house involvement through the Bristol Colloid Centre, a scientific consultancy group, and Krüss Surface Science Centre which provides direct support for University of Bristol researchers and acts as a local base for the company.

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

UK Chemistry is of strong benefit to the UK economy both directly (in terms of technological innovation) and also indirectly (in terms of our highly skilled personnel “assets”; see comments in H, above. Again, the distinction should be made between chemical suppliers/producers and end-users of chemistry. Areas of clear economic benefit which are underpinned by academic research include the pharmaceutical industry, home & personal care industries, catalysis and energy, and electronics. A careful balance must be struck between short-, mid- and long-term benefits. Again, underpinning fundamentals are much less readily measured in terms of impact but are at least as important as more near-term

- 188 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G applications focussed research and (arguably) much more important in terms of Grand Challenges which have no obvious near-term incremental solution.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

There remains an existing problem with short termism in the research goals of UK plc. Anecdotally in the Manchester experience, although there is a strong appetite for small, near to market projects via OMIC, there is a lack of strategic vision. One example concerns developments in polymer chemistry where companies headquartered outside the UK have shown interest, whilst a UK company that uses very similar chemistry has no desire to work outside the narrow confines of their current business. Another was a long search to commercialize areas of nanotechnology with a wide range of UK companies, the spinning out of this activity has led to an AIM listed company but most of the R and D contacts for the company are in Japan, followed by the USA. Japanese companies are approaching us, even in these straightened times to fund strategic precompetative relationships, clearly aimed at developing their staff to face long term rather than immediate challenges. This approach is sadly lacking in UK industry and not successfully fostered by government activities, that tend to support short term projects lacking in true innovation. This problem is also reflected in a gap in funding for development work. There is a huge gap between a commercial process and a new synthesis. Some extant activities in OMIC, Radiochemistry and CoEBio3 seek to address such problem using government funds, but a real appetite for innovation still needs much work to become a source of growth for UK plc.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

The Chemistry-Using industries within the UK are major contributors to UK GNP. These industries collaborate with and use the results from the research which is undertaken. This covers medicinal and pharmaceutical, clean and green chemistry, energy and novel synthetic methods. However, the number of companies and industries with which collaborations are possible has reduced over several decades through extensive mergers and take-overs, particularly with respect to the drug discovery market. UK Chemistry activity has remained strong within the core disciplines and as a result we have maintained a position of strength in establishing a multi-disciplinary research profile. Benefits to the UK economy and global competitiveness have emerged as a consequence rather than being a focus of activity. In addition, the training of post-graduate research students is a key benefit to UK plc.

There has been a shift in the Chemistry Using Industries from a relatively small number of large corporates to a large number of smaller companies. Engagement with these companies requires a different approach and a different skill set in their recruits.

End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford

Chemistry in UK universities has underpinned important wealth creating developments in drug discovery, new materials, and analytical techniques. Oxford Chemistry has been extremely successful with spin outs, assisted by an excellent University unit, Isis Innovation, for facilitating technology transfer (see table below). The UK research base continues to be the most innovative in the world, with high success rate in commercialisation, but in an environment where the UK cannot compete in growing

- 189 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G the companies; developing companies are continually bought for further growth by non-UK giants.

Table 1: Oxford Chemistry Spin out Companies

Inhibox* (Richards) Computer drug design Pharminox (Lowe) Anti-cancer drugs Zyentia (Dobson) Protein folding Glycoform (Davis) Carbohydrates ReOx (Schofield) HIF Inhibitor Vastox plc (now Summit plc) (Davies) Chemical Genomics Oxford Medical Diagnostics* (Hancock) Diagnostic breath tests Oxford Nanolabs* (Bayley) Single molecule analysis Oxford Catalysts plc* (Green) Green catalysts Oxtox* (Compton) Drug detection Oxford Advanced Surfaces plc (Moloney) Surface coating

*Evolved from EPSRC funding

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

Very good in terms of applicability with a good general understanding of what is, or could be, “useful”. The record on spin-out generation and graduate and PDRA training, expertise and employability are excellent.

The timescales from laboratory to commercial application are generally longer than the EPSRC or government seem to appreciate (over 5 years but often more like 15, or more, years). Continuity of funding and support for patent costs over this period are significant issue which hamper exploitation.

In general, sources for enterprise funding are about 10 times less than in US so companies have to focus on a succession of short term goals to secure next funding round rather than going for the “big win”.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

The Department through the spin-out and collaboration programs aims to work towards developing research output with strength in the fundamental chemistry area as well as output with economic benefits. Staff in the Department are associated with numerous patents (either from direct work of the Department or in collaboration with UK and worldwide companies). Various activities as Consultants also assist in taking our knowledge base into the commercial/economic arena. Through the University and also the Transferable Skills program various “entrepreneurial skills” courses are available so that emerging ideas with potential economic benefits can be exploited. There are strong research links with major companies such as Unilever, AstraZeneca, Proctor & Gamble, GSK, Roche, Syngenta, Merck, Norvatis, Shell, BP and SMEs such as CDT, Plastic Logic, Cambridge Medical Innovations, Advion and Thales.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘G’ response list)

- 190 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G Response by University of Durham

University research should not be driven by short-term economic concerns. Chemistry can make the greatest contribution to the UK economy in areas where the UK has first-mover advantage. Once the international bandwagon is rolling, the UK is unlikely to compete with the USA or Japan. Examples of technology areas where the UK established (but only sometimes maintained) a lead are in inkjets, organic electronics, lithium ion batteries and high-field magnets. We need to recall that (i) new technologies emerge from a strong science base and (ii) the companies that will exploit this technology often do not yet exist in the UK.

The UK has a large pharmaceutical sector, but it no longer funds much basic research in academia. The pharmaceutical sector has instigated joint EPSRC /pharma programmes in targeted research areas of specific interest to that sector, though one can question whether these provide effective use of RC funds.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

The productivity of the UK chemical industry relies on a constant supply of highly trained personnel. The Chemical industry has been exceedingly successful in wealth creation. Some figures were given in section A. This is a mainly export-oriented industry that in 2008 generated a trade surplus of £5.5 billion and provides tax and national insurance contributions of nearly £5 billion per year. In the pharma industry, the output per employee per year in 2006 was over £235,000.

A recent Royal Society report on the benefits to a student that accrue from studying Chemistry at HE level indicates that, over a working lifetime, the average chemistry graduate will earn around 30% (£185,000 - £190,000) more than A Level holders. This cannot be maintained without a thriving chemistry research community.

Catalysis remains a major economically important current areas of chemistry since it touches on almost every product that the chemical and pharmaceutical industry produces - not an EPSRC priority but crucial for greener manufacturing processes, waste reduction, greater fuel efficiency. Since it applies to many existing processes, its impact can be immediate. Overseas companies are leading the field; for example, Dow Chemicals unveiled radically new polymerisation technology as recently as 2006. Interestingly, this is entirely based on something as fundamental as the clever control of reaction kinetics. New light emitting systems based on nanochemistry will likely be the basis of the next generation of large scale flat screen displays, with a market estimated as billions of dollars. In the area of protein chemistry, there have been numerous University spin-out companies and other start-ups that have attracted venture capital support. Not clear how this compares with US, Canada, Europe. There are no leading companies with major products in the market place, unlike in other countries (e.g. Genentech in the US).

The most interesting technological advances are those that no one has anticipated. The academic community exists to discover new knowledge that may help with wealth creation in the future. Progress and industrial innovation are therefore dependent on the continuation of a diverse and curiosity-driven funding regime.

End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

- 191 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G Response by University of East Anglia (2)

Not a particularly relevant question for environmental chemistry which benefits the UK and global economy by evaluating what environmental regulation is necessary and thus enabling the costs of such regulation to be kept as low as possible.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

EaStChem perceives this as a major part of our mission. Training the next generation of researchers is fundamental to maintaining global competitiveness; our funding from the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) is targeted at enhancing the Scottish economy and its competitiveness. Our contribution has been and remains, to train the very best research scientists, within the chemical sciences, and generate a world class arena for knowledge creation of all types. This approach to advanced investigation and problem solving is our major contribution. It would be a pity if the focus narrowed to a more technological one as implied by the question. Between 2001-07 EaStCHEM made 51 Priority, 29 PCT and 143 National Patent Filings with 15 Priority filings being licensed or assigned out. We have made major contributions to the development of 13 spin-out companies, including Albachem (subsequently, CSS Albachem and now Almac Sciences), Fife Batteries, Ingenza, Ankur, Cythera, UniSil, Ilika, St Andrews Fuel Cells and Beevers Molecular Models/Miramodus and have significant stockholding in several others (e.g. IDMOS).

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

As with much imaginative, innovative leading-edge research, the UK research activity in chemistry is not necessarily focused necessarily to benefit the UK economy directly in terms of immediate and direct economic outcomes. However the impact of Chemistry research on the UK economy and global competitiveness is high, underpinned by the knowledge exchange activity from the research community, and not forgetting the large number of trained and versatile PhD scientists who emerge from Chemistry graduate training programmes annually and form a critical part of the skilled workforce required to maintain and enhance UK competitiveness io a wide range of sectors.

There are also, however, more direct contributions to competitiveness, for example there are a huge number of spin-out companies that have been produced across the UK, not just in WestCHEM, and the creation of intellectual property, a further clear way of increasing the wealth of those particular parties. However, given the often tough environment in which spin-offs find themselves, and the difficulty in generating substantial income from most IP, we do not feel that these factors are the major driver for the research base at this point in time.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

What are the major innovations in the chemistry area, current and emerging, which are benefiting the UK? Which of these include a significant contribution from UK research? Smart materials such as light emitting polymers. The UK is world-leading in this area.

- 192 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G How successful has the UK chemistry community (academic and industrial) been at wealth creation? What are the barriers to successful innovation in chemistry in the UK and how can these be overcome? The pharmaceutical sector is arguably the largest souce of wealth creation in the UK. The barriers to innovation are funding, funding and funding.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University College London

High. A good deal of activity has a clear potential impact on the UK economy in providing trained staff for industry. It is more difficult to really know the impact of pure basic research on the economy aside except we know that long term investment in basic science leads to long term benefit and specific applications, but on a very long timescale.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

Benefits from research often take decades to emerge so to a large extent this is unanswerable. There are many current societal benefits from fundamental research done many years or decades ago which was not perceived to have any applications at the time (NMR imaging, liquid crystals, synthetic polymer fibres, antibiotics, lasers, semiconductors, conducting polymers…) and maintaining global competitiveness requires blue-sky research to continue. The innovations which most quickly benefit UK are those that are closely related to UK chemical industry to start with, e.g. pharma. In terms of wealth creation, there are many examples of successful spin-out companies arising from academic chemistry research but they are primarily Oxbridge-based. Sheffield has ‘Farapack’ polymers.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

This is not an area where the community has appeared significantly to focus to date and is an area for concern given evolving UK science policy and long term funding prospects for the subject. Initiatives such as EPSRC ‘signposting’ of topic areas and the Grand Challenges should be encouraged.

There is however, a diversity of opinion on this topic. Some academics believe this represents a fundamental change in what is expected from universities and currently hold the view that UK chemistry research is not primarily focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness in the short to medium term but to increase the bank of knowledge in the subject.

On the positive side, academic researchers are often keen to help solve industrial focused issues (both from collaborative research and consulting). However, with full economic costing and unrealistic demands regarding IP being levied by some universities, this can make collaborative research (or even contract research) overseas become increasingly financially attractive. It has been said by some companies that If universities wish to be seen purely as businesses, then they will have to deliver on commitments (like any other business).

Some “industry-focused” research is far removed from commercial reality. Perhaps EPSRC could involve more industry-based referees for grant applications purporting to be of industrial significance/ relevance.

- 193 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G UK Government does not support industrial research, particularly in terms of using central facilities e.g. to gain access to beam-lines in the UK it is significantly more expensive than using overseas facilities (even when travel costs are included). This does not encourage research in the UK.

End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

Within biological chemistry, at least, very much so

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

There are a number of key economic issues that UK chemistry research already underpins. These include pharmaceuticals and enhanced oil recovery, for example. Indeed, much of UK research is quite focussed on the needs of UK industry in order to attract funds. This is somewhat to the detriment of pure research, an area that is also important for future global competitiveness.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by I.Chem.E

As we commented under F (above), the University/process industry interface in the UK presents a challenge. Whilst there are very many examples of good practice, it would seem that across the board the chemistry and chemical engineering research base is not as successful in transferring knowledge (and hence in gathering industrial funding) as it should be. The Chemical Engineering RAE panel noted that more might be done to develop international collaborations, and this may be an important way of raising the profile and standing of UK-based R&D, to appeal to established global companies. In one area, both chemistry and chemical engineering research communities enjoy some success – that of spinning out their own businesses based on their own research. In recent years there has been a growing involvement of venture capitalists helping University researchers to commercialise their ideas. The help of University managements, and government agencies, in promoting this activity, is greatly to be welcomed. The strong venture capital community present in the UK with experience in operating at the University/spinout interface is a real UK strength, worthy of much greater recognition. Utilising this strength in novel ways could be one approach to the difficulty, mentioned in C, that Research Councils have in recognising and supporting highly innovative research; partnership mechanisms could be appropriate for this.

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

As previously referenced, the pharma industry has been very successful and in no small part because of the research climate within the UK.

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Dstl

Two key aims of the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) are to exploit defence research to generate wealth for the UK economy and to help the global competitiveness of UK

- 194 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G companies. MoD supports these aims by seeking strategic partnership arrangements with industry and encouraging industry to exploit MoD (and Dstl) intellectual property in non- defence related areas.

Dstl works closely with UK-based chemical-related industry in order to transfer knowledge and develop demonstrator programmes, and ultimately a product.

Dstl also has an example of where chemistry research has been spun out into a successful company (P2I).

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

UK Chemistry has previously focussed on synthetic aspects particularly towards the pharmaceutical industry. The decline of this aspect of the manufacturing industry and its migration to India and China has led to a mismatch between academia and industry. This is leading to a diversification in chemistry research into areas covered by the broad classifications of the Grand Challenges. Strengths in material science, interfacial chemistry, gas phase analysis, new analytical methods and chemical biology are now coming to the fore.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Keele University

UK chemists are in general a responsible and well-motivated community. There is universal desire to see benefit from their work. In fact, there is a case for arguing that the focus on benefit has gone too far. Very often young chemists these days will respond by saying ‘what use is it?’, rather than being inspired by the novelty and beauty of the science. We need young chemists who are scientifically motivated: the technology will follow.

The wealth generated by the UK chemistry community is great. A very high proportion of the most successful pharmaceuticals include a UK graduate chemist on the patent. The UK is an excellent environment to carry out research and it is important to maintain this environment so that international companies continue to direct their innovative activities to the UK.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

High-level scientific research in general does not focus on economic benefits or national interests, in contrast to applied research and the development of industrial technologies. Clearly, high quality adventurous research may eventually have a significant benefit to the UK’s competitiveness and economy, but the benefits of scientific research are almost invariably long term. For example even fifty years after the molecular structures and chemical processes of biology were first identified with any certainty (mainly, it should be noted, by chemists and physicists), biotechnology is only just now beginning to have a really significant economic impact.

The UK pharmaceutical industry remains, as noted earlier, one of the best examples of chemistry-led innovation and wealth creation on a truly global scale. This industry benefits directly from the supply of talented researchers in organic chemistry generated by UK

- 195 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G universities, and in turn funds research within universities at a very significant level, often through the medium of collaborative PhD studentships.

The advent of full economic costing has however seriously damaged the ability of all industrial organisations to engage with university research at the postdoctoral level. As a result, many companies now prefer to collaborate with chemistry departments in mainland Europe, where postdoc costs are now less than half those charged to industry by UK universities.

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Aston University

The short answer is: increasingly so. The picture is not one of major innovations that create new industries, but of the transfer of knowledge and expertise to an increasing number of existing companies. This is a direct consequence of the increasing support for academic involvement in KTP and related programmes, coupled with the academic funding constraints referred to in earlier sections. IP constraints work both for and against the benefit of universities to the UK economy, in that universities and academics are tempted to overvalue their IP and retain it rather than putting it in the public domain. There are many reports from small companies that suggest that they simply avoid product development that might take them into IP conflicts. Although there are good examples of academic spin-offs in chemistry in which the IP is taken directly into a fledgling business, these seem relatively few in number in relation to the scale of chemistry-driven research in the UK.

The IP and FEC-related constraints referred to in Section F have certainly brought greater focus on the early transfer of ideas and results to sponsors. This more effective coupling of academic chemistry output to industry will probably increase academic contribution to the health of UK industry in the short term. The long term effects are less certain. Active academic groups in the UK have gained great benefit from financial support provided by industrial sources in maintaining the fabric of their activity. A previous (2002) EPSRC report concluded that “the best people in each field tend to be successful in securing some level of industrial support, if desired”. Part of the skill of the academic group leader lies in maintaining innovative “seed corn” activity that is not wholly funded from any one source. A concern amongst academics is that under the FEC system, industrial funding will pay for no more than goal-oriented contract research and that the flexibility previously enjoyed will diminish – to the ultimate detriment of the academic contribution to the global health of UK industry.

End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

The UK chemistry community is making crucial contributions to improve the UK economy and its global competitiveness. Examples include developing green chemistry for the pharmaceutical industry, improved catalysts for producing bio-fuels from natural products produced in the UK, developing plastic electronics to replace high-energy-cost silicon in flat panel displays and electronic equipment of all kinds, such as plastic paper and organic solar cells. The UK is a world leader in the multidisciplinary research field of organic semiconductors and the emergent plastic electronics industry.

The UK chemical industry is still the largest exporter in the UK and the UK pharmaceutical industry is still world leading. The weakening of the UK chemical base is due more to financial engineering than a lack of chemistry innovation or shortage of suitable chemistry graduates and postgraduates.

- 196 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G

The greatest barrier to successful innovation in the UK is the UK Research Council funding policy.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast

It is certainly believed that the UK is not very successful at creating wealth from research. Actually, it would be interesting to know whether any other country given the same infrastructure and level of funding would do significantly better.

In general we are risk averse, partly because in the UK it is seen as negative to have tried and failed – contrast the USA. There is also limited venture capital available.

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

The continued, and ever increasing, focus on wealth creation is not helpful in creating a free thinking and creative community. There are many examples of the exploitation of IP from chemistry in the UK over very many years. It is not clear that schemes such as the “follow- on-fund” have either improved or abated this. The primary measure of UK research chemistry activity should be its peer reviewed research output and its reputation within the global community. The creation of wealth for UK plc is a consequential outcome of this. Obviously processes can be implemented to ensure that research is exploited but academics are not necessarily the

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

A small, but reasonable, fraction of UK chemistry research is targeted at application and should present opportunities for industrial exploitation, preferably by UK companies. The current financial climate is, however, such that high industrial priorities are less likely to include innovation and knowledge transfer. It should not be forgotten, however, that the UK could also benefit from the exploitation under licence by overseas organisations and industry of the outcomes of UK research; UK plc has, for instance, benefitted substantially from overseas exploitation of magnetic resonance scanners and of Li-ion cells.

In common with most other countries, there is an identifiable gap in funding mechanisms which is deleterious to efficient taking of university innovation through from proof of concept to pre-commercial studies and ultimate commercialisation. Thus EPSRC and other funding agencies will fund research through to proof of concept and establishment of potential, but there is often no funding available for the next stage which could convince industry to commit its own resources to a new development or area. An exception to this rule is the interaction between medicinal chemistry and the pharmaceutical industry. The persistence of this funding gap does not worry the substantial fraction of academic chemists who do not see it as their business to go beyond proof of concept, not least because it is such proof of concept work that most commonly attracts awards (e.g. from the Royal Society of

- 197 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G Chemistry); those awards are awarded largely by the academic community itself, which can serve to reinforce this bias.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

Using the definition of wealth created as added value, only 13 UK based chemicals companies were in the DIUS 2008 value added scoreboard of the top 800 UK companies. This figure probably reflects the predominance of medium and small organisation amongst the 3000 UK chemical companies of which only 160 employ more than 250 people.16 Overall the sector represents around 12% of added value which is equivalent to 1.5% of GDP.16 Whilst this is a significant performance by the sector it is a relatively stable figure against the overall economic growth reflecting that the sector is not showing strong growth. UK academia is generating many new businesses but not enough are breaking through to contribute significantly; the UK needs to identify and support the SMEs that have this potential. Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (CIKTN) is currently studying the barriers to innovation in the sector. Early indications are that the sector performs averagely in most parts of the end to end innovation process but not as well as high performing sectors such as healthcare and electronics. Areas for attention are: leadership and management (to embed a deep and long term innovation culture); risk attitude; opportunity selection; learning and knowledge exchange; and SME support. The sector is working hard to satisfy REACH requirements but must now embrace the business potential to be gained by innovating for sustainability.17 The RSC Roadmap5 contains highlights of significant innovations which are currently benefiting the UK economy and global competitiveness. UK research has made a significant contribution to recent advances in material and formulation science. Active ingredients are now delivered in improved ways and products are designed for greater performance. Energy and feedstock innovations are having important impacts with mixed contributions from UK research. There are still huge opportunities in sustainable chemistry - currently only a minor proportion of UK academic chemists are truly engaged in the challenges of sustainable chemistry. There have also been major contributions in organic synthesis, liquid crystals, diagnostics and scientific software.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘G’ response list)

Response by ABPI

Relationships with academic departments can help to address specific needs, for example experience in molecular modelling experience has been found to be often lacking within computational/structural chemistry; increased engagement with key academic departments would raise the university department’s awareness of issues such as this.

A variety of organisations, including the Royal Society18, Research and Development Society19 and others, have called for employers to have a mechanism to engage more closely with Higher Education institutions to encourage development of courses that more closely meet their needs, little progress has been made towards this goal. The Sector Skills Councils, whose central role is working closely with industry to identify skill needs and

16 Chemical Industries Association http://www.cia.org.uk/ 17 CIKTN will report on these findings at its Annual Stakeholder Forum (June 10/11, Birmingham). 18 A Higher Degree of Concern, The Royal Society, January 2008 19 Higher Education in 2015 and Beyond: will it meet our needs?, Research and Development Society, 2006

- 198 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to G influence education and training policy, do not appear to have a common mechanism available to drive this engagement. The Bioscience Sector Skills Agreement20 brokered by Semta has, as a major recommendation, under ‘Top Quality Workforce’, actions to promote and develop a responsive system to address the emerging high level demand signals and to change metrics for undergraduates and university outputs to make higher education more responsive to employer needs. At present there is no straightforward route for a meaningful dialogue between companies and universities collectively.

End of response by Sarah Jones, Education and Skills manager, ABPI (return to ‘G’ response list)

20 Bioscience Sector Skills Agreement: Stage 3 Gap Analysis: UK, Semta, December 2007

- 199 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H H To what extent is the UK able to attract talented young scientists and engineers into chemistry research? Is there evidence that they are being nurtured and supported at every stage of their career? (return to Main Index)

The following key points were highlighted:

• The number of students applying for undergraduate chemistry is on the increase. However, there is a concern about the quality applicants due to the unambitious nature of the curricula at both GCSE and A-level resulting in university graduates often having weak maths and practical skills.

• Science in general should be encouraged at primary school level. There is also a lack of specialised teachers at GSCE and A-level level.

• Public Engagement of science has had a positive affect in attracting school children into chemistry at both A-level and undergraduate level. More funding is required for effective public engagement; to improve the public image of chemistry and increase the number of chemists with a “household name”.

• The number of PhD students is good with competition for places reasonably high.

• The move to 4 year PhDs is seen as positive. Most institutions like the idea of Doctoral Training Centres (DTCs) and feel that funding for PhDs should be flexible.

• Both traditional PhDs and the more interdisciplinary DTC PhDs are seen to give good training.

• A good proportion of PhD students are from overseas, particularly the East and Europe. The UK does not attract many US students.

• A PhD provides graduates with good generic skills which can lead to a variety of job opportunities away from chemistry. Many chemistry graduates move away from research/industry due to low starting salaries as compared to other career paths.

• The transition from PhD to post doc is not well supported. Post doc work is seen as temporary training not a career. However, the perception is that academia is the only career path.

• There is concern over the falling funding success rates and lack of start up funds for Early Career Researchers. The First Grant Scheme is important but needs to be reassessed.

• The Early career structure in the UK is attractive to many European researchers as independence and responsibilities are gained earlier than in Europe and the US.

• Fellowships are good for early careers.

• The UK is not competitive in attracting senior researchers from overseas, particularly those in the US.

- 200 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H (return to Main Index)

Follow the links below to view the reponses

- 201 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H

Response by University of Bath

Undergraduate numbers in chemistry are currently strong. However, quality as well as quantity is important and it is essential to continue to make strenuous efforts to attract increasing numbers of the best school leavers into chemistry degrees at university. The RSC, universities, research councils and UK industry are all important players in ensuring an adequate supply of chemistry undergraduates by publicising and highlighting the important and ever-changing contribution that chemistry makes to society. Encouraging more high quality graduates to become inspirational chemistry teachers remains a key challenge (and one that is probably beyond the scope of this review!).

Public engagement activities can be very effective at attracting the best school age students into chemistry. However, public engagement remains a peripheral activity amongst leading UK chemists (with some notable exceptions). Increasing the visibility of leading chemists in the media through effective media training, dynamic university press offices and research council funding for public engagement activities is a sound investment to ensure the future vibrancy of chemistry in the UK.

The UK is an attractive place for overseas research chemists to work: ‘open’ competition for jobs; a minimal language barrier; excellent research base and infrastructure; reasonable salaries; good career structure, etc all contribute to the UK’s attractiveness. Retaining and attracting the very best senior overseas scientists is more problematic, with the perceived level of available research funding and salaries being a barrier for European, US and Japanese research leaders to working in the UK.

The trend towards 4-year ‘integrated’ research degrees addresses a need to better equip UK PhD students for a research career either in academia or in industry. Enhanced taught provision, the possibility to experience various research environments early on in a PhD career, and working as part of a multidisciplinary team are all key elements of EPSRC Doctoral Training Centres such as that recently awarded to Bath.

We see no contradiction between having deep subject knowledge and having the ability to work at interfaces as appropriate.

End of response by University of Bath (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Bristol

Number of Graduates. There is strong graduate base applying for postgraduate research (last year at Bristol 62 were recruited from a total of > 700 applicants). However this pool is largely made up of UK/EU students and it would be highly desirable to increase the number of studentships offered to the very best overseas and EU students. The removal of the ‘fees only’ rule on DTGs would immediately increase the number of excellent EU students that could be enrolled.

Public Engagement at Schools Level. Bristol undertakes extensive outreach activity for the promotion of Chemistry in schools in the UK. A dedicated Outreach Director and School Teacher Fellow, together with nearly 300 postgraduates trained in science communication mean that we now have around 30,000 school students taking part in activities in the SoC each year. Further to this we engage with students in both primary (4-11) and secondary (11-18) school and their teachers, with an emphasis on hands-on activities, such as opening up our teaching laboratories for school use. We now have evidence to show that such activities have led to a significant shift in the choice of science at A level and degree at the schools that engage with us. In most schools there has been an increase between 25-50% in A level numbers in chemistry, in the most extreme case a 13 fold increase in the last five years. Consequently we have increased our entry grade year-on-year for the past six years

- 202 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H and the number of applicants has increased. We now have an entry grade of AAB and around 1200 applicants for about 160 places.

Training for a changing climate. Chemistry as a subject has always tended to produce flexible, well trained graduates who are able to adapt to changes in research climate. The provision of DTCs allows us to take this even further; the Functional Materials DTC encourages thinking that facilitates discipline spanning, while the Synthesis DTC will produce adaptable, creative thinkers well versed in novel methodology.

Depth v. Breadth. Traditional PhD training in Chemistry can risk creating the following extremes: highly focussed experts who, for a variety of reasons, are less able or reluctant to move into different areas or tackle new problems or multifaceted but superficial students who are likely to fail in the global job market. The central philosophy of Bristol’s DTC in Chemical Synthesis is to engender in the PhD students depth, breadth and technical ability, together with an intuitive problem solving attitude and associated confidence and adventure to make them world class in their field.

Early Career Researchers. The typical UK career path in the academic sector nurtures the development of independent and creative thinkers early in their career away from the pressures of either tenure-track or strict hierarchies. In recent years there has been a good and growing provision of early career fellowships from RCs, trusts and charities which provide excellent opportunities for developing independent research. The increase in the amounts available from the EPSRC ‘first grant scheme’ led to these being too competitive, the introduction of a cap seems to be an eminently sensible move.

End of response by University of Bristol (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Liverpool

After a hiatus a few years ago, there is currently strong demand to study Chemistry at the Undergraduate and Postgraduate level. Industry increasingly recruits from a global “pool” but UK Universities are still the training grounds for the vast majority of British scientists. We must continue to invest in the University infrastructure both to train these scientists competitively and to attract the most talented postdoctoral researchers and young academics. Nurture and support at the Department level is strong; we, like many departments, run a mentoring scheme for our Early Career Researchers (ECRs). There is significant concern and dissatisfaction among ECRs, however, regarding funding success rates and future funding prospects. It is essential that the Research Councils and UK Universities “look after” this new wave of Chemists in addition to focusing resource on more established groups operating at the highest international levels. The current First Grant scheme gives ECRs only one opportunity to submit their proposal and has at times had success rates lower than the “main” competitions. This does not develop the level of grantsmanship necessary to compete in a responsive mode format and we recommend a reevaluation of this scheme and the nature of the feedback provided to the ECRs.

End of response by University of Liverpool (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Manchester

At the moment undergraduate numbers in chemistry at Manchester are very high and there are more than enough graduates (at first and higher degree level) to maintain the UK research base in this area. However, there may be concern amongst some graduates that there may not be sufficient employment available.

The UK remains an attractive destination for overseas chemists at all levels. The early career structure for chemists in academia in the UK involves a shorter, less stringent probationary period, than in other nations, which employ the tenure track route. It could be

- 203 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H said that we tend to provide new starters with far less resource to begin with, but expect less from them to progress. In the tenure track system, far greater resources are given to the new starter, but possibly fewer academics progress to full tenure.

Staff in chemistry remain committed to public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry and generally the quality of students is good. However, chemistry still lacks the household names that biology and medicine can boast (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones, Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield) and this may in part account for the fact that these disciplines tend to attract larger numbers of the very best students in the UK. The outside perception of chemistry amongst the general population could perhaps be improved, by greater visibility of some of its more accomplished chemists, explaining that chemistry is more than just practical and industrial, but also at the fundamental cutting edge of science and responsible for some of the most important discoveries made by man.

End of response by University of Manchester (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Nottingham

Nottingham Chemistry continues to attract around 60 new postgraduate students each year. This has grown over the last two decades from about 40 per annum. The quality remains high and the number of postgraduates from outside the UK, particularly from Europe has grown, not least assisted by programmes such as the Marie Curie training grant. We regard the continued support of these talented young PhD students as critical to the future success of UK chemistry, and we are concerned that there may be moves afoot to drive down the number of PhD students in chemistry.

In addition, Nottingham has certainly nurtured early career researchers to obtain competitive fellowships from the research councils. During the previous RAE period many of these have achieved national and international status, including chairs within Chemistry in Nottingham. The policy of supporting and nurturing early career academics via mentoring, start-up funding, reduced teaching and administrative loads and help and advice in applying for independent funding has paid dividends in the context of research outputs and income generation. However, there are future concerns that many young researchers may be put off by the complexity of the funding landscape and poor success rates of grant applications. Note also that 20% of our recent young academic recruits are from overseas; it is vital that we ensure there is adequate funding available to retain such high quality staff in the UK.

End of response by University of Nottingham (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Oxford

In Oxford the average number of graduate students per academic staff member is 4. We have roughly 3 applicants for every place. We attract many international applications. More funding for graduate students especially overseas students is required. There seem to be growing numbers of applicants for UK chemistry degrees – in Oxford these have grown by more than 50% in the last 5 years. Presumably a part of this is attributable to public engagement. The UK Chemistry community is actively involved in much public and schools engagement, but funding the organisation and delivery of such activities needs to be addressed to foster these activities. Examples of 07-08 activities in Oxford include; two Summer schools, one for school teachers and one with the Sutton Trust for school students; a Salters Company challenge in which 14 schools sent competing teams; a ‘Chemistry show’ for schools featuring lecture demonstrations and the “Oxfordshire chemist of the year awards”; talks by academic members of staff at a range of science festivals, regional Oxbridge conferences, individual school science events; offering local school students work experience; local schools using our practical labs for experiments not possible in school.

- 204 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Within academia, the career structure, provided by the Royal Society and EPSRC advanced fellowships provides one progression route between post doc and permanent position. However the greatest problem is in the lack of start- up grants for new permanent appointments. It can sometimes take several years for new appointees to become fully productive. It is not clear that EPSRC’s new “no resubmission” policy will help young academics.

At graduate level, the UK is probably more attractive to Far-East, European and Commonwealth countries than it is to US applicants. An increasing proportion of our academic staff is from overseas, but there are major recruitment barriers at professorial level in competition with top US universities in terms of start up packages etc. Increasingly the Universities are providing greater levels of training and advice for early career researchers in terms of preparation for academic practice. But there is a growing tendency for young researchers / post-docs to be forced to move into fellowships with major organisational responsibilities too early before their science/research skills and knowledge are developed thoroughly. There must be excellence in the core discipline to underpin the skills needed in addressing technological and societal challenges.

End of response by University of Oxford (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Southampton

Recruitment of early career researchers into UK Chemistry is strong with an international spread of staff. PhD students are attracted from Europe (particularly Spain, France, etc.) but funding for non-EU students (India, China, etc.) is limited by overseas fees and by restrictions of use of studentship funding (e.g. DTA) so their numbers are much lower.

To remain attractive to EU and overseas research students, and early career researchers it is essential to have good infrastructure and support for essential equipment at departmental level. This is a significant problem with a dearth of funding to basic shared infrastructure.

Early career appointees need support from the institution to establish themselves and this has to be found in some way despite deficits in department budgets. The EPSRC first grant scheme does not serve the new Chemistry appointees well and the current two year restriction on duration is not helpful.

Public outreach has been a priority and has had a lot of effort put into it particularly at school level. This has led to good success in undergraduate recruitment but the effort needs to be maintained and the activity must continue to be funded. Initiatives such as “Teacher Fellows” have had a significant impact on the interface between University and School.

End of response by University of Southampton (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Cambridge

Chemistry in Cambridge close to capacity at our final year Part III, with the actual numbers being, in part, the result of the nature of the Natural Science Tripos and the fact that undergraduates are not directly admitted to Chemistry and the admissions process is determined by the Colleges. Final year project students require resources and space and does present problems.

Via the College system there are extensive links with schools via lectures and visits to the Department. The Department plays a major part during the year in bringing school trips and also during the Science Festival when large numbers of people visit the Department.

- 205 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H We receive many more applications for PhD places than we can accept. Many of these will be overseas but a significant number will be UK and EC and the only source of funds is via the DTG scheme. The DTG scheme provides a very important way for the Department to support new and exploratory areas of research – frequently leading to full applications to the research councils.

At the post-doc level again we have to limit the number that we can support and so each year we will prioritise potential applications according to the areas of research and current space availability. For some post-docs (e.g. College Research Fellows) the provision of research support can be problematic and impact on the final success of the research.

For new lecturers the First Grant Scheme is very important. The University and Department will provide whatever support it can but in certain areas (such as where expensive equipment purchase is envisaged) this can lead to delay and frustration.

End of response by University of Cambridge (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Durham

Durham, like most Universities, has an active outreach programme in Schools. Applications for Chemistry and Natural Sciences are healthy and the national trend in applications to read for chemical degrees is upward. Our 4-year courses contain a significant research element. The main concern is over the diminution of the rigour and chemical content of Science at a schools level. At a postgraduate level, the Doctoral Training Centres should provide an attractive route into chemistry for students trained in other disciplines. High-quality graduate training must be maintained in areas of chemistry not covered by DTCs. The DTCs must also be balanced, against flexible funding for the brightest PhD students to pursue research in the fields that they find most attractive. At Durham, there is still a shortage of funded PhD places for our good students. There is a particular problem with funding of overseas students, exacerbated by cuts to the ORS and Commonwealth Fellowship programmes. There is a need for a step-change in funding for overseas PhDs, especially from south and east Asia if the UK is to remain competitive.

There is an excellent range of Fellowship programmes to support early career academics, including RS URF’s and Newton Fellowships, EU Incoming Fellowships, ERC Starting Grants and EPSRC CAF Fellowships. These are all extremely competitive which is a testimony to their attractiveness. UK Universities are generally very supportive of early- career academics, with a graded introduction to teaching and limited administrative responsibilities in the early years of a post.

End of response by University of Durham (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of East Anglia (1)

There is no real difficulty in attracting talented young scientists into chemistry research – but the lack of career opportunities outside the conventional academic route leads to many leaving the UK and/or science. The DTC scheme should be regarded as only a small part of the answer. The DTA model has been working well and delivers good results but it is hugely under-funded.

The numbers of graduates (at first and higher degree level) are largely sufficient to maintain the UK research base in this area. Other countries are also seeing significant increases in chemistry student numbers. Anecdotally, higher salary levels offered by overseas industry attracts higher quality students into chemistry overseas. The career structure of academics in the UK is similar to that overseas, with possibly a greater independence earlier on. By the

- 206 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H time early career researchers enter universities and apply for permanent positions, they are well selected and suitably equipped to embark on independent research careers. Nurturing and career development of postdoctoral researchers is much more problematic. All too many move from one short-term contract to another until they price themselves out of the market, unless they manage the jump at the right time into either a commercial or academic permanent position. The ability of universities to address this problem is very limited. RCUK Fellows are well supported and, provided they are of adequate quality, have a secure future. Various public bodies such as the RSC and Salters run programmes which are every effective in attracting students at school level. The Admissions team of this department maintain strong links with almost every chemistry teacher in the Eastern region and mount innumerable public engagement activities. Particularly successful were the Chemistry displays in the City and the Cathedral on the occasion of the BAAS symposium in 2006. The UK is not competitive in attracting researchers from the US. On the other hand, there has been a change in recent years in the ability to attract high-calibre personnel from Europe. This is particularly true for emerging areas like nanoscience. The economic downturn is likely to bring a rise in the number of academic applicants for both PhD and other position. The position regarding funding (in phys chem) is rather stifling and newly qualified talented PhDs might well decide to move outside the UK in order to establish themselves. Unfortunately that means that the investment in attracting them back to the UK is likely to be significantly larger than the cost of keeping them here might have been. The combination of deep subject knowledge and ability to work at subject interfaces/boundaries is appropriate. The MChem degree has helped to address any shortfall in knowledge base at u/g level. End of response by Manfred Bochmann, School of Chemical Sciences, University of East Anglia______

Response by University of East Anglia (2)

In LGMAC we have recently recruited young faculty members from Germany (2), USA (3) and New Zealand. They are all of excellent quality and great potential.

End of response by Professor Peter Liss, CBE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews

EaStChem has a specific program to recruit international PhD students. However we were unable to meet the demand from first rate students. We attract the best students from within the UK and EU and have many student prize winners of (inter)national competitions. Applications for early career posts are always strong and we have an excellent age profile. We nurture and support our staff at all stages through professional development and leadership courses, regular internal evaluations and mentoring. We have prize winning gradskills/RA skills courses and Edinburgh Chemistry has an Athena Silver Swan Award. Our senior staff take an active interest in all aspects of developing and aiding early career staff, including mentoring.

End of response by Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews (EaStCHEM) (return to ‘H’ response list)

- 207 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Response by Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde

We are pretty good at attracting talented young scientists and engineers through a variety of schemes such as early stage fellowships, mid-career fellowships and those aimed at bringing international scientists into the UK community. Once the high-calibre talent has been captured they seem to stay in the UK, which is a good indicator although we still do not seem to attract enough trans-Atlantic internationalism going in the direction of the UK. This is probably due to a resource issue, and at early years in particular to the restrictions on funding non-EU PhD students; this also means that UK Chemistry runs the risk of missing out on some of the brightest Chemistry graduates world-wide, who would add significantly to the enhancement of UK chemistry as a vibrant, key component of the academic sector, of UK inventiveness, of industrial R&D and of the UK economy in general.

End of response by Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (WestCHEM) (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Imperial College London

Are the numbers of graduates (at first and higher degree level) sufficient to maintain the UK research base in this area? Is there sufficient demand from undergraduates to become engaged in chemistry research? How does this compare with the experience in other countries? Imperial College is on an upward trend in recruitment of undergraduate chemists, which suggests that demand remains high for a quality chemistry education.

How effective are public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry? Chemistry does not have a particularly favourable public image and there are no major role models of chemists in the public eye— in sharp contrast to the areas of biology or medicine where “tv scientists” popularise the subjects. However, this is a problem both nationally and internationally.

Are there areas of weakness - is the UK producing a steady-stream of researchers in the required areas and/or are there areas that should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate? Many areas of current research interest (for instance nanotechnology, chemical biology, materials chemistry) are not specifically catered for within the traditional framework of a chemistry degree. We constantly need to reappraise what constitutes “chemistry”. This is something that has been embraced by many chemistry departments in the US, and we should learn from this.

How does the career structure for chemists in the UK compare internationally? We do not have the data to make this comparison with other countries. However, we do need more career researchers—the current system provides limited prospects for career development. Not all such people can or should become lecturers, but the current system provides few alternatives for career research scientists.

To what extent is the UK able to attract overseas chemists to the UK? Is there evidence of ongoing engagement either through retention within the UK research community or through international linkages? At Imperial College, we are able to attract a high proportion of overseas chemists. About 25% of our undergraduates and 40% of post-graduates are from outside the UK. Almost a quarter of our academic staff are of non-UK origin.

Are early career researchers suitably equipped to embark on research careers? There are a number of schemes that support early career researchers, including senior research fellowships from the Royal Society, EPSRC and BBSRC. Our department has a

- 208 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H strong track record of attracting such researchers, with 11 such Fellows having been submitted at the time of the 2008 RAE. Almost without exception, all Fellows go on to a successful academic career, either here or elsewhere.

Is the combination of deep subject knowledge and ability to work at subject interfaces/boundaries appropriate? Yes, if supported by specific training initiatives. We have a number of doctoral training centres that are specifically targeted at the interface of chemistry with another discipline, for example our DTC in Chemical Biology. Here we ensure that specific skills training equips our researchers with the deep specific subject knowledge which unlocks the tool kit to all effective working at subject boundaries.

Is the UK community engaging in the changing trends in the UK employment market. We believe that is the case, but we need to ensure that we are not complacent. Only by maintaining strong industry links will this be sustained.

End of response by Imperial College London (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University College London

There is good evidence that we have been able top attract very good young researchers into UK Chemistry Departments. However, aside from the obvious and natural desire of some young people to become academics, it is hard to know whether academia is attractive or not. RCUK have been good at funding fellowships and Universities are now much better at providing reasonable start-up resources and also giving young academics time to pursue research.

At UCL we have a clear policy for this and we currently have 19 early career-staff with around 12 appointed in the last 3 years. In terms of teaching / admin tasks we provide a 3- year tapered relief of non-research duties. We provide studentship support and running costs and have refurbished laboratories, bought equipment etc..In terms of mentoring we have a specific system of mentorship and probationary evaluation. In our Dept we have widespread use of appraisal with 100% of all academic staff appraised and we view appraisal (and related activities) as important mechanisms for positive two-way dialogue and as a key part of mentoring staff. We have a very strong commitment to staff development in its widest sense and are pursing methods for senior staff mentorship which can be a much more difficult area to address.

One of the greatest problems facing all academics is continuity of funding and this is an area that EPSRC is trying to address.

If EPSRC moved to many more flexible five-year grants that would help with continuity, flexibility and to encourage adventure and ambition. Such grants could be relatively small and could be available to all categories of staff. So for example a £250k starter grant for a new academic could fund a small percentage of salary, some consumables and contribute to the running costs of a PhD student or two and some equipment. It would provide flexible core funding from which an exciting internationally recognised / competitive programme could be launched. An intermediate 5 year grant could be the equivalent of 1 PDRA for 5 years (or equivalent) and then an established grant could be 2 PDRA for 5 years… Then one could add on major programme grants of the type currently being promoted by EPSRC. The key feature would be not the specific sum available, but the length of the grant and the flexibility to use it alongside other grant funding opportunities. This may offer a complement or even alternative to the large programmes and sustain a larger and more diverse grouping of excellent chemistry research.

End of response by University College London (return to ‘H’ response list)

- 209 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H

Response by University of Leeds

How effective are public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry? Numbers of students taking A-level, and entering university, are rising again after a long decline, so something is working.

Are there areas of weakness - is the UK producing a steady-stream of researchers in the required areas and/or are there areas that should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate? Academics often begin their careers via fellowships, before getting appointed permanently. Graduate chemists often do not go into industry (few jobs) but are employed in more varied careers that use their problem solving and numeracy skills. Those attributes will always be required. The pharmaceutical industry has been slowly moving its R&D to Asia, and the big pharmaceutical companies are also cutting jobs, with implications for graduates.

How does the career structure for chemists in the UK compare internationally? Chemistry academics are hired younger than in other countries (because PhDs are short and there is no national service), and a strength of the UK system is the research independence given to new academics, enabling them to be creative at an early stage.

To what extent is the UK able to attract overseas chemists to the UK? Is there evidence of ongoing engagement either through retention within the UK research community or through international linkages? Increasing numbers of academic positions are going to overseas nationals, partly reflecting the increased pool of foreign post-docs in the UK, particularly from the EU. It is also a consequence of the relative youth and inexperience of British candidates for academic positions. Candidates from overseas are often more mature and more experienced, and so look more attractive.

Are early career researchers suitably equipped to embark on research careers? The EPSRC starting grant has seen significant changes this year, with a smaller cap on funds that can be applied for. Although this may increase the success rate, it also restricts what can be achieved early on to establish a track record. Start up funds are available from Universities, but there are often not substantial. In Canada new academics are entitled to the same start-up grant from the national funding agency, and future success depends on how well that is utilised.

Is the combination of deep subject knowledge and ability to work at subject interfaces/boundaries appropriate? The first is important, but may not be necessary to achieve at the latter. Of course being able to combine both is fantastic.

End of response by University of Leeds (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Sheffield

There are plenty of chemistry graduates at first degree level; chemistry (like other sciences) is becoming more popular again. Demand for PhD places is sufficient for us to be able to use all of our DTA allocation every year, with particularly high interest this year due to the declining jobs market. The relatively small number of vacancies in academic research ( 25 – 30 departments overall) is easily filled from this pool especially when overseas applicants are taken into account. Any academic vacancy at a junior level attracts large numbers of highly qualified applicants. How effective are public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry? Anecdotal evidence suggests that such activities are beneficial

- 210 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H but the effect is difficult to quantify. Schoolchildren can be inspired by e.g. science week activities/lectures or schools lab projects, but which of them ends up applying to do a chemistry degree years later we have no way of knowing. It would be very surprising if there were no effect. Are there areas of weakness - is the UK producing a steady-stream of researchers in the required areas and/or are there areas that should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate? Identifying future ‘required’ areas is difficult when appointing someone for possibly a 30 year career. We generally look for the brightest person with the best publication track record and most interesting ideas; the precise subject area is secondary (following our view that the best science comes from the best people, not from managed programmes). Anything that does not impress referees has no chance of getting funded so will decline quickly in a process of natural selection. To what extent is the UK able to attract overseas chemists to the UK… In academia - easily at a junior level. The UK provides greater early-career independence than the paternalistic structure in many other countries, and good starting salaries, and several recent appointments in Sheffield have been non-UK people (Russia, China, Germany) – although lack of startup funding, and limited access to grants for new researchers, are a problem. In contrast senior positions overseas (e.g. US, Germany) are so well resourced and remunerated that we can hardly ever attract such a person to the UK. Are early career researchers suitably equipped to embark on research careers? Generally yes. Getting into an academic career is so difficult now that anyone who makes it should be well equipped, having had e.g. an independent fellowship and a good publication track record before appointment. Is the combination of deep subject knowledge and ability to work at subject interfaces/boundaries appropriate? Interdisciplinary research cannot exist without the core disciplines that underpin them and the importance of supporting core scientific disciplines cannot be over-emphasised. UK chemistry research has a good mix of core and interdisciplinary work. Is the UK community engaging in the changing trends in the UK employment market? We try to fit students for employment with transferable skills as well as academic training. But the employment market can change suddenly and we cannot drastically change our teaching at a moment’s notice (nor should we). In general chemistry graduates are highly employable in a wide range of careers, since they are literate, numerate, organised, and have skills in solving practical and intellectual problems, with a good mix of subject-specific and generic skills. A caveat is that new UK University undergraduates have weaker skills in Mathematics, English and Science than previous generations. If this knowledge erosion continues in schools it will have a serious effect on the UK science base. The drive to make science exciting and ‘relevant’ to schoolchildren has led to a broad, frothy syllabus that is inappropriate for preparing children for University education, with the proposed new ‘diplomas’ substituting breadth for depth and opinion for rigour.

End of response by University of Sheffield (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of York

Yes, departments will often strongly support new academics by reducing teaching loads and administrative expectations. What makes the UK unusual is that academics are expected to gain research independence at a very early stage. This is a great strength of the UK system and a feature that must be supported by the research councils.

End of response by University of York (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Chemistry Innovation

While our training system has to date been strong and successful, we fail ourselves and our young scientists after the stage of PhD graduation. While our system of early post-doctoral training is good, we have no career structure equivalent to that of many European countries

- 211 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H for professional researchers outside industry. A post-doc is a temporary training position and not a career, so that unless a chemist wants to be and is successful at becoming an academic, their expertise and enthusiasm is lost to academic, and often also to industrial research. A means of funding and developing our best more senior researchers to stay at the bench if that is what they want to do would benefit both industrial and academic research, by protecting an expertise base in which have invested so much.

The RSC runs a continuous professional development program and Young Researcher Conferences. However, apart from this there is little support for the nurture and support of researchers after completion of their Ph.D. Additionally little attention appears to be paid to nurturing new industrial researchers. It appears (albeit via anecdotal evidence) that an increasing number of UK scientists are moving away from research and development areas.

At best the UK graduate and postgraduate population remains highly sought after for technical careers indicating that input talents are sound. However the increasing popularity of ‘soft’ chemistry related subject options is diluting the talent pool. Industry requires high level/ deep skills rather than more broadly based shallow practitioners. Recent trends appear encouraging with increasing numbers of the able choosing to study mainstream chemistry. It is important that this positive trend is maintained.

End of response by J H Steven, Chemistry Innovation (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Biosciences Federation

At the risk of repeating an earlier point, this process must start in school and specifically, in primary school. The primary school science curriculum is spiral and repetitive. It does not encourage the most gifted children to develop a real curiosity about science. Against this background, too many children subsequently choose biology as an easier option that the physical sciences when a good grounding in all science subjects (and mathematics) is essential to the formation of a successful biological/chemical scientist.

End of response by Dr R Dyer OBE, Biosciences Federation (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Institute of Physics

Our community has seen many capable people being lost to the finance sector by the lure of large salaries. In this sense Chemistry in Britain is relatively poorly rewarded. A typical graduate salary is £30k or £40k for a PhD, with little prospect of improvement. Academic chemists could almost all earn more as electricians (and have less stress). The professional status of scientists and engineers in the UK has to be improved.

Many research groups experience a shortage of strong UK candidates and rely on overseas students to drive the research forward. This could be addressed in part by increasing the support per UK student, which should be done without decreasing the (limited) support for foreign students.

The idea of nurturing young scientists is of course very strongly welcomed. However, there is a some frustration with projects such as the ‘Roberts’ transferable skills programme, which requires students and postdocs to give up significant time for courses that, in reality, have little relevant content. These initiatives have also been very expensive - some £120M in the last 5years – given the serious underfunding of key core physical sciences.

End of response by E. A. Hinds, IoP (return to ‘H’ response list)

- 212 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Response by I.Chem.E

There are bright children coming through into higher education in chemistry and chemical engineering. The UK is also attractive to students from many overseas origins. Those emerging from our own schools are, however, often disappointingly poorly prepared for advanced study, as has been recently highlighted by the Royal Society of Chemistry. In 2002, IChemE launched, whynotchemeng, a targeted outreach campaign aimed at young people aged 14 – 18. The campaign utilised a carefully researched combination of print, web and volunteer contact activities (see www.whynotchemeng.com ). Applications have leapt by more than 70% and the intake reached a record high in 2008 with 1640 undergraduates commencing study programmes (up from 940 in 2001). This performance far exceeds improvements seen in other STEM subjects and other professional bodies have shown interest in applying a similar award-winning approach. We thus have evidence of the success of this type of public engagement.

There remains a difficulty in attracting chemical engineering graduates into research careers. With starting salaries for graduates averaging £26,000k, the financial disincentive to engaging in research council-funded research is very considerable. We agree strongly with the conclusion of RAE 2008 Panel G (Engineering) that: “If the UK is to remain at the forefront of innovation it will be necessary to increase the output of engineers with doctorates”. This will require a boost in both the number and level of funded studentships.

Support for academic careers through the grant system is also a matter of concern. Decreasing success rates for “responsive mode” applications is discouraging for academic researchers who are trying to establish original lines of research; diversion of funds into managed programmes or specific calls, whilst understandable in terms of addressing government priorities, should not be at the expense of non-managed research which leads to innovation. However there is satisfactory evidence of vigour in our research community – both chemistry and chemical engineering RAE panels found that much outstanding work was being done by early-career researchers, and this is a promising sign for the future

End of response by Andrew Furlong, IChemE, Director of Policy (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by AstraZeneca

Early career researchers may be adequately but not competitively equipped to embark upon their research careers. The US has historically adopted a more competitive strategy enabling significant strategic funding for early researchers. Future funding depends upon research success in this relatively unencumbered phase, so this policy can also be used to nurture the perceived ‘best’.

The UK still manages to draw students from certain aspects of the global chemistry community eg S-E Asia. It has rarely attracted students from the US. Concerns exist for the UK to truly continue to be a magnet for the best talent.

Universities provide a good nurturing environment, but it is clear that some environments are more productive than others.

End of response by David Hollinshead, AstraZeneca (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Dstl

Attracting young scientists into chemistry research is problematical unless they are extremely dedicated because of the poor remuneration prospects. Evidence from our chemist colleagues in the USA and Europe indicates that they have more favourable career structures in terms of reward and advancement because technical qualifications and

- 213 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H achievements are more highly valued in those countries than in the UK. It is difficult to predict a change in the fortunes of UK chemists in the foreseeable future.

Dstl welcomes public engagement activities and believe them to be effective as far as they go, but such activities are no substitute for continuous inspirational teaching in the schools which has regrettably been impeded by the risk averse culture promulgated in schools during the past decade, which discourages the students from working with chemicals and does not position them towards a career in research. One piece of evidence to support this view is the extreme difficulty Dstl has experienced when trying to recruit well-skilled experimentalists. The issue appears to one of learning to balance risk properly, which only comes through exposure to managing risk in real situations.

Dstl has been more successful this year in recruiting high calibre scientists, including chemists, than in previous years but that is probably more of a reflection on the economic climate and the perceived stability of the employment opportunities Dstl offers.

A worrying trend is the decline in mathematics among graduate chemists. A lot of candidates do not have A-level mathematics and this problem is not being corrected at undergraduate level. Where we have employed such individuals we have found them poorly equipped to contribute effectively in a research environment and their career progress may hampered while they acquire a basic grounding in mathematics. There is sometimes a shortage of chemistry PhD students who are UK citizens (a requirement for some Dstl work).

The individuals who are most successful are those with high-quality basic science skills, including a sound knowledge of the physical sciences in sufficient depth. Interdisciplinary candidates are often very able but our experience is that the basic skill sets offered by more ‘traditional’ candidates are more transferable.

Dstl has also found a worrying lack of detailed knowledge of chemistry in some candidates, which affects their suitability for employment. For example, a lot of analytical chemists are rejected at interview because, whilst they convey confidence that they could run a particular type of instrument, they appear to have little knowledge of the chemistry that lies behind the technique they are using.

There appear to be fewer good chemistry degrees available at Universities now and fewer students wanting to study chemistry after leaving school. We have found a lot of forensic science and equine science graduates applying for chemistry posts recently. It is possible that more of the young people who have chosen to study for a science degree now wish to follow research after university than a decade or so ago as they have made that decision prior to starting their degrees. If we wish to make jobs in science attractive to potential talented young people then we need to make science in schools interesting again and taught as separate subjects.

Dstl is attempting to nurture future chemists through the schools ambassador programme, where we are trying to take our science out into schools to engage students at an early stage. Attracting students to chemistry needs careful consideration. Whilst the public lecture (“flash, bang”) approach is highly popular at present, and the lectures can generally be educational and entertaining to all, teenagers considering which degree to follow are astute (as well as being inundated with options) and we need a different approach in order to secure them. Chemistry courses need to be advertised as being stimulating and intellectually challenging (with a significant practical aspect), whilst offering a route to interesting and useful research opportunities, together with interesting and financially rewarding employment. Chemistry also needs to be flagged as a subject that can make a difference to the way we live now and in the future.

- 214 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Once recruited, Dstl tries to nurture and support our chemists at each stage in their career and has continuous professional development programmes to help staff. For example, Dstl runs chartership schemes which are endorsed by a number of professional societies, including the RSC. It is also possible to undertake a PhD whilst working for Dstl, although changes in the way MoD funds work has reduced the number of opportunities for this sort of development recently.

End of response by Paul Jeffery, Dstl (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Leicester

Chemistry has been through a difficult period due to many years of poor recruitment. The last 2 years have shown a significant increase in the recruitment of well qualified undergraduate students. The current economic climate seems to be pointing students towards science subjects but ultimately they will be disappointed in their career aspirations as manufacturing moves to the Far East.

End of response by Profesor Ian Postlethwaite, PVC Research, University of Leicester (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Keele University

Two important issues are: 1) enthusing our young scientists; 2) ensuring our scientists have the right skills, most importantly those of problem-solving and critical thinking, to continue in a successful chemistry career. The key point (which both HEFCE and the Royal Society of Chemistry are trying to address) is that every single stage in the development of a scientist is important – once lost to science, few students will return. The interest needs awakening at primary school, nurturing through the critical key-stage 3, with GCSEs and A-levels really inspiring the students, as well as establishing the key foundations – this requires outstanding specialist teachers. Universities are becoming much better at helping students through the school-to-university transition, and developing the key transferable skills that modern graduates require. But it is essential that a holistic approach is taken to encouraging and developing our youngsters in studying science in general, and chemistry in particular.

End of response by Prof. P.D. Bailey and Prof. C.A. Ramsden, Keele University (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Reading

There are probably just about enough graduates in chemistry to maintain the UK research base. However, it is important to ensure that more high quality graduates move onto a career in chemistry research and that the quality of undergraduate entrants into chemistry courses is maintained and preferably enhanced to ensure a supply of good quality graduates. There are many very good initiatives aimed at attracting good students into science courses. The HEFCE/RSC initiative “Chemistry for our Future” has been excellent and is beginning to bear fruit. Undergraduate entrant numbers in chemistry have steadily risen over the past 5 or 6 years. However, we must not be complacent. Entrant numbers to chemistry courses have only just got back to 1997 levels and could easily fall again. Schemes such as “Chemistry for our Future” must therefore be maintained and supported. A key feature of such initiatives should be the support of “outreach coordinators” in chemistry departments, whose role it is to work closely with schools and colleges. Such posts could be shared between more than one institution.

Two areas of weakness amongst UK chemistry graduates are (i) lack of mathematical ability, which makes recruitment into many areas of physical chemistry difficult and (ii) a

- 215 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H reluctance to engage in independent research. Such problems can only be addressed by the devotion of a significant time to extra teaching activity by academic staff; this clearly takes away time that can be devoted to research.

The career structure for UK PhD graduates in Chemistry is reasonably satisfactory, though salaries for PhD research staff are often not commensurate with those for analogous staff in management roles. One advantage of the UK educational system in Chemistry is that it is still possible to obtain a PhD in Chemistry at a younger age in the UK than in most countries. This allows people still in their twenties to attain positions of responsibility in academia or industry. The UK still attracts overseas researchers but it is not always seen as competitive or giving value for money. The level of fees charged by UK universities for non- EU research students is, as noted earlier very high. More funding for overseas student bursaries should be made available to recruit high-quality researchers. This would lead to better collaborations with overseas institutions in due course, although the process would necessarily take a number of years.

Interestingly, the UK academic career structure in chemistry often seems to be more attractive to European researchers than that found in their home countries. As a result, many UK chemistry departments now have a very significant complement of academic staff from mainland Europe. Our impression is that this phenomenon may be related to the relative freedom of UK academic chemists to set up their own independent research groups, even at the earliest stages of their careers. This appears to be much more difficult within the more rigid and hierarchical research structures persisting in a number of European academic systems.

Most MChem, MSci, or MSc graduates in chemistry are well equipped to carry out PhD studies, though some still have difficulty in contemplating truly independent research even after carrying out extended research projects in their Masters degrees. Despite some criticisms, the UK PhD remains a very good qualification for a future career. At the interdisciplinary boundaries however there do seem to be some problems. Undergraduates increasingly want to study just a single subject. Chemistry students thus complain if they have to take maths/physics/biology modules; likewise biologists complain if they have to take chemistry modules. This view is not universal, but it does represent the opinion of many students. Moreover, it is often to a Chemistry Department’s financial advantage (depending on the University funding model) to maximise its FTE student numbers by minimising the number of modules that a student takes outside chemistry. As a result it is becoming more difficult to find students who are genuinely qualified to carry out research at interdisciplinary boundaries.

In a small number of cases the student experience of PhD work is offputting and this must have an effect of dissuading some PhD graduates from further research. The RSC recently commissioned a report of the experience of female PhD students, addressing the question, of why more women do not go on to research careers in academia or industry. This report makes rather grim reading. Major concerns were difficulty in approaching supervisors and supervisors’ lack of interest in students as people. It is important that PhD work is seen as exciting and enjoyable if more young people are to be attracted into scientific research careers. It is not always clear how this is best addressed, as it ultimately depends on the personal relations between supervisor and student. It is important that students have a wide choice of potential supervisors and hence schemes such as the EPSRC DTG, which does not specifically tie PhD funding to a small number of individual supervisors, are very important.

End of response by Dr M.J. Almond and Professor H.M. Colquhoun, University of Reading (return to ‘H’ response list)

- 216 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Response by Aston University

In our experience recruitment of scientists and engineers to multidisciplinary research projects in areas with a strong chemical underpinning such as bioenergy and biomaterials is strong. The UK is currently enjoying a surge in undergraduate recruitment to chemistry- based programmes and consequently there is no fear that our research programmes will have problems in the short term. Cyclic demand for undergraduate science and engineering programmes is well recognised, however, and public engagement activities need to be continually scrutinised to ensure effectiveness and seek improvement. Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry at Aston has been active in involvement with schools to give future students an opportunity to experience university laboratory work. We are well placed to do this at the centre of a large city with above average proportion of young people. The history of the UK chemical industry reflects the fact that economic circumstances have a dramatic effect on employment patterns and career structure. The very central position of chemistry (section E) and the uniqueness of the molecular understanding that it brings means that well trained chemists with good communication skills are able to pursue quite varied career paths. The position of chemists recruited into academic positions in the UK is rather different, for all the reasons that have been identified as important drivers in answers to previous sections. The tension between pursuit of innovation and adventure in research, on one hand and the need to access funding to establish a secure research environment, on the other is difficult to manage. Research funding is necessary but difficult to obtain especially for young academics whose work does not fit well with priority areas. Many younger members of academic staff therefore become very dependent on industrial funding early in their careers and the influence of this type of collaboration on career development is uncertain. It seems clear that in the short-term, it helps provide support with which to grow their groups, and an encouragement to work in fields of general, longer-term interest to industry. The ability to indulge in risk-taking in fundamental research will depend upon the level of funding and associated freedom that comes from commercial support. For all the reasons previously described it seems that the margin of freedom is diminishing. Universities offer particular support for young researchers – as does EPSRC in the organisation of workshops. In common with all university staff, however they contribute to the metrics by which research groups, departments and universities are judged. It is vitally important that the effect of the changing economic landscape within universities is recognised and that adequate support is given in career development of young staff in experimentally dominated subjects like chemistry. They will ultimately be needed to advance the excellence of the country's chemistry research base upon which, as this consultation shows, a great deal depends.

End of response by Professor G J Hooley, Aston University (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Hull

The training programmes for PhD students in general has improved considerably over the last decade due, at least in part, to formalised postgraduate training schemes at University level. The trend to PhD study periods greater than three years is also providing the opportunity for more training within the PhD period. The quality of PhD training in terms of the range of analytical and practical skills developed and the ability of the student to think independently and solve problems are much more important in terms of providing suitable researchers to match the requirements of industry than the subject of the PhD study itself.

The ability to attract talented young people into studying chemistry and a subsequent career in chemistry is dependent upon the public perception of scientists in general and chemistry in particular. The esteem in which scientists in general and chemists in particular are held in the Anglo-Saxon world is clearly much lower than that in most of the rest of Europe and the Asia/Pacific rim

- 217 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H The high level of remuneration previously available to talented young science graduates in the corporate finance, banking and insurance sectors has led to a significant loss of talented young people, often the most talented graduates, from the UK chemical industry.

The government has the ability to influence the career choice of young people considerably through public relations and differential university fees and bursaries.

A major disincentive for talented young people to persue a career in chemistry is the shortage of qualified subject-specific science teachers in schools and colleges as well as impoverished curricula for science GCSE and A levels. The change of standards in schools over recent years has impacted on the knowledge level of students coming to study chemistry at university and the ability to think independently and solve problems. However, UK chemistry graduates and postgraduates are still amongst the best educated and trained in the world and are more than capable of embarking upon successful research careers in academia and industry. The emphasis at UK universities on cross-discipline teaching and multidisciplinary research is significantly greater than in the past as is the interaction with industry in many ways. Many taught masters courses are interdisciplinary in composition and nature and are often industry focused. This will qualify many chemistry graduates to carry out interdisciplinary research projects in industry.

The adoption of five-year undergraduate degrees as suggested in the Bologna protocol would improve the training of chemistry undergraduates considerably and lead to harmonisation of UK standards with those of Europe. It would prepare chemistry students better for research in industry as well as postgraduate study.

The size and diversity of the industrial chemistry research base depends more on the government tax regime than the science base and government policy should reflect this.

End of response by Professor Barry Winn, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Queen’s University Belfast

The best “A level candidates will either not enter chemistry at all or, after graduation, look for jobs that have higher status and generally much higher salaries. It is hard to change the perception of young people, and their teachers and parents, that medicine, law, even banking, are more respectable careers. Coupled with the comparatively poor salaries for new chemistry graduates there is little incentive for a very bright teenager to enrol on a chemistry course that may take seven years to complete.

Public engagement will, of course, help. However, this must be intensive, continuous and long-term. A short project funded by RCUK has little long term effect.

We can attract many good overseas graduates but most will return home soon after completing their course.

End of response by Professor Robbie Burch, Queen’s University Belfast (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by Queen Mary, University of London

UK Chemistry still attracts very talented postgraduate students; however the lack of a clear career pathway either to industry or academia is not helpful. This could in the long-term be very detrimental in attracting talented young scientists into doing research.

There has been a marked decline in funding accessible to young researchers to establish their independent research careers. There has been a reduction in success rates in the First

- 218 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Grant Scheme (from historically around 70% to the current 33% over the last eighteen months). Recently, attempts to restructure this program have introduced a financial cap to improve success rates. However, this is crippled by unhelpful restrictions limiting grants to only two years and £125k.

Early stage researchers are also particularly disadvantaged by the significant decline in success rates in responsive mode applications that has resulted from the funding of increasingly large program grants which inherently favour large and established research groups.

Further, the advent of doctoral training centres will further disadvantage smaller departments. Here again the RAE provides clear evidence that excellence is prevalent across the sector and focussing resources in this way is not necessarily reflected in research output.

Finally, the steady erosion of the EPSRC central services is damaging small institutions and research groups disproportionately.

These factors are unlikely to attract talented young scientists into the UK and run the risk of driving the home grown ones overseas.

End of response by Professor Ursula Martin, Vice-Principal for Science and Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London (return to ‘H’ response list)

Response by University of Surrey

The interface between undergraduate degrees and postgraduate research training appears to be functioning well. There is, in contrast, a difficulty in attracting UK postgraduates into later post-doctoral work, not least because the likelihood of a subsequent academic career has substantially decreased due to shrinkage both in the number of university science departments and in the staffing of those that persist. While applicants for Research Council funding will almost universally refer to the benefits to the UK of training post-doctoral workers for the benefit of UK plc, it is increasingly common not to be able to recruit a quality UK, or even a wider European, Research Officer. In contrast, undertaking post-doctoral work in the UK is still seen by international recruits as beneficial to their future careers.

The change to unambitious, chemically thin, new GCSE science syllabi may well lead to less experience of chemical science before choices of university programme are made – this cannot help recruitment of students into a discipline many of the attractions of which are “hands on”. There is a danger that secondary school science and the basis for a sound chemical education may diverge.

Public engagement activities in the chemical sciences, and more widely in the public understanding of science, are worthy but small in scale. University departments will typically have a small number of staff engaged in “outreach” which can be very effective – such work is typically unfunded and therefore limited in scope. The Royal Society of Chemistry does place workers in a small number of locations; their work is commendable and can impact substantially in the local area, but is inevitably limited in scope due to the level of such resourcing.

The current economic situation colours response to all other areas under this section. A major effort is necessary to limit the damage this situation might otherwise have on prospects and opportunities for UK chemistry graduates who aspire to research careers.

End of response by Professor Robert Slade, Chemical Sciences, University of Surrey (return to ‘H’ response list)

- 219 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Response by Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Steady growth means that the intake of students to study chemistry has recovered to the level of 5 years ago. Recent figures from UCAS confirm that the number of acceptances to study chemistry at UK universities has risen above 4,000 for the first time since 1997.21 This presents a significant opportunity for the chemistry research community and efforts must be made to ensure these numbers are maintained and increased. Chemistry graduates are important in all aspects of the community, chemistry literate graduates are required everywhere to help ensure the future of chemistry as well as the future of the chemical industry. There are a number of bodies/organisations, including the RSC, who are working on many activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry. For example, the National Federation for Education Research provided a third party evaluation of the outreach project Chemistry the Next Generation, hosted by the RSC. This project aims to promote the excitement of chemical sciences as a subject and demonstrate good career opportunities to schools and college students that are underrepresented in higher education. The report suggests positive impacts on pupils, but it is too early to say definitively whether the project has been effective in attracting students into chemistry degrees. In addition, a large number of university chemistry departments have very active outreach programmes. The increased number of undergraduates over recent years is testament to the success of outreach programmes. The quality of the UK PhD is recognised by students from rest of EU, as evidenced by increasing proportion of EU students applying for and taking up PhD and postdoc positions in the UK. This is to be encouraged since a number of them stay and strengthen the UK talent pool, as well as introducing greater diversity in the chemistry workforce. Barriers to the attraction of overseas chemists include visas, moving families and exchange rates. Retention is currently a significant issue at the PhD/Post Doc transition especially amongst women. A survey carried out by the RSC found that while 72% of first year female chemistry PhD students indicated an intention to stay in research after their PhD, this was only true for 37% of third year female chemistry PhD students, half the original proportion.22 This change was not found amongst male students; for men the proportion of students intending to pursue a research career fell by only 2%. The UK gives independence to researchers at a far younger age than any continental European country. The Royal Society University Research Fellowship scheme along with other UK schemes (Wellcome Trust, Royal Society of Edinburgh, EPSRC, etc) creates opportunities for young stars of the future to pursue independent research with minimal teaching and administrative duties. Of the other major players only the USA has a similar system for enabling researchers to become independent. In Europe, China and Japan junior academics have to serve long apprenticeships under senior professors before being allowed to branch out on their own. Most current PhD programmes have elements designed to equip researchers for future research careers and the new EPSRC Doctoral Training Centres aim to provide researchers with an opportunity to develop breadth of knowledge and transferable skills, including public engagement, alongside PhD Studies. With Post Doctoral researchers, greater efforts need to be made by many universities/departments to treat postdocs as the employees they are and not as ‘advanced students’. A formal appraisal system for post docs should be in place at all universities.

End of response by C. David Garner (President) and Isabel Spence (Manager, Physical Sciences), RSC (return to ‘H’ response list)

21 Accepted applications for chemistry undergraduate degrees hits 4009. The first time it has been over 4000 since 1997 http://www.ucas.ac.uk/website/news/media_releases/2009/2009-01-15 22 The chemistry PhD : the impact on women's retention http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/WomenRetention.asp

- 220 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Responses to H Response by ABPI

The suggested focus on numbers of graduates is not helpful as it ignores the key aspect of quality in chemistry graduates. Major concerns for pharmaceutical companies are the inadequate practical skills, weak scientific and mathematical knowledge and poor ability to apply this knowledge in novel situations, demonstrated by new graduates.

There are many talented young people who excel at science and maths subjects in school, however few of them choose to pursue a chemistry degree, choosing instead to study a vocational course like medicine, veterinary science or pharmacy. Whilst this is not a UK only problem, the awareness of young people to the benefits of a career in chemistry in the UK is generally very low, with a perception that research careers are low paid and unexciting.

School students suffer from an inadequate level of specialist chemistry teachers to inspire them to study the subject. The school curriculum has, until recently, been extremely content heavy and has encouraged learning facts rather than understanding principles through practical exploration. Sadly, in many schools, practical activities are still not the focus of many science and chemistry lessons. The reasons for this are wide ranging and include inadequate funding, lack of technician support and classroom management issues. The result is that there are relatively low numbers wanting to study chemistry at undergraduate level, and those who do go on to study chemistry may have poor practical skills and ability to use their chemical knowledge.

Activities to attract young people into chemistry through the programme Chemistry for our Future are starting to have an impact and it is disappointing that future HEFCE funded action in this area is unlikely to make use of the expertise that has been built up within the Royal Society of Chemistry, and may not take forward the successful activities that have been devised.

End of response by Sarah Jones, Education and Skills manager, ABPI (return to ‘H’ response list) Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary A (return to Main Index)

A. What is the impact on a global scale of the UK Chemistry research community both in terms of research quality and the profile of researchers?

The following key points were highlighted:

• Chemistry sub-topics which were consistently rated as areas of strength in UK chemistry research in the submissions were: o Materials Chemistry o Supramolecular Chemistry o Computational Chemistry and Modelling o Synthesis (in general, with a specific emphasis on organic synthesis) o Structural Chemistry

• Sub-topics which were highlighted in several responses as being weak in the UK were: o Research at the chemistry-chemical engineering interface o Measurement science

• Sub-topics on which there was disagreement regarding UK strength were: o Physical Organic Chemistry o Inorganic Chemistry

• Many of the submissions highlighted the central nature of the chemical sciences, and how they link to and underpin many other areas of science and engineering

• The majority of submissions from academic departments highlighted concerns about the balance of investigator-led research versus priority areas for funding

• Several submissions raised issues around the training environment in the UK, although no cohesive trend could be drawn out o Some felt that investment over the past decade had created a research and training environment and infrastructure which were second to none, whilst others felt the UK is lagging behind international competitors

- 222 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary B (return to Main Index)

B. To what extent are UK researchers engaged in “best with best” science driven international interactions?

The following key points were highlighted:

• Collaborations with EU countries and the USA are healthy. These relationships are well established and easy to instigate due to similarities in funding opportunities and joint calls etc.

• The EPSRC/NSF scheme is welcome and should be expanded to other areas to encourage greater international collaboration.

• UK academics with a low level of funding are not attractive to overseas collaborators.

• The best overseas students are often not able to be funded to work in UK due to the eligibility criteria for Research Council studentships.

• International research collaboration in the UK is weak compared to rest of the world. Industry’s view is that overseas researchers are collaborating more internationally than UK researchers.

• The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) provides some assistance to collaboration through travel grants and opportunities for working in developing countries.

- 223 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary C (return to Main Index)

C. What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous research base and portfolio?

The following key points were highlighted:

• Several contributors felt it was difficult to define adventurous research and suggested it could only be identified after the research was completed.

• Some felt that research described by the RAE as 4* and world leading was transformative and using this measure, national volume was at about 15-20%.

• Others alluded to the high proportion of publications from UK academics being published in leading chemistry journals and world leading broad-scope journals like Nature.

• Evidence also put forward to demonstrate adventure included specific examples of work; awards won and new research areas created in the UK.

• Much evidence was presented of adventurous work, however, some felt the volume was less than in other countries and not as much as it should be.

• Detailed work plans are not conducive to adventurous research – flexibility is key; o the EPSRC policy to encourage longer larger grants should mean applicants have more opportunities to do riskier research o this is available to younger academics in the form of fellowships

- 224 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary D (return to Main Index)

D. To what extent is the UK chemistry community addressing key technological and societal challenges through engaging in new research opportunities?

The following key points were highlighted:

• The broad research base of UK chemistry means that many in the UK chemistry community are involved in research relevant to addressing these challenges.

• UK research in medicinal chemistry and drug design is well placed to tackle healthcare challenges.

• Theoretical and computational chemistry are strong in the UK and will play an important role in tackling key issues.

• The UK has a number of world leading groups undertaking research into alternative energy sources

• Initiatives such as the RSC Roadmap project, EPSRC Grand Challenges and EPSRC Mission programmes are helping to focus research direction towards key societal and technological challenges.

• There is, however, a concern that greater focus on strategic funding may restrict blue skies research that may also ultimately lead to unexpected societal benefits of the future.

• In some key areas the UK is limited by funds and thus finds it difficult to compete with US and European research programmes.

- 225 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary E (return to Main Index)

E. To what extent is the chemistry research base interacting with other disciplines and multidisciplinary research?

The following key points were highlighted:

• The chemistry-biology interface is highlighted as an area of extreme importance in the UK the growth of which has largely taken place since the last International Review. • The general feeling is that one moves knowledge by moving people and as such there is a growing trend towards: o Concentrating activities in centres which accommodate core facilities and colleagues from chemistry and other disciplines physically co-located centres which have many competitive advantages. o Increasingly, major support equipment is provided and managed on a faculty-wide basis; use of central facilities also brings disciplines together and facilitates collaborative research. o Joint appointments and embedding academics and their research groups into schools outside their core subject. o Support from joint grants, through basic technology and doctoral training centres have created strong collaborative research projects.

- 226 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary F (return to Main Index)

F. What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides?

The following key points were highlighted:

• A key barrier identified for working with industry was the Full Economic Costs model.23 It was argued that this made working with universities expensive.

• There was strong support for the CASE Award Scheme24 and the Technology Strategy Board’s KTP scheme as mechanisms for good knowledge transfer. However, there was caution that knowledge exchange was not always two-way after the scheme.

• Many universities referred to spin-out companies as an effective mechanism for knowledge transfer.

• Credit crunch: Coupled with the last point the current economic climate was cited as another barrier to knowledge exchange.

• There was strong support for Research Council schemes such as the Follow- On Fund25, but there was a feeling they should be better publicised.

• There is a need to engage with more SMEs but this can be harder than working with larger R&D companies due to budget constraints.

• The RAE fails to recognise industry-related work.

23 All research grant proposals and fellowship applications submitted after 1 September 2005 are costed on the basis of full economic costs (fEC). If a grant is awarded, Research Councils provide funding at 80% of the fEC. The organisation must agree to find the balance of fEC for the project from other resources.

24 CASE studentships (where a company provides extra funding to a student in addition to EPSRC funding) are allocated directly to a number of businesses. The company takes the lead in defining a student project and selects a university to work with. The university and company recruit a suitable eligible candidate. Projects must be in the engineering or physical sciences and are jointly supervised by the academic and industrial partners

25 The Follow-on Fund helps researchers to bridge the funding gap between traditional research grants and commercial funding by supporting the very early stage of turning research outputs into a commercial proposition.

- 227 - Chemistry International Review Chapter 3 Information for the Panel Responses to Stakeholder/Public Consultation Key Point Summary G (return to Main Index)

G. To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness?