CHEMISTRY AT THE CENTRE:

AN INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH IN CHEMISTRY IN THE UK

1 CONTENTS

FOREWORD

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

3. INTRODUCTION Objectives and Focus of the Report What is Chemistry? The Role of Chemistry in Modern Society Context of this Report

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GENERATED BY UNIVERSITIES IN THE UK Process Used by the Committee Self -Evaluation by Departments of Chemistry in the UK Evaluations by the International Community: Summary Assessments by the Committee o f Fields of Research in Academic Chemistry in the UK Summary of Assessments by the Committee

5. PERSONNEL Training of Ph.D. Candidates and Postdoctoral Fellows Staffing and Careers Recruiting and Retention of Senior Facul ty in the UK

6. THE ENVIRONMENT FOR RESEARCH Physical Infrastructure in the Universities Academic/Industrial Partnerships The Perception of “Fairness” in Distribution of Resources Among Universities

7. RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPSRC Restructure Ph.D. Education, and Support for Chemical Research, to Encourage Revolutionary and Multidisciplinary Science and Engineering Compete for Talent Globally Work with the Universities to Develop and Art iculate Opportunities and a Shared Strategy for Academic Chemistry

8. FINAL REMARKS

APPENDICES

2 FOREWORD

The UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) commissioned the Roy al Society of Chemistry (RSC) to co -ordinate a major review of research in the chemical sciences in UK universities. This study is the fifth in a series aimed at providing an international assessment of core areas of the UK science and engineering researc h base. The first such study was undertaken in the field of Engineering (1999), followed by assessments of Physics and Astronomy (2000), Computer Science (2001), and Materials Science and Technology (March 2002).

The terms of reference of the Chemistry R eview were: 1) To report on the calibre, standing, and research potential in the chemical sciences in UK universities. 2) To discuss the impact of chemistry research on the well being of the UK science base, and the wealth and standing of the UK’s chemical -based industrial sectors and other areas of the chemical sciences. 3) To provide comparisons with international research in the chemical sciences.

The review was overseen by a steering group representing key stakeholders in chemical research:

Dr Amit Kh andelwal Head of Research and Technology, CIA Dr Jeff Kipling Formerly Director of Research, ABPI Professor Steven Ley Chairman, Immediate Past President of the RSC Professor John O’Reilly CEO, EPSRC Professor Rodney Townsend General Manager, Scien tific Affairs and Conferences, RSC

This steering group, working closely with the Chairman of the review, Professor George Whitesides, determined the membership of the panel. Every effort was made to ensure international representation across the entire subject area, with inclusion of industrial perspectives. The RSC provided a secretariat that, in collaboration with the Chairman, provided the information base and set up the procedures for the review. The RSC secretariat wishes to acknowledge the suppo rt received from the EPSRC chemistry programme manager, Dr Alison Wall, and the EPSRC associate programme managers.

The review panel members were: Professor Anna Balazs Chemical Engineering Department, University of Pittsburgh, US, Computation Professor Alan Bond School of Chemistry, Monash University, Australia, Analytical Professor Erick Carreira Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, ETH Hönggerberg, Zürich, Switzerland, Synthetic Organic

3 Dr Annette Doherty Fresnes Laboratories, Pfizer Global R&D France, Medicinal Professor Richard Holm Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology , Harvard University, US, Inorganic Professor Dan Kahne Department of Chemistry, Princeton University US, Bioorganic Professor Michael Klein Department of Chemi stry, University of Pennsylvania, US, Computation Dr Ramesh Mashelkar Council of Scientific & Industrial Research India, Chemical Engineering Professor Ralph Nuzzo Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois US, Materials Professor Lanny Sch midt Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Minneapolis University, US, Catalysis Professor Jürgen Troe Physical Chemistry Institute, Georg -August - Universität, Göttingen, Germany, Physical Professor Karl Wieghardt Max -Planck -Instit ut für Strahlenchemie, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany, Inorganic Professor George M. Whitesides Chairman , Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, US, Physical Organic (Dr Alejandra Palermo RSC Secretariat, Executive Secretary)

During the review, subgroups of the panel visited nine chemistry departments —Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Imperial College, Leeds, Manchester (including representatives from UMIST), Nottingham and St. Andrews: each panel member visited two instit utions. These visits were not intended as evaluations of the particular departments involved. Their object was to obtain a perception of the quality and problems encountered in UK chemistry research. In advance of these university visits, the review pan el were briefed extensively, and received comprehensive data concerning the 2001 RAE, the environment for research (from EPSRC), bibliometrics, and the results of a RSC survey of spin -off companies from UK chemistry departments. Meetings between panel mem bers and key industrialists examined the important interaction between academia and the chemical industry.

The review panel and the steering group wish to thank all those chemistry departments who contributed their views in support of this exercise. Spe cial thanks are due to those departments who generously gave their time and effort prior to and during visits by panel members.

The steering group is indebted to the review panel for their extraordinary commitment, tireless dedication and enthusiasm in c arrying out this enterprise. In particular, it wishes to thank George Whitesides, for his efforts to achieve an

4 objective, analytical, and lucid report.

We believe that this incisive report raises important issues concerning research in the chemical s ciences in the UK, and should encourage positive debate about opportunities and future directions. Our hope is that these findings will be embraced by the chemistry community in the spirit in which they are intended: to stimulate, promote and foster innov ative research of the highest quality in this, the most central of the sciences.

Comments on this report are, of course, welcome.

Steve Ley and Rodney Townsend on behalf of the steering group.

Back Row: Erick Carreira, Alan Bond, Lanny Schmidt, Mike Klein, Anna Balazs, Jürgen Troe, Dan Kahne, Dick Holm, Karl Wieghardt Front Row: Annette Doherty, Ramesh Mashelkar, George Whitesides, Alejandra Palermo, Ralph Nuzzo.

5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the findings of an international committe e charged by EPSRC with assessing the state —that is, the quality, impact, and international competitiveness —of academic research in the chemical sciences in the UK. This assessment focused on the 5* and 5, RAE -ranked universities. These are the major con clusions of the committee:

1. The quality of scholarship in chemistry in the UK is comparable with the world’s best; levels of innovation and discovery are lower. 2. The UK has three areas of particular technical strength: i) protein chemistry, ii) synthesis, iii) theoretical and experimental studies of chemical reactivity, properties, and dynamics. 3. Facilities in the top universities are world -class. 4. The UK lags in two areas widely believed to represent the most important new opportunities for chemistry: chem ical biology and materials science. 5. The academic community appears not to recruit globally for talented faculty and graduate students as effectively as its competitors. It also lags in building a diverse (in gender and cultural background) workforce. 6. Chem istry has relative little contact with chemical engineering in the UK, and chemical engineering (although not explicitly reviewed by the committee) seems more narrowly based here than elsewhere. 7. Academic chemistry in the UK is highly dependent financially on direct industrial support. The close relationship between industry and university makes academic chemistry responsive to industrial preferences; this responsiveness is both a strength and a weakness. 8. The infrastructure supporting chemistry assumes that it is “small science”. Research is in the form of small, targeted, short -term, single -investigator grants. Mechanisms to support the multigroup, interdisciplinary projects important in materials science and some areas of chemical biology and biomedicine are not well developed.

The committee made three major recommendations to EPSRC:

• Restructure Ph.D. Education and Support for Chemical Research to Encourage Revolutionary and Multidisciplinary Science and Engineering. o Redefine the Ph.D. Consider the prog ramme leading to the Ph.D. degree as “education”, not “training”: that is, as a programme intended to generate independent researchers capable of creative and innovative research. Increase the time to Ph.D. to four years, and increase the flexibility of Ph .D. programmes. o Develop mechanisms for support that reward discovery and innovation, and that provide the three - to five -year continuity in support required to take risks in research. o Develop mechanisms that support multidisciplinary research.

6 o Emphasize t he expansion of UK chemistry into biology and materials science, conserve historical strengths in scholarship, and build bridges to chemical engineering. o Increase mobility of students and faculty among universities. • Compete for scientific talent globally. • Work with the chemical community to develop and articulate opportunities, and formulate a strategy for academic chemistry. o Develop a rolling strategic plan for academic chemistry. o Encourage the academic chemical community to generate initiatives, rather t han responding to those developed by government. o Use the power of the top departments to strengthen departments at the next level and increase the number of internationally first -tier departments; preserve the strength of the current top -tier departments.

7 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The committee was instructed:

To report on the calibre, standing, and research potential in the chemical sciences in UK universities.

To discuss the impact of chemistry research on the well being of the UK science base, and t he wealth and standing of the UK’s chemical -based industrial sectors and other areas of the chemical sciences.

To provide comparisons with international research in the chemical sciences.

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT

3.1 Objectives and Focus of t he Report

The objective of this review was to examine the state of academic chemistry in the UK, and to compare this chemistry with the best done world -wide. It focuses on six questions:

1. How does research in Chemistry in the UK compare globally?

2. How effectively does the research carried out in the chemical sciences improve the quality of life in the UK?

3. Is the system for training Ph.D. students appropriate and successful? Is the system providing enough trained individuals of the standard required by academia and industry? Is the length of Ph.D. training adequate?

4. How should the UK distribute its investment between fundamental science, and science intended to create jobs, goods, and services?

5. How should the UK distribute its inv estment between single -investigator and multi -investigator research? Since achieving critical mass in scientific problems is crucial to success in many complex problems, how should the UK assure critical mass in projects based in chemistry?

6. Do chemist ry departments in universities in the UK have the support (facilities, instrumentation, students, staff, administration) needed to carry out research at the highest level internationally?

8 3.2 What is Chemistry?

Chemistry is, at core, the study and man ipulation of molecules. It routinely makes new forms of matter, and is unique among the sciences in doing so. This ability to make new molecules —that is, to make new matter —is, of course, enormously useful to chemists; it is also invaluable to scientists in a wide variety of fields, and chemistry is among the most useful of fields of science to society as a whole.

Chemistry is, thus, important both in its own right as an intellectual discipline, and for its ability to prepare the matter —molecules and m aterials —on which other fields depend.

Chemistry, today, has five parts:

I. The Core. The intellectual core of chemistry remains the synthesis and study of molecules —the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. Synthesis across the pe riodic table —from complex natural products, through drugs and materials necessary for molecular electronics, to proteins — has become extraordinarily sophisticated. As the uses for the products of synthesis have become more complex, the demands on synthesis have become greater. Chemistry must continue to innovate in synthesis, in order to keep up with the demands of users of these new compositions of matter.

The development of new tools —especially forms of spectroscopy capable of femtosecond (and perhaps in the immediate future, attosecond) resolution in time, of observing single molecules, and of comparing complex reactions in the vapour phase and in solution, is also causing chemistry to re -examine its most fundamental assumptions about molecules and th eir dynamics. Molecules increasingly appear to follow dynamics that are more complex and subtle than the cruder tools of the past have suggested, and study of these subjects is redefining the subject of chemistry, and of molecular -scale science broadly. The opportunities for fundamental advances at the core of chemistry are greater now than they have ever been.

II. The Frontiers. Chemistry is extraordinarily useful —in fact, indispensable —in subjects of central, current interest throughout science and technology.

Molecular biology is, for example, one field that is absolutely dependent upon chemistry: the protein products of biotechnology are, after all, molecules, as is DNA. The analysis of the signalling networks that seems to offer possible appro aches to the next generation of anticancer agents is, in fact, the understanding of networks of interacting molecules; the new concepts necessary to understand these systems can only come from chemistry. In order to provide reagents and probes for biologi cal processes, and drugs and analytical methods

9 based on them, chemistry will be required to make inventions in many areas of biology that will be at least as important as the biology itself. The opportunities to build a fully reductionist science concern ed with the molecular understanding of life are sufficiently compelling that a new field —chemical biology —is now emerging at the boundary between chemistry and molecular and cell biology. This field is one that will be populated with scientists who think both as chemists and biologists.

Materials science is a second area into which chemistry is rapidly expanding. Materials science (or, more familiarly, “materials”) is concerned with bulk forms of matter that are useful in structures, electronic and optic al devices, organ replacements and a very wide range of other applications. Chemistry brings to materials science the ability to synthesise new forms of matter with atom -by -atom precision. In the past, this ability has been important primarily in many “s imple” functions (for example, as structural materials, and as coatings). One of the exciting opportunities for the future (and one in which organic and organometallic chemistry hold particular promise) is to use synthesis to prepare molecules that are el ectronically, optically, and perhaps magnetically functional.

Because it has the ability to make molecules —that is, to attach individual atoms to one another —chemistry is the ultimate nanoscience. When (and if) a significant nanotechnology emerges, it wi ll depend heavily on chemistry. In fact, the initial products of nanotechnology are nanostructured materials prepared by bottom -up synthesis.

III. The Future. Chemistry is now beginning to work at the foundations of several of the most intellectuall y important problems of modern science. Two examples are complexity, and the origin of life.

Complex Systems. The field of complexity —the study of the properties of systems of interacting components —is emerging as one of the unifying themes for the ne xt decades of science and technology. The movement of electrons in an organic conductor, the fluctuations of the stock market, the time -ordered expression of genes in development of an organism, the rearrangements of swarms of solvent molecules during a c atalytic step involving a protein —all are examples of complex processes, and all may —astonishingly —share deep, common features. Chemistry has historically worked comfortably with complex systems of molecules and reactions, and will be one field leading in this new area of science.

The origin of life is prototypically a molecular problem. We now understand the cell —the fundamental unit of life —to be two different things. On the one hand, it is a semipermeable membrane containing a collection of strongly coupled, catalytically regulated molecular reactions. On the other hand, it is an entity that is self -replicating, energy dissipating, and adaptive. Learning how to connect these two pictures is one of the biggest problems in modern science; learning how this most remarkable of systems began is a second. Research in

10 chemistry has demonstrated how processes that could plausibly have occurred in the primitive earth might make the essential molecules required for life; other studies have clearly demonstrate d how the most complicated molecules could have arisen from these simple precursors. The problem now is to connect the two into a system showing primitive self -replication.

IV. Service to Society. Chemistry is the most pervasive of the physical scienc es in its importance to society: it provides indispensable support for essentially every area of technology —manufacturing, production of devices for information technology, control of friction, corrosion, and wear, healthcare and pharmaceutical production, energy production, waste management, transportation, national security and many others. The demand for chemists extends across all sectors of manufacturing. Maintaining a supply of well -trained chemists is essential to maintaining a technological societ y, and as new requirements are imposed by society on technology —for example, in environmental protection, sustainable technology, and technology to protect against chemical and biological terrorism —the need for broadly educated chemists increases.

V. Linking Disciplines. 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 t o communicate with each other.

Opening A New Chapter. Chemistry is changing rapidly. For the last 50 years, it has focused on one set of problems —methods for synthesis, catalysis, applications of quantum mechanics to the understanding of bonding, develo pment of the tools that made molecular biology possible, and definition of the methods of analysis that are ubiquitous throughout technology. Although these problems can never be considered finished, chemistry is now engaging a new set of problems —chemica l biology, materials science, the origin of life, and others. The difference between these two sets of problems —the old and the new —is so great that the next phase of chemistry should be considered as a new field of science, connected to the previous by t he common themes of atoms, molecules, synthesis, and measurement, but differing in subject, scope, and objectives.

3.3. The Role of Chemistry in Modern Society

The beneficial influences of chemistry, and the technologies that it enables, are felt th roughout society. Because chemistry is the science most concerned with the study and manipulation of molecules, it naturally flows to the heart of every interest in the field of medicine. Whether it be the design of new drugs for the treatment of disease and the alleviation of suffering, the synthesis of new materials for tissue replacement or to promote the healing of injuries, or the development of advanced systems for diagnosing illness, advances in chemical

11 research play a central enabling role. The benefits of modern health care would be seriously eroded —indeed obviated —without the contributions made by chemistry. Future advances in medicine will clearly depend in critical ways on the progress made in chemical research. The understanding of the mol ecular basis of life will provide the ultimate foundation on which to develop the advances needed to eliminate disease. The world is challenged by many risks, many of which are diseases. Eliminating the threat of AIDS, as a prominent example, would repre sent a contribution of great significance —one that would reverse the dire futures projected for major population centres of the developing world. On the other hand, significant changes in the demography of the developed world would mean a large, elderly p opulation. Caring for the old will require new approaches to geriatric medicine. For all of these problems, the solutions will involve chemistry.

Our industrial economies are exceptionally energy intensive. This intensivity places great demands on the environment. Chemistry has played a pivotal role in remediating these impacts while maintaining the resource bases needed to sustain economic growth. New catalytic processes and advances in process chemistry have allowed us progressively to shift the ene rgy balance of the economy away from heavily polluting fossil fuel energy sources (such as coal) towards cleaner fuels. Chemistry will allow further progress to be made along these lines. The energy efficiency and emission characteristics of transportati on systems will continue to improve, due in no small part to the advances made in catalysis (e.g. the catalytic converters of automotive exhaust systems) and materials (e.g. light -weight polymer composites as structural components in automobiles and airfra mes). The on -line diagnostics and control strategies made possible by advanced chemical modelling and measurement systems will further improve the efficiencies —and so lessen the economic and environmental impacts —of energy usage. Chemistry also will find a central role in enabling new, green technologies to produce energy. Cleaner fuels, the full development of fuel cells as a major source of distributed power, and the realization of a hydrogen -based fuel economy that does not add significant new environ mental burdens in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, depend on advances derived from research in chemistry.

Modern materials science is experiencing a molecular/atomistic renaissance —one driven principally by chemistry. The ability to man ipulate matter at these length scales will drive future progress in many areas of technology. Microelectronics, communications and related information technologies, biomaterials, and the understandings in nanosciences will serve as the foundations for new technologies. Each of these depends on materials, and thus on chemistry.

Chemistry is also increasingly important in national security . The threats posed by international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will stress govern mental agencies responsible for containing them, and new technologies are required to support the missions of these agencies.

12 Chemistry will play an indispensable role in developing the systems that will be required to protect the citizens of the UK.

The environment poses the largest challenge, and possibly the most significant area in need of increased levels of research. Eliminating the detrimental legacies of past manufacturing practices, and halting the degradation of the environment by pollution, wi ll require what are essentially chemical solutions. Sustainable growth depends on the efficiency and nature of energy usage, the sources of raw materials used by industry, and the cleanliness of industrial processes. Drinkable water represents perhaps t he world’s most threatened resource. The technologies that will give the world clean water will be based in chemistry and chemical engineering.

Chemistry is a part of the solution to the needs of society. The technologies it engenders will make possible a healthier populace. It will provide new work environments, and generate new opportunities for economic growth.

3.4 Context of this Report

The History of Chemistry in the UK. One of the conclusions of this committee is that academic chemistry in th e UK is currently superb in its scholarship —that is, the standards of evidence and proof against which it judges scientific research —but substantially weaker in its capability for innovation and discovery —that is, the generation of new fields of science. This conclusion poses a conundrum, since the history of chemistry in the UK —even the quite recent history —is one of great innovation. Why does there seem to have been a change?

Much of what the field of modern chemistry is, originated in the UK. Norri sh and Porter were major figures in creating physical chemistry; Robinson had a major hand in establishing the elucidation of structure and the synthesis of natural products as a major focus of organic chemistry; Hughes and Ingold were among the early crea tors of physical -organic chemistry; Wilkinson played a crucial role in the development of inorganic and organometallic chemistry; Barton in the development of the concept of conformation and its application in chemistry ; a range of figures —Crick, Crowfoot -Hodgkin, Kendrew, Franklin, Perutz, Sanger, Walker —have been responsible for defining the form of structural biology. Kroto was one of the discoverers of C 60 . Many individuals with strong chemical backgrounds in the UK have also made major contributions to molecular biology (Brenner being the most recent to be recognised). It is difficult to imagine a community that has had more creative impact on chemistry than that in the UK. How is it, then, that the academic community now seems to be in a phase wher e it is more scholarly than innovative?

13 We do not pretend to know the answer to this question (although we speculate later). Answering it is a most important task for the academic chemistry community, and for the governmental agencies that support it.

Chemistry, Chemical Industry, and Related Industries. In considering the development of chemistry in the recent past, and extrapolating into the immediate future, it is useful to consider the state of the chemical industry. Academic chemistry has always been closely connected with the chemical industry. In the first two -thirds of the last century, the chemical industry was itself very innovative. New products and new processes appeared regularly in fuels, commodity chemicals, performance chemicals (pai nts, surfactants, lubricants…), and industrial polymers. During this period, the pharmaceutical industry took the form that it now has.

In the last three decades, the pace of innovation has dropped throughout the chemical industry, and there have been relatively few fundamentally new processes introduced and fewer new products: the industry has, instead, focused on optimising its economic performance. The pharmaceutical industry has remained innovative in introducing new drugs, but the paradigm for dru g development has been slower to change: this industry is also now in a period of active consolidation, driven in part by the scarcity and high cost of new “blockbuster” drugs.

The implications of the maturation of the chemical and pharmaceutical indus tries are important for academic chemistry. The industry itself depends less for change on innovation and revolutionary discovery than it does on optimisation and evolutionary development. It is, thus, more focused on financial metrics for performance, t han it is on new technology, to guide its growth. It is better able to appreciate university research focused on development, than it is research that is potentially revolutionary. Even when a revolution has occurred (for example, the introduction of pro tein pharmaceuticals as the first products of biotechnology), the technology leading to these products was initially developed by universities, venture -financed start -ups and by public investment rather than by the established pharmaceutical industry.

As financial metrics become more important, R&D becomes less important, and industry is less willing to invest in long -term research not immediately relevant to products. This evolutionary change in the chemical industry —from a technologically innovative o ne to one focused on commodity products (products sold on the basis of price rather than performance) and on cash management —has influenced the character of the students best suited for industrial jobs, and the character of the academic research most relev ant to industry. Especially in the UK, where the direct support of university research by industry is high (approximately 1/3 of the total support), this shift toward product - focused R&D, or perhaps away from R&D altogether, is a trend for universities an d EPSRC to monitor closely.

14 The UK should not expect the private sector to fund centres of innovation and revolutionary change.

Another component of this evolution, even in technology -intensive industry (especially pharmaceuticals), is a tendency to f ocus limited and expensive research close to the most active centres of innovation. Thus, an increasingly large fraction of the global research in pharmaceuticals and biomedicine is being carried out in the US. Since the pharmaceutical industry is import ant to the UK, understanding how to compete for these high -quality research positions is an important strategic issue.

The emphasis in this report is “global competitiveness” —competition for jobs now is global. For commodity manufacturing jobs in esta blished fields, labour rates are dominating considerations, and the UK (together with the EU, the US, and Japan) cannot compete with China. The developed nations thus have little choice other than to innovate —that is, to create new technologies and new jo bs in new areas —if they are to compete economically. The UK —with constitutive weakness in multidisciplinary research, and in the integration of science and engineering, and with a system that favours fragmented, “small”, scholarly science, over research f ocused on innovation or the solution of large societal problems —is not well structured to compete globally in emerging, economically important areas such as chemical biology and materials science.

Large -Scale Issues for the Future. Does the maturation of what was considered the “chemical industry” in the 1960s and 70s mean the end of chemistry? No: far from it. It does, however, mean that the targets of chemistry will change, and the style of chemical research most relevant to industry may also change. Major societal drivers for new technology are no longer the need for fuels for transportation and industrial/residential use, or the need for polymer - derived products such as paints, fabrics, films and structures. Instead, they are information, and envir onmental management, and public health. A world in which terrorism (including biological and chemical attacks) has replaced the cold war as the major threat to global peace also requires new technologies for defence.

The emergence of developing economi es (especially China and India) as essentially limitless sinks for manufacturing jobs poses another new type of problem for the developed world: that is, how to create high -quality jobs by innovation in numbers sufficient to maintain the standard of livin g as lower -quality manufacturing jobs migrate elsewhere. Chemistry is seldom the sole element of new technologies, but it is almost always an essential component of them.

In considering the form that academic chemistry must take to serve society best, these changes are important, if often long -term. Of course, the process by which academic communities focus their efforts on new classes of problems is also a long -term process, so if the current model for academic chemistry does not fit future needs, it is important to start the process of considering new models as early as possible.

15 Global Academic Competition. Many of the countries with which the UK competes —both academically and economically —have structures to support their communities that are quit e different from that used by EPSRC to support chemistry research. The US —the largest research community in chemistry at the present —has both responsive agencies to support small academic science (NSF and NIH) —and large, mission -focused agencies capable o f making large investments in selected areas (NIH, DoE, DoD, DARPA, and NASA). The mission -focused agencies have been very instrumental in stimulating the growth of multidisciplinary research. Germany has a range of types of research institutions —univers ities, Max Planck Institutes, the Fraunhofer Institutes —some of which are also capable of supporting large, focused programmes. The Netherlands has mechanisms for selecting and concentrating resources in a relatively small number of fields. Israel strong ly encourages venture -backed start -ups. Each nation has developed its own strategy for using science and technology for its own economic ends. It is certainly worthwhile for the UK to revaluate its current strategy, and to decide whether the strategy it has fits the desired outcome.

A second aspect of competition that is crucial for the universities is that for people —faculty and students. Most countries that are serious about global competition in technology are also very aggressive in recruiting on a global scale. The UK has not decided to enter this kind of competition in chemistry, and has, in fact, allowed a large number of first -rate senior people to leave the country, without at the same time balancing that loss with imports of equal quality from outside the UK.

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GENERATED BY UNIVERSITIES IN THE UK

4.1 Process Used by the Committee

The assessments and opinions that follow in this report are both qualitative and subjective. They are the collective, consensual opinion of the committee, based on five types of considerations:

1. The professional knowledge of the members of the committee concerning the research of individual groups in the UK, and their perception of the collective quality and impact of research of the UK as a whole.

2. Visits to individual departments by subsets of the committee. These short visits (all one day or less) obviously involved only a sampling of the research in those departments, and an even less complete sampling of the set of

16 departments in the UK. The departments visited —Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Imperial College, Leeds, Manchester (including representatives from UMIST), Nottingham and St. Andrews —represent primarily universities in the 5* and 5 grou ps according to the 2001 chemistry RAE. This emphasis is, in the opinion of the committee, appropriate, since the committee considered its task to be to visit universities having high levels of international excellence.

3. A brief survey of all chemist ry departments inside the UK encapsulating their views about the achievements, strengths and future promise of UK chemistry in general, and within their own departments in particular. Their opinions as to what measures might be taken to strengthen UK chem istry research were also sought.

4. A brief survey of academic chemists outside the UK that provided information about their perception of the quality of UK chemistry as judged by international standards. In addition, their views as to whether within t he UK, research in their own field of expertise was improving or in decline compared to the position ten years ago.

5. Extensive information provided by the staff of the Royal Society of Chemistry and EPSRC, and by briefings to the committee, concerning a variety of aspects of research in chemistry in the UK, and of chemical manufacturing in the UK.

4.2 Self -evaluation by Departments of Chemistry in the UK

The RSC, on behalf of the committee, asked all departments of chemistry in the UK with the exc eption of those departments visited by the review panel (57 in total) to answer four questions concerning chemistry in the UK. (A copy of this letter is included as Appendix 1 to this report). Twenty eight responses to the questionnaire were received. T he departments gave thoughtful and often extensive replies to these questions, and these unattributed replies are available in their entirety on both EPSRC and RSC web sites. Abbreviated summaries and examples of the most common of these responses are the se:

1. What are the five most important developments in chemistry in the UK in the last 10 years? (The answers are not in order of importance)

• Understanding the mechanisms of biosynthetic pathways (penicillin, polyketide). Developments in aspects of co mbinatorial chemistry and biochemistry.

• Identification of molecular mechanisms of, and modelling of, heterogeneous catalytic systems.

17 • Understanding protein chemistry: protein structure and folding, enzymatic mechanisms; the rotary motion of ATPase; recog nition of diseases due to protein folding.

• Discovery and chemistry of fullerenes and carbon nanotubes

• Development of organic light emitting diodes and devices.

2. What are the most promising and important research directions in chemistry in the UK duri ng the next 10 years?

There is a general consensus that the most exciting developments are likely to emerge from multi -disciplinary research programmes interfaced with biology, materials, physics, engineering and medicine. Specific research directions th at were often mentioned were: new synthetic reactions; new functional materials and devices, especially those with unusual magnetic, electronic or optical properties, based upon fundamental theoretical understanding; nanotechnology, fabrication and functio n of molecular machines and analytical devices; development of new tools for spectroscopy; elucidation of the molecular basis of biological processes; single molecule techniques, especially with respect to biological problems; computational chemistry.

Th e more efficient use of materials and the development of clean and renewable sources of energy were seen as an essential contribution from the chemistry community to true sustainable development. In this context, cleaner synthesis, development of more sel ective catalysts, and improved understanding of reaction mechanisms, all require a development of the interface between chemical engineering and chemistry.

Excellent, multi -disciplinary research will only flourish if the core sub - disciplines of chemistry are also strong.

3. What are the most important research areas in your university during the next 10 years?

Nearly all respondents felt that the most promising directions of research are interdisciplinary, and in particular at the interface of biology and materials. Green chemistry and sustainable technology were also seen as very important future directions.

In many cases provisions have already been made or are under consideration to appoint the staff necessary to initiate or develop further thes e areas of research. In cases where chemical biology is not already part of departmental activity, major initiatives were planned.

The need for adequate infrastructure, equipment, technical support, and staff funding in order to achieve or maintain inter national competitiveness was

18 often emphasised. It is widely recognised that these factors strongly affect a department’s ability to recruit and retain academic staff and skilled researchers.

Most departments pointed out that core fundamental research in chemistry will continue, because it serves to underpin major developments in multidisciplinary areas.

Generally, future directions are conceived as being built on existing strengths, but growing in new directions. In several cases the infrastructure ne eded to develop new interdisciplinary areas is being or has been provided by JIF/SRIF funding. The intention is to build on these strengths by appropriate research grant applications, strategic collaborations with industry, and recruitment of new research group leaders and young academic staff.

4. What are the changes (preferably within the purview of the EPSRC) that would most strengthen chemistry in the UK?

General recommendations from Chemistry Departments in the UK: • Improve teaching of chemistry in schools, communicating the challenges and excitement of modern chemistry. The image of chemistry at all levels of society needs to be greatly improved. • The Funding Councils should provide an adequate level of funding per chemistry undergraduate admitte d–—many chemistry departments currently run in deficit. • Develop a coherent strategy to concentrate research in chemistry into a smaller number of larger, better resourced departments. • Recognise that research is a truly internationally pursuit: the provisio n of fees for Ph.D. training should be independent of student nationality.

Recommendations to EPSRC from Chemistry Departments in the UK: • Encourage interdisciplinary research: review the funding mechanisms with other research councils, in particular at t he biological/medical interface. • Maintain high level funding in core chemistry research. • Review the peer review system: fund larger grants, for longer terms (5 years), to encourage better science. Encourage research involving several investigators. Fac ilitate continuity through rolling grants for established, successful grant -holders. • Assign one DTA studentship to new appointees in recognised research departments. Increase consumables allocated to Ph.D. students. • Increase studentship funding in order to attract high calibre Ph.D. students. Focus on establishments that have a track record of producing well -trained, well -motivated people and have the infrastructure to produce top -level research training. • Reduce the number of “EPSRC new initiatives” if they are run without new money.

19 4.3. Evaluations by the International Community: Summary

As part of its preparation for this evaluation, the committee sent out a short questionnaire concerning the perceived quality of chemistry in the UK to investigato rs; questionnaires were sent to chemists and other scientists in areas outside the UK *. Respondents were promised anonymity. The return rate on these questionnaires was about 30%. The following section summarises their responses. We remind the reader t hat the opinions in this section do not necessarily coincide with those of the panel.

Organic Chemistry —18 returns Organic chemistry was highly rated, with several leading groups in the country with outstanding individuals. Overall the research in this area is considered to be higher than average to average. The level of scholarship is considered excellent, but the level of innovation to be lagging substantially behind the leaders. There has been some innovative work in this area but the majority of th e research has followed leads from abroad. The perception is that the situation is about the same as 10 years ago, although some considered it to be worsening.

Inorganic Chemistry —14 returns UK inorganic chemistry is perceived as competitive and scholar ly overall, but it does not enjoy the influential position of past decades. The leading groups are generally regarded as better than “above average” but not on the same level as the best worldwide. The subject has declined, a situation reflected by deriv ative work and insufficient collaborative efforts and relatively little interdisciplinarity, exacerbated by low salaries and an unsatisfactory funding level. The loss of key researchers because of retirement or emigration has also damaged the field.

Phys ical Chemistry: Surfaces, Heterogeneous Catalysis, Colloids, Spectroscopy —12 returns The best research in surfaces and heterogeneous catalysis is rated leading to higher -than -average. Opinion is divided about how things have changed over the last ten year s. The majority considered that the subject has improved, or at least remained about the same. A few thought the subject overall has declined (especially in colloid science). General problems include inadequate funding, insufficient opportunities for yo unger researchers, too much applied science and not enough interdisciplinary work.

Theoretical and Computational Chemistry —22 returns This area was highly regarded on the whole, having some outstanding individuals. Health of this subject in the UK is con sidered to be improving. The

* A few questionnaires were sent by mistake to scientists inside the UK; these questionnaires were not used

20 general view was, however, that recent contributions have been solid rather than ground breaking. The short duration of the Ph.D. programme, and insufficiently rigorous undergraduate training, were also both seen as issues. It was felt that there is not enough interdisciplinary work. There was also a perception of unwillingness of UK researchers to do daring science (perhaps due to the criteria for funding).

Analytical and Electrochemistry —6 returns The best analytical chem istry groups in the country are higher than average but overall research in this area was rated about average to below average. The general, gradual fragmentation suffered by analytical chemistry has adversely affected the UK as much as other countries, a nd consequently the situation was considered to be worse than 10 years ago. A few commented positively on the three new RSC/EPSRC Analytical Chairs. This investment was seen as highly encouraging. It was perceived that there had been a healthy improveme nt in electrochemistry in the last 10 years, with one or two new leading groups emerging in this time frame.

Chemical Biology, Bioorganic Chemistry, and Bioinorganic Chemistry —18 returns Certain bioorganic and bioinorganic groups were seen as doing resear ch of high quality. The interface between chemistry and biology was poorly rated. The best groups range from higher to lower than average, with work that was largely considered derivative. The current situation as a whole is perceived worse than that ex isting in the past. There were some positive comments on the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, and on collaboration between industry and academia.

Materials Science and Polymers —16 returns The best groups are considered leading -to -average. Work on orga nic light emitting diodes was highly recognised, but was essentially the only effort so recognised. The overall subject ranking is average with much of the work being derivative rather than leading and adventurous. The general perception is that the situ ation is at best the same as it was 10 years ago, though some respondents think it is worse. Inadequate funding, inappropriate funding strategies (too applied, too short term), poor academic salaries and insufficiently long Ph.D. programmes were seen as m ajor impediments to improvement.

4.4 Assessment by the Committee of Fields of Research in Academic Chemistry in the UK

The committee based its assessments of fields of research —assessments that follow —both on an arbitrary organization (“historical” sub fields of chemistry, and “emerging” subfields), and on its considerations of the information available to it. We emphasize that these assessments should be considered as informed

21 professional opinion, not as fact. We also emphasise that the organisation of the report (and of the chemical community in the UK and elsewhere) into the historical subfields may not be the best for the future of the discipline of chemistry.

Organic Chemistry

The field of organic chemistry in the UK has a rich history and ha s contributed many of the founders of the field: examples include Robinson, Barton, and Cornforth in synthesis and biosynthesis, and Ingold and Hughes in physical -organic chemistry. The continued depth in organic synthesis stems from the training and cult ure these pioneers provided.

Areas In Which The UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. The total synthesis of natural products remains very strong in the UK: the UK lags behind the US but ranks among the top three countries in the world in this fie ld. The UK has particular strengths in specific areas (e.g. carbohydrate chemistry). There are solid programmes in reaction engineering, and innovative research in the design of less -conventional synthetic methods, such as the use of non - conventional rea ction media —ionic liquids and supported reagents —and innovative solid - and solution -phase strategies for synthesis.

The strength in the UK in organic synthesis provides, in principle, a technical base on which to grow programmes in areas that require new molecules: biochemistry, materials science, nanoscience, and medicinal chemistry are examples.

Chemistry in the UK has played a leading role in elucidating structural and mechanistic underpinnings of important biosynthetic pathways. This work provides a blueprint for dissecting metabolic pathways of high complexity.

Areas In Which The UK Lags. The preparation of the next generation of functional molecules is an important area of current chemistry where the UK lags behind the leaders, although it has som e exciting research programmes in selected areas: e.g. synthesis of materials that function as light emitting diodes. Functional molecules have applications useful not just in biomedicine —the historically honoured target of organic synthesis —but also in m aterials, chemical biology (diversity oriented synthesis), biochemistry, and in other areas in which the function of the molecule is more important than its structure per se .

Another important area in modern organic chemistry where the UK now lags behind the leaders is in homogeneous catalysis (both biological and non - biological), although isolated pockets of excellence in this area may be identified.

Physical -organic chemistry is also less strong in the UK than expected, given the fact that the field originated and flourished here for some decades.

22 Physical -organic chemistry —the application of quantitative tools taken (historically) from physical chemistry to the solution of problems in mechanisms or in understanding properties —has evolved to complex molecular problems, and is now being applied in studying catalysis, biochemistry, photochemistry, reactivity in the vapour phase, surface science, materials science, and other areas. The UK has strong programmes in molecular recognition and in mechanistic biochemistry, but lags in extending physical -organic methods into other new fields (for example, electron transport, homogeneous organometallic catalysis, the influence of solvation on reactivity, and organic materials science).

Overall Assessment And Re commendations. Further work in the synthesis of natural products must focus on the development of new methods and strategies, coupled to mechanistic investigations, to advance the field. The committee recommends that future research should emphasize inno vative strategies and methods that lead to dramatically shorter and more efficient syntheses than those possible now, rather than simply the synthesis —by any means possible —of natural products. In addition to encouraging new developments in target -oriente d synthesis, support for innovative work in diversity -oriented synthesis should be considered. These synthetic methods will be useful to those who work at the interface with biology (i.e. in the area of biochemistry, proteomics, chemical genetics and syst ems biology).

Because useful developments can still be expected in the area of homogeneous catalysis, and because catalysis is a core area of chemistry, a greater investment of resources across this broad area is important.

23 Inorganic Chemistry

Ino rganic chemistry in the UK is competitive in most of the leading areas of the subject, but is dominant in none of them. Synthetic main group, coordination, and organometallic chemistry are generally viable throughout the system. The high level of accompl ishment in synthetic organometallic chemistry, so prevalent in the last several decades through the works of Green, Lewis, Stone, Wilkinson, and others, has declined, as has world -wide interest in the subject. The current UK organometallic focus appears t o be coupled nearly entirely to future possibilities in homogeneous catalysis. Main -group chemistry and some efforts in transition element coordination chemistry appear to be primarily directed toward the synthesis of new materials, including supramolecul ar assemblies and systems designed for molecular recognition. It is evident that a substantial portion of inorganic chemistry is directed, broadly, to materials chemistry, rather than to more fundamental aspects of the core discipline of inorganic chemist ry.

A second large area of contemporary coordination chemistry falls within the purview of bioinorganic chemistry. There are about a half -dozen laboratories in the UK performing research in this subject, whose international growth in the last decade has been one of the major developments in inorganic chemistry. The UK work in the field involves some synthesis and structural and electronic characterisation of synthetic systems and metallobiomolecules. Some of this work is outstanding. For example, the U K has leading laboratories in metalloprotein electrochemistry, optical and resonance Raman spectroscopy, and X -ray absorption spectroscopy. Research in these areas has played a prominent role in structure elucidation of metal sites in proteins. Medicinal inorganic chemistry is also actively pursued.

Areas In Which The UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. UK efforts in organometallic chemistry, parts of materials chemistry, and the foregoing areas of bioinorganic chemistry are at least competitive. We did not identify any areas of the subject in which the UK is clearly dominant.

Areas In Which The UK Lags . These areas include homogeneous catalysis, bioinorganic chemistry, which should be more widely pursued given the trajectory of the field; inor ganic photochemistry and photophysics, and innovative synthesis in all areas of the subject.

Overall Assessment And Recommendations . Despite the creditable record of UK inorganic chemistry, broadly construed, the subject is far from an optimal state. Th e large majority of the research in the molecular regime is not notably original, and it is difficult to identify the creation of unprecedented new systems or to credit other widely recognised breakthroughs to UK scientists. The committee perceives that s ome research is driven by funding necessities. With a few notable exceptions, a younger cohort of highly promising or already accomplished inorganic scholars is difficult to identify. With appropriate

24 encouragement and support, however, the historical de pth of the field is such that new intellectual leaders could emerge and return the subject to the highly respected position it once enjoyed.

Physical Chemistry

Physical chemistry has been very strong in the UK since it was established as a core disci pline in the nineteenth century, and the impact of past work in the UK has propagated through all areas of chemistry and biology. The traditional categories of physical chemistry —molecular spectroscopy, kinetics, catalysis, surfaces, colloids, and electro chemistry —have evolved into topics such as atmospheric and environmental processes, self -assembling and biomolecular systems, polymers and soft materials, nanotechnology, the hydrogen economy, and fuel cells.

Catalysis deserves special mention. It is i nextricably linked with the synthesis of molecules and promoting rates of desired chemical reactions. These reactions impact our daily lives since they are used to produce polymers, commodity chemicals, petroleum products, fine chemicals and pharmaceutica ls. Heterogeneous catalysis is essentially tied to reaction kinetics and to surface chemistry. Many concepts in heterogeneous catalysis originated in the UK, and the UK remains internationally competitive in this area. Exciting new areas of chemical res earch such as supramolecular structures, self assembly, enzymes, materials synthesis and nanostructures all have links to catalysis. A central challenge in physical chemistry is to move the skills developed in the classical disciplines into these new area s.

Areas In Which the UK Leads, Or Is Competitive with The Best. The examination of properties of gas phase molecules and small clusters through spectroscopic, kinetic and quantum mechanical techniques continues to be very active in the UK and highly ran ked in the world. Fundamental heterogeneous catalysis linked to surface chemistry and reaction kinetics is also strong. The developments of novel spectroscopic tools using lasers, the study of astronomically important reactions at ultra -low temperatures, and key reactions of combustion are among the strengths of contemporary UK physical chemistry.

UK scientists pioneered studies of the structures of liquids and their surfaces, and other areas of condensed matter science. UK chemists were among the first worldwide to exploit the power of neutron scattering and synchrotron radiation to probe the behaviour of complex systems: for example, the structure and dynamics of aqueous solutions, ionic liquids, and polymers at interfaces. Work in these areas continu es to be competitive internationally.

In soft matter, research in the UK is world class and has helped elucidate the nature of interactions between colloidal particles, polymers and surfaces.

25 Areas In Which the UK Lags. The spectroscopic characteriza tion of highly excited molecules appears to be in decline. As in other countries, the traditionally strong activities in gas phase reaction kinetics and reaction dynamics are shrinking. This decline is regrettable since the data obtained from these studi es form the basis for modelling the large systems of reactions important in combustion, atmospheric chemistry, plasma chemistry and many other practical applications, and also provide the basis for understanding the interactions of solvents and solutes, an d thus of much of chemical reactivity.

While developments of new laser -based spectroscopic tools and reactions at ultra -low temperatures are strong, other important fields such as ultra -fast laser spectroscopy, single -molecule spectroscopy and protein mas s spectrometry, are represented only by isolated (albeit sometimes excellent) researchers. These areas do not seem to have the vitality that they have elsewhere. New areas at the border between chemistry and physics —electron transport in molecules and qu antum dots, complexity —are hardly represented in chemistry in the UK.

Overall Assessment And Recommendations. Physical chemistry in the UK possesses strengths in traditional areas. The field is in transition: several leading researchers have recently re tired, or are nearing the mandatory retirement age. The committee was encouraged to see nucleating efforts in many areas that are likely to be important in the next decade, but the community in the UK is less aggressive in expanding the frontiers of the f ield than elsewhere.

The traditional strengths of the UK in core physical chemistry must be maintained, but refocused on new areas such as integrating advanced spectroscopies and theory to unravel the challenging problems in atmospheric, biological, and m aterials sciences.

To remain a world leader, research in catalysis and surface chemistry must change considerably from its current, traditional forms. Emphasis should be placed on potentially revolutionary catalysts and processes rather than on evolution ary improvements to existing processes.

Another emphasis in physical chemistry should be the discovery and development of new energy and chemical sources. Natural gas conversion, fuel cells, and the hydrogen economy should receive increasing attention.

26 Theory and Computational Chemistry

The UK has a venerable history in theoretical and computational quantum chemistry (Lennard -Jones, Coulson, Boys and Pople). UK scientists have originated algorithms, theory, and codes for molecular quantum mechanic s that are used internationally. Another traditional strength has been reaction dynamics, mostly in the gas phase; this work has provided both experimental data, and key interpretations. Research in this area continues to be world class. There is curren tly a shift in emphasis to the condensed phase. Within the area of condensed matter research, UK scientists have helped initiate quantum mechanical studies in materials (epitaxy, metal oxides, zeolites), atmospheric science, and earth science.

The UK ha s been well represented in the field of classical molecular dynamics simulations. The focus of this research has mostly been on liquids. This work continues to be competitive internationally, particularly in the area of strongly polar (ionic) fluids. An emerging area involves simulations of structural transitions in nanoscale systems. Findings from the UK simulation work have influenced the direction of the field and have provided the community with algorithms, methods and codes to probe the behaviour of complex fluids.

With increasing emphasis, researchers are exploiting simulation techniques such as the Car -Parrinello method, to probe dynamical behaviours using forces derived from a density functional theory. Active areas of application include cataly sis, electro -chemistry and chemical reactions in solution. Such studies can provide insights into reaction pathways on the electronic level. Novel methods involving hybrid quantum mechanical and classical schemes are also being used to study biological p roblems. There are a number of young people in this area, nucleating efforts on bio -systems and chemical biology.

The UK is active in mesoscale modelling of complex fluids. Much of the theory relevant to complex fluids and polymeric systems has histo rically been done in physics departments, but chemistry departments are now developing strong links to this community. Collaborations between computational chemists are fostered through various national organizations (e.g. CCP5, CCP6, etc.) that hold work shops, and distribute and maintain community codes. Another factor that promotes interactions is the e -Science initiative.

Areas In Which the UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. Researchers are world class in quantum mechanical studies of gas -phase molecules, intermolecular forces, and reaction dynamics. A similar situation obtains for ab initio and classical molecular dynamics studies of solids and liquids, and in mesoscale fluid dynamics. An overall strength in theoretical/computational chemi stry in the UK is its close integration with experiment: this coupling facilitates the advancement of fields.

27 Areas in Which the UK Lags. The UK lags in important areas of theory and computation that involve integration across different length scales (e. g. “multi - scale modelling”). Other areas perceived as lagging in theory and modelling include protein folding, reactions in solution, and modelling of biological systems; such studies are important for understanding mechanisms involved in fundamental chem ical and biological problems.

Overall Assessment And Recommendations. The field is in transition, moving out of strong, traditional studies of gas phase phenomena, catalysis and surface science, into some equally strong efforts in condensed phase studies and complex fluids and emerging efforts in chemical biology. The UK’s expanding research activity in mesoscale fluid dynamics is thriving.

The field will continue to demand significant local infrastructure for both computation and visualization. Sustai ned support is needed on the local scale to complement excellent national High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. In order to remain internationally competitive, it will be important for the UK to shift its investments to a number of emerging fields, where theory and computation can have the most impact on chemistry. In addition to chemical biology and materials science, systems biology (i.e. building models of processes and pathways by which cells function) offers prospects for interdisciplinary coll aboration. There is a strong need for computational chemists in industry.

Analytical Chemistry

The assessment of the committee on the state of analytical chemistry is mixed. There is sometimes a confusion between analytical chemistry as an area of re search , as opposed to an area of service . The former involves developing new methods of analysis by integration of state of the art principles of chemistry with instrumental, computational and chemometric methodologies that are all underpinned by rigorous theoretical understanding. The sum of all these skills generates a concept that is sometimes referred to as analytical science. The latter concerns the application of existing methods —often commercial —in support of other areas of science and of industry . The second activity cannot truly prosper unless it rests on the first.

Areas In Which the UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. The UK has strong efforts in electroanalytical chemistry and in microsystems (sensors and microanalytical systems —some times called analytical systems “on a chip”). It has several groups working in the area of biosensors (including microbiosensors) and bioanalytical systems; this research reinforces both the pharmaceutical industry and research biochemistry, and has gener ated a number of spin -off companies.

Areas In Which the UK Lags. The analytical community in the UK is both conservative and limited by funds, and has been slow to adopt robotics and

28 methods requiring parallel or high -throughput assays (although the ph armaceutical industry in the UK is skilled in some of these methods).

It also needs to adopt a more coherent approach to the education of students in analytical chemistry, to construct unique scientific instrumentation, and implement measurements relev ant to advance research in materials science, nanotechnology, biological chemistry and other areas identified elsewhere in this document. This training will require greater recognition of the role of chemometrics, informatics, mathematical modelling, and computational chemistry in analytical chemistry (science) and the central, rather than supporting, role of the discipline in internationally competitive science.

Overall Assessment And Recommendations. Analytical chemistry as a research area (as opposed to a service discipline) is at a crossroads in the UK. The importance of redefining and integrating the field has been recognised by the establishment of 3 RSC -EPSRC funded “new initiatives” UK appointments. If these recently appointed individuals could be strengthened, with two further appointments of outstanding individuals, recruited from outside the UK, analytical chemistry should (with its endogenous strengths) regain critical mass and prosper.

Biologically Related Chemistry

Biological chemistr y encompasses a broad range of topics, from genomics, enzymatic mechanisms, and metabolism (at the molecular end of the scale) to cell, developmental, and systems biology (at the organismic). The UK has had (and continues to have) great scholarly depth in “classical” areas of biochemistry, but has emphasised incremental scholarship, and has been slow to take up the problems and tools of molecular and cell biology (e.g. advanced bioassays, and studies of signalling pathways and gene expression).

Areas In Wh ich The UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. Biochemistry, enzymology, protein chemistry, and structural biology are central to biological chemistry. The UK has traditionally been strong in these areas, and it remains so. The UK has also been a le ading developer of the field of combinatorial biosynthesis. Combinatorial biosynthesis is an approach to creating molecular diversity in which enzymes that make natural products are recombined to make novel products. The idea of using enzymes to make org anic molecules for various purposes is an old one, but it is only beginning to be explored in depth.

Areas In Which The UK Lags. Among the growth areas in biological chemistry are molecular evolution, and chemical genetics. Molecular evolution — evolv ing protein or nucleic acid catalysts or small molecules that can be screened for various types of activity —has the potential both to rationalise the evolution of biochemical pathways and to provide valuable biological activities. Chemical

29 genetics —the use of small molecules to probe cellular pathways —is another area that combines chemical synthesis and cell biology both to reveal metabolic and signalling pathways and to discover potential “hits” for the early stages of drug discovery. In the post -genomic era, a strength in proteomics is essential in a programme in chemical genetics, since genomics and proteomics are part and parcel of what chemical genetics is about.

Overall Assessment And Recommendations. The integration of chemistry and biology is pro ceeding much more rapidly outside the UK than inside. The UK has, however, important strengths —especially biochemistry and protein chemistry, on which it can build. It should invest additional resources in infrastructure and personnel in the area of prot eomics. This area complements the core areas of biochemistry, enzymology, protein chemistry and structural biology where the UK is a leader and will be an essential part of future efforts in chemical biology.

There is an important area in biological chem istry —the study of molecular recognition —that requires a rebalancing of resources. The use of simple non - biological model systems to study molecular recognition (biomimetic chemistry) has become less interesting, as understanding of the principles that go vern the field has advanced. While there is always room for especially insightful or clever experiments in these areas, young people whose training is limited to the study of model systems typically do not have the background they need in biology to make important contributions to research in current biological chemistry.

Studies of bioinorganic chemistry are still remarkably interesting. In this area model studies will remain essential for probing the structure and function of metallobiomolecules. Th e ultimate understanding of, for example, the multielectron processes of nitrogenase (nitrogen fixation) and methane monooxygenase (methane oxidation) will draw upon known (and as yet unknown) principles of inorganic chemistry, and necessitate the developm ent of better prescriptive model systems. It is also quite possible that, concomitantly, such research will suggest ways to accomplish analogous reactions in the laboratory under ambient conditions.

Medicinal chemistry is an important discipline for its potential to support the pharmaceutical industry, but it has never been a major part of chemistry departments in the UK, and is presently done much better in industry. Major support of this field should wait for specific, genuinely new ideas (especially in areas such as ADME/Tox or pharmacokinetics).

Materials Chemistry

Materials science has emerged as a major area of research in chemistry. It combines opportunities for invention and fundamental science with immediate applications in high technology products. While well advanced in other nations,

30 materials chemistry is still taking form in the UK. The high international visibility of programmes on organic light -emitting diodes provides a demonstration that this type of work can flourish in the UK. This work is, however, an isolated example rather than a theme in UK chemistry. The field of materials science is not yet as strongly integrated into academic chemistry departments as it is in the US, Japan, the Netherlands, and others.

The area of mater ials science is a broad one, and has been the subject of an independent international assessment. The evaluation in this report is restricted to areas that have a strong component of, or overlap with, chemistry: it therefore includes, for example, polymer science and emerging areas such as functional organic materials, but not the older areas of structural ceramics or metallurgy.

Areas In Which the UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. The UK has a strong history in the synthesis and characteriza tion of metal oxides and related compounds (catalysts, catalyst supports, high Tc superconductors, magnetic materials). This work provides a foundation for continuing research into these classes of materials. It has a similar history of fostering leading research in ultra -high -vacuum surface science. These competencies, in principle support applications of materials -focused research. UK scientists also have been effective followers in areas of organic surface science (e.g. organic polymers and self -asse mbled monolayers).

It has several world -leading centres in polymer science, and numerous individual research programmes that are internationally recognised. The synthesis of structural and functional polymers is especially strong. The work on organic el ectronic materials, for example, has resulted in the design and synthesis of light -emitting polymers with remarkable stabilities, and in the integration of these polymers into devices; these devices are now moving towards commercialisation. Polymer scienc e in the UK is well regarded for its contributions to theory and computational modelling. We note, however, that most of these latter efforts find their academic homes in physics departments.

The great strength of the UK in structural biology is, in prin ciple, a foundation for the development of nanoscience focused on biological nanostructures and nanomachines (e.g. the ribosome, ATPase, the mitochondrion). This type of research —the integration of biochemistry, nanoscience, and materials science —is in it s infancy, and the UK has the components to become a leader, given risk -tolerant financial support, and strong encouragement to build bridges between nanoscience and structural biology.

Areas In Which the UK Lags. Research in materials -related sciences in departments of chemistry in the UK have, in general, been late to couple synthesis to function . This appears to be a systemic weakness in the UK’s materials chemistry efforts, many of which are seen to be following rather than leading advances in the field. The UK thus lags in single -molecule electronics,

31 organic electronics and nanoelectronics, in the development of many photonic systems, materials for IT applications (particularly microelectronics), and in devising new classes of materials for bioan alytical assays, chemical sensing, and materials of use in improving national security.

The UK efforts in materials chemistry have not made significant contributions to the fields of microfabrication, an area in which polymer and surface chemistry play ce ntral roles. It has also contributed little to thin film and chemical patterning more generally. The development of functional systems and useful device properties based on nanomaterials also has been lagging. The biomaterials efforts of the UK also app ear to follow behind those of other world leaders.

The emerging field of nanoscience and nanotechnology warrants a special comment. This area continues to be the subject of special focus in Japan, the US, and several members of the EU. Nanoscience is cl early an important opportunity; it is not yet clear how important nanotechnology ultimately will be (outside the microelectronics industry; it is already important in this area). Nanoscience and technology in the UK clearly lags. Chemistry is, in fact, o nly a part of the area, although probably the most important part of the “bottom -up” approach. It is, however, an area that requires seamless integration of electrical engineering, applied physics, chemistry, and mechanical engineering, and access to spec ialised facilities: it thus represents the type of multicentre, multidiscipline research at which the UK is constitutively weak.

The committee noted “infrastructure” as one possible weakness in the UK's materials chemistry programmes. The instrumentation and facilities needs of modern multidisciplinary materials research (e.g. advanced optical, probe, and electron microscopies, X -ray and other advanced spectroscopies, and microfabrication capabilities) are both expensive and generally different from those traditionally capitalized to support the progress of chemistry research programmes. Several premier institutions in the UK system are exceptionally well endowed in the equipment and facilities needed to mount globally competitive research programmes in m aterials chemistry; these facilities are not, however, generally available. Effective methods for providing the broader community of UK chemical researchers general access to such specialised capabilities have not been developed.

Another issue of concern is the general insular nature of materials research as carried out in chemistry departments in the UK. The funding systems that support this research do not stimulate researcher -led interactions with other academic disciplines, and these interactions are essential for the emergence of globally competitive chemistry research programmes in materials. Significant couplings of chemistry programmes to physics, materials science and engineering, and especially chemical engineering (such as through the intermed iacy of multidisciplinary institutes) are prominent features of the multidisciplinary research carried out in other nations, and appear to be

32 uncommon in UK universities. (As noted above, the polymer chemistry area appears to be one that has generated dis tributed centres of excellence that have surmounted this limitation).

Overall Assessment And Recommendations. The UK possesses core strengths in synthesis, measurement and theory/simulation that could serve the basis for internationally leading programme s in materials chemistry. Materials science is, however, an area that absolutely requires collaboration across groups and disciplines. The current state of the development of these programmes in the UK remains limited to a few areas of excellence and thu s will require new investments and probably new organisational structures that promote collaboration, if the UK is to become globally competitive.

Materials science represents an essential area of opportunity for chemical research and the UK, for the sake of its own economic interests, should consider whether it can afford not to compete vigorously in this arena.

Green and Sustainable Chemistry

A major, long -term structural problem for chemistry is the public perception that chemistry is responsible fo r environmental pollution, and that it is somehow associated with public health issues such as foot -and -mouth disease and BSE. Although this perception is unfair in the breadth of the problems attributed to chemistry, it is not entirely unjust: chemical i ndustry has contributed significantly to pollution. Perhaps more importantly and constructively, dealing with pollution —regardless of the activity that creates it —is often a problem requiring a chemical solution. Active involvement of chemistry in enviro nmental and sustainable technologies is crucially important societally.

New and cleaner methods for production of energy and chemicals will rely heavily on chemical research. New solvents such as supercritical fluids can significantly reduce pollutant e missions and lower costs in many processes. New processes —especially catalytic processes —can reduce by -products, wastes, and emissions.

Some academic research in the UK is relevant to green and sustainable chemistry in areas such as water chemistry, atmo spheric reactions, aerosol chemistry, organic solvent replacement, and physiological reactions of chemicals, medicines, and toxins. Much of this work has, however, proceeded from other motivations, and has not been specifically related to green and sustai nable chemistry.

There is, in fact, far reaching opportunity for chemistry to participate in all aspects of green and environmental chemistry. Low -pollution chemical processing, waste management recycling, atmospheric and environmental science all draw heavily on chemistry. At present, however, in the UK this type of

33 research is largely only just beginning. (Atmospheric chemistry is an exception, since the historical strength of vapour -phase physical chemistry has contributed significantly to this are a). The situation in the UK is largely replicated elsewhere: there is no country that can be said to have a broad, vigorous community in academic chemistry that is focussed on management and reduction of pollution and waste.

The Green Chemistry Network a nd the CRYSTAL Faraday partnership have begun to focus chemistry research efforts towards these goals, although thus far funding has been small, and largely focussed on the short -term (albeit sensible) industrial process management. This area should be ex panded beyond industrial initiatives to the support of truly innovative research.

Recommendations. If the UK wishes, as a matter of public policy, seriously to address environmental issues, it must engage some of the most able research groups in academic chemistry. Appointments at leading universities, targeted programmes and fellowships would stimulate the field. The recent establishment of the journal Green Chemistry by the RSC is a useful step. More generally, activities in catalysis, invention of ne w reactions, processes in less -familiar media (water, supercritical carbon dioxide, fused salts) should not proceed as small, isolated research efforts, but as part of a larger, integrated effort that builds an intellectual community of chemists profession ally committed to the area. (The focused DARPA programmes in the US might provide one model for such efforts). Multidisciplinary and collaborative research involving multiple departments and universities, and specifically including chemical engineering, are essential for significant progress.

Conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels, the development of new fuel cells, and atmospheric modelling are examples of areas where innovative chemistry can have a large impact on the health of the country.

Crim e Prevention and National Security

The vulnerability of open societies to terrorism is increasingly clear, and unquestionably a matter of national concern in the UK. Chemistry (for sensors, agents for decontamination, protective gear, and materials for hardening against chemical, biological and radiological attacks) and medicinal chemistry (for vaccines and medicinal agents for use on casualties) are all key areas of science required to support the development of defences against weapons of mass casualti es (WMC). New technologies for detection of explosives, materials diagnostic of nuclear weapons, and drugs are also needed.

Areas In Which the UK Leads, Or Is Competitive With The Best. The UK is just beginning to engage the academic community in work i n this area. The initial effort is a small EPSRC programme; the US, Israel, Germany, Sweden, Russia, and many other countries entered the area of defences against chemical and

34 biological weapons some years ago, and have much larger and/or more advance pro grammes. The UK has an excellent military programme in chemical and biological defence centred at Porton Down, and any EPSRC programme should make an active effort to engage the expertise already available at this site. The strength in the UK in sensors might be brought to bear on this problem, but the real problem is the development of working systems for detection that are effective in specific operational circumstances that require new techniques. There are many new sensors, and few new operational ca pabilities, and new programmes in sensors per se are less needed at present than the development of working systems that can be used effectively by semi -trained personnel.

Areas In Which The UK Lags. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of chemic al activities designed to strengthen defences against chemical and biological weapons, conventional explosives, covert nuclear weapons, and other threats to the UK. We note that effective contributions to problems in crime prevention and national security will require integration of a range of activities — from academic chemistry, through field trials and manufacturing, to operational deployment. Organisational structures that promote this type of research and development are generally weak in the UK.

Over all Assessment And Recommendations. The major problem at this point is to engage the community of chemists in this area. Without engagement, there will be no innovative research. Without funding, there will be no engagement. Funding alone will not, how ever, guarantee that this field attracts high -quality researchers.

Probably the most effective action for EPSRC is to make (or to catalyse) a focused effort through symposia, starter grants, and active recruiting to begin to build a community of chemists interested in these areas. It could also broker the transfer of information from Porton Down and the Ministry of Defence into the academic community, and help to make this community familiar with activities in other countries with larger and more establis hed programmes.

For a serious effort to engage the chemical community in crime prevention and national security, new types of funding structures may be required (modelled more, for example, on DARPA than on NSF, to take the US system as a model).

The c ommittee notes that although this area requires universities to work close to areas that require secrecy, experience in other countries has demonstrated that universities can make important contributions without changing the openness of their research, or their need to publish their results without restriction.

4.5 Summary of Assessments by the Committee

35 Areas of Chemistry in Which the UK Leads Internationally or Is Internationally Competitive. The committee, collectively, identified three areas of c hemistry as currently or potentially outstanding:

i. Protein Chemistry and Associated Areas of Chemical Biology The UK has been the world leader in structural biology. Landmark achievements in protein chemistry have ranged from solving the structure of haemoglobin and that of the ATP synthetase. In nucleic acid chemistry, the achievement of the determination of the structure of double helical DNA is unlikely ever to be surpassed. The UK today remains strong in structural biology and should continue to build and expand in important areas. It cannot, however, rest on its laurels. It needs to complement its existing strength with strength in other areas of biological chemistry that takes advantage of, or builds on the expertise in structural biology.

ii . Synthesis Chemistry is unique in its ability to manipulate matter at the molecular scale. Synthesis is a central competence of chemistry, and the UK has great technical strength in organic, inorganic, bioorganic, and organometallic synthesis. This str ength, appropriately used, should allow it to enter new areas such as chemical biology and materials science. To do so effectively, synthetic chemists will generally have to collaborate with users (biologists, materials scientists, electrical and chemical engineers). The ability to organise and support multidisciplinary research groups will also be a key part of exploiting the skill of synthetic chemistry in the UK. At the same time, the development of new methods of synthesis remains a centrally importa nt discipline of chemistry. The UK remains internationally strong in traditional organic synthesis —the area that has historically been a test bed for new synthetic methods. The skills of target - oriented molecule synthesis and methodology also continue to be intimately coupled to the successful evolution of the pharmaceutical and fine chemicals industries. Natural products synthesis also couples directly and effectively with biochemistry and medicine. The shifts in synthetic methodologies —toward catalyti c methods with high selectivity and low waste, toward syntheses that are efficient in steps and overall yield, and toward the invention of new reactions — require both great chemical sophistication and, increasingly, an understanding of the sorts of strategi es often considered as chemical engineering in the past. Synthesis also underlies many important problems in reaction mechanisms. Organometallic and inorganic synthesis are essential to the advancement of catalysis, materials science, the discovery of ne w types of reactions, and the solid state.

Synthesis continues to attract young and highly talented researchers. The keys to their success will be their choice of problems, and the innovative character of their solutions. Synthesis is a lively area in the UK, and it is vital to keep it strong while encouraging it to tackle new problems.

36 iii. Chemical Reactivity, Properties, and Dynamics: Theory, Experiment and Simulation UK researchers are among the leaders in developing experimental and theoretical methods for the quantitative understanding of structure and reactivity of gaseous molecules. More broadly, contributions from the UK include understanding the highly anharmonic dynamics of excited molecules, chemical reactions at low temperature, clusters , molecules on surfaces and catalytic reactions. Work on the statistical mechanics and simulation of liquids is also at the forefront of contemporary research. These skills are potentially very important to both biology (understanding macromolecules, rea ctions mechanisms, molecular recognition, and solvation) and materials (understanding electron transport, electronic structure, and structure -property relationships).

Scholarship is Stronger than Innovation

As a broad generalization, the committee c oncluded that the chemical community of the UK is marked by world -class levels of scholarly analysis, scholarship, but that it has been less innovative in the last two decades than earlier in the twentieth century, and less innovative than many of its inte rnational competitors.

Innovation —the discovery and development of new fields —is only one characteristic of a healthy scientific community, but it is one very important characteristic. The chemical community —together with EPSRC and other Research Council s—should search for methods to stimulate both creativity and the ambition to take on very difficult, important, new problems in research, and develop support structures for funding and for providing infrastructure, and systems of rewards, that favour succe ssful risk -taking. The committee believes that longer (3 -5 years duration), larger (3 -5 students), and more flexible grants that allow principal investigators the freedom to pursue new ideas is a key requirement for change.

Coupling to Industry is Str ong: Advantages and Disadvantages

The very close coupling between research carried out in universities and research desired in industry is one of the unusual characteristics of chemistry in the UK: no other country has formed a coupling of exactly this sort. It has both plusses and minuses: it brings money into the universities, and it provides some industrial experience to students. It does not, in general, seem to stimulate exciting, long -range university research, it (along with other factors in the degree - granting system), gives universities in the UK probably the shortest -term focus of any research -oriented nation, and it distracts junior faculty at a time when they might, in other countries, be entirely focused in building innovative academic prog rammes.

37 The embedding of industrial laboratories in university research buildings is another unusual new characteristic of chemistry in the UK. The implications of these sorts of laboratories for the long -term health of the universities should be monito red closely: they are clearly useful for industry, and for selected academic research groups, but may decrease the intellectual independence and long -term vision of the universities. They may also inhibit new appointments by occupying space.

The Relatio nship between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Is Weak.

The Committee found that the coupling between the chemistry and chemical engineering departments, in general, was weak: interaction is much weaker than in most peer communities. Interestingly, the CRYSTAL initiative under the Faraday partnership has been able to link the UK Institution of Chemical Engineers and the Royal Society of Chemistry, but not so far the chemical engineers and the chemists!

Chemists and chemical engineers in universities in the UK do not seem to understand the value that each can bring to the other. Interactions with chemical engineering can be extremely important for chemistry research in topics involving complex systems such as polymers, colloids, and catalysis. Chemica l engineering brings highly developed skills in analysis and modelling, a systems approach, and a knowledge of important, unsolved problems; chemistry offers new phenomena, understanding, and techniques for measurement, and great skill in synthesis. Conne ctions to chemical engineering can be essential in applied topics where industrial collaborations are important. Interactions with chemical engineering give chemistry students a perspective on engineering aspects of research problems, and are valuable whe n seeking industrial employment.

Chemical engineers are especially well equipped to consider quantitative aspects of complex problems where detailed mathematical and systems analyses are required. These are becoming more important in most aspects of mode rn chemistry: for example, polymer synthesis, materials processing, catalysis, cell signalling, systems biology, and organic electronics. Environmental modelling, and exploration of new energy and chemical sources, especially demand these collaborations.

The lack of interaction between chemistry and chemical engineering in the UK probably originates more in weaknesses in chemical engineering than in chemistry, and optimal solutions may await improvements in chemical engineering. It is clear that chemical engineering has missed the moves toward fundamental engineering research at the molecular level that have occurred in other countries (although some excellent research in chemical engineering in the UK does occur).

38 Given this situation, special initiati ves should be launched to strengthen chemical engineering, to stimulate it to take on new problems, and to encourage a better coupling between chemistry and chemical engineering. EPSRC has simultaneous responsibility for chemical engineering and chemistry , and is the institution best situated to bring these highly complementary disciplines together in the UK. Appropriate mechanisms might include ‘directed funding’ by EPSRC and other funding bodies to bring together the best and the brightest of young chem ists and chemical engineers to solve challenging problems (e.g. in green chemistry), changes in the chemistry curricula to include some of the ‘language’ and the ‘tools’ of chemical engineering, enhancing the chemical science base of chemical engineering c urricula, and introducing, at both institutional and national level, incentives and awards that will send signals that such partnerships will be valued.

Revitalising academic chemical engineering in the UK, bringing it up to internationally competitive st rength, and connecting it strongly with academic chemistry should be a priority for EPSRC.

Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property

With regard to intellectual property (IP), practices vary widely in the UK depending on local practice, the field o f chemical sciences, and the distribution of funding from industry and the university. It is important that academia in the UK agree on general guidelines for intellectual property protection in relation to their collaborations with industry; and that uni versities become more sophisticated in their understanding of the role of patents and IP in facilitating the commercialisation of university -derived science.

The UK is not alone in having no clearly articulated national or academic community policy for IP generated by universities. In developing one, it must decide on the objectives of such a policy. Is its purpose to create jobs, goods, and services in industry? To generate supplemental incomes for universities and departments? To provide financial incentives to individual investigators to conduct and protect applied research? To encourage entrepreneurial small business start -ups? The answers to these questions strongly influence the form of an optimal IP policy. The committee encourages EPSRC to catalyse discussions around these questions. Clearly industry needs to have the ability to use (but not necessarily to own) any IP discovered during the course of research that they support and the universities need assurance that intellectual property is properly accredited to them.

5. PERSONNEL

39 5.1 Training of Ph.D. Candidates and Postdoctoral Fellows

A central question concerning the Ph.D. degree in the UK is its objective: is the Ph.D. programme intended to train students technically, primarily fo r careers in industry, or to educate them for careers as creative, independent investigators in university and industry? In a world in which intellectual and economic competition is fierce, it is not clear that the former model is sustainable.

It is no l onger clear that any nation —even the most ethnically diverse —can compete globally if it relies only on its internal resources: the competition for talent is global and intense, and the UK is not currently a serious competitor. We recommend that EPSRC, and other funding bodies, find mechanisms to promote greater diversity by attracting the very best graduate students from abroad. Greater diversity would lead to a larger talent pool from which to recruit the next generation of scientists, and could introduc e new perspectives and research problems into the UK. In parallel to what has occurred globally in the last five years, the UK undergraduate student population in the chemical sciences field has declined. The reasons are complex, but the ultimate conseq uences could be both a decrease in the number of highly qualified students from the UK entering graduate schools, and a decrease in the level of scientific literacy among the citizens of the UK. Without adequate human resources, a vibrant scientific progr amme cannot be sustained in academia or industry. If the pool of students is diminishing, their quality is almost certainly also declining. To dampen the effects of fluctuations in the student numbers, the UK needs to participate in recruitment efforts t hat attract the best students globally.

One of the unusual features of the British system is that the Ph.D. can be earned in only three years. In countries that the UK considers its scientific peers, the time to Ph.D. is significantly longer. For exam ple in some other countries, a four -year Ph.D. would be considered a short degree time. Although lengthening the time to obtain a Ph.D. may be financially stressful or delay starting a family, there may be clear educational and scientific advantages. In particular, a longer and more flexible Ph.D. would allow both students and their faculty advisors to take greater risks in their selection of scientific problems. The value to the student is an education with enhanced scientific breadth and depth, and ult imately greater scientific intellectual maturity.

Ph.D. studies focussing on interdisciplinary research may require a student to master concepts and techniques in a range of fields outside chemistry — biology, informatics, and/or physics. The required bre adth of such work would clearly benefit from a longer time to Ph.D.

There is a perception in the international community that the Ph.D. produced by the academic system in the UK is substantially less mature scientifically than Ph.D.s produced in other c ountries. Several chemists from outside the UK expressed the opinion that they were reluctant to hire UK Ph.D.s

40 as postdoctoral fellows since their training and maturity were not competitive with those available elsewhere. We emphasise that these opinion s were not based on intrinsic ability —the best students in the UK are as intelligent as the best anywhere —but on the short time -to -degree and consequently limited experience in laboratory and exposure to problem solving. This type of training may be appro priate for entry into technically well -defined industrial jobs, but it may place the students at a disadvantage in competing for the best postdoctoral positions, and in their ability to formulate an initial research programme as an independent academic sci entist.

We recommend that UK chemistry consider moving to a four -year Ph.D. programme. We also recommend that the system of penalties for failing students and for missing deadlines be analysed and reconsidered. A Ph.D. is, in our opinion, best consider ed as “education” and not as “training” —it is the preparation of a student to think and to create, not just to perform. Education, in a field —research —where metrics for success are almost always subjective (at least in the short -term), cannot be conducted effectively on a rigid schedule that fails to account for differences in students and research problems.

The existing structures for funding graduate students and postdoctoral fellows do not successfully facilitate interdisciplinary research programmes. In interdisciplinary research, the strength of a research proposal may reside in the successful integration of different disciplines, rather than in the brilliance of the individual components. If one is required to obtain funding for the individual part s separately, the separate fragments of the proposed research, viewed out of context, might not be judged to be excellent, and might not fare well. For UK interdisciplinary science to be competitive, integrated funding and synergies from multiple research councils are required.

5.2 Staffing and Careers

One of the positive attributes of the UK system is the high level of autonomy experienced by academics, even at the junior level. Another positive feature of the UK at this time is the significant number of high -level young people involved in academia. There are, however, a number of constraints in the UK that hinder junior academic staff from effectively competing at the international level. These constraints stem primarily from a lack of adequate supp ort. Because they do not get competitive start -up packages, it is often difficult for them to obtain specialized equipment, and in worst cases, even consumables. Small, short, fragmented grants encourage conservative choices of problems. In addition the existing salary structure makes retention of successful candidates difficult.

Problems in diversity are exacerbated by not being pro -active in reaching out to women at junior and senior levels, and in promoting their appointment to academic positions. At the same time, there is a lack of ethnic diversity in academia.

41 5.3 Recruiting and Retention of Senior Faculty in the UK

The committee did not examine this subject in any detail and offers only collective personal opinion. The lack of competitive s alary makes recruitment and retention difficult at the senior level. An incomplete list of persons who have relocated outside the British academic system includes Alex Bradshaw, Tony Cheetham, Malcolm Chisholm, George Christou, Ed Constable, Alan Cowley, Alan Davison, Leslie Dutton, Graham Fleming, Andrew Hamilton, Alan Katrizky, Jeremy Knowles, Phil Magnus, Tony Pearson, John Pople, George Sheldrick, Fraser Stoddart, Josh Thomas, Dennis Tuck and Richard Walton. These individuals, whose areas of expertise span the range of chemistry, collectively would constitute a first -rate department. There has been no matching flow of senior faculty from outside the UK into UK departments. This disparity speaks for itself, in a world in which competitors with the UK recruit vigorously globally.

6. THE ENVIRONMENT FOR RESEARCH

6.1 Physical Infrastructure in the Universities

As judged from visits to selected research -intensive universities with departments currently ranked 5 and 5*, the state of the infrastructure needed to support research in chemistry is generally very good. Buildings and laboratories are usually well maintained with many having been renovated recently, undergoing renovation currently, or, with significant plans f or necessary renovation either scheduled or well along in the architectural planning stages. The resources provided by JIF appear to have made critical contributions. The committee only visited a limited number of departments and so cannot comment furthe r on the variation in quality that may exist across the country, and among universities with different RAE rankings.

The state of major research instrumentation facilities is somewhat more varied. In most cases these appeared to be good to excellent. A t their best, the measurement, support, and fabrication capabilities of these facilities fully meet and/or exceed those found in many top -tier research Universities world -wide. Although major instrumentation (NMR, electron microscopy, etc.) is widely avai lable, it seems that in some cases the concentration of the most capable shared resources has not been organized in a way that enables broad access to the potential UK community of users.

Other issues that merit consideration relate to developing effectiv e policies for technical support staff and maintenance contracts, as well as providing adequate funds for materials and supplies, and minor equipment replacement. Expensive equipment must be well maintained, or it rapidly becomes useless.

42 Maintenance, up grading, and support for users are expensive. The UK needs to develop effective, standardised procedures to maintain major capital equipment.

UK researchers are significant users of both domestic and EU major instrumentation facilities (e.g. ILL, ESRF, I SIS, etc.). Efforts should continue to ensure sustained access to these world -class facilities: they are vital to the future of a wide range of problems in chemistry. Exciting new opportunities for applications in chemistry are offered by recent high per formance computing and e-Science initiatives.

6.2 Academic/Industrial Partnerships

The committee briefly examined the partnerships between industry and university. The situation is complicated and deserves a focused re -examination.

Industry is inter ested in collaborating and supporting academia for four principal reasons:

i) to influence the training of students in order to prepare them for industrial jobs ii) to be linked scientifically with strong academic research in order to increase the possibility o f recognising new ideas early, and to decrease the probability of unpleasant technological surprise iii) to discuss problems with academia in order that university -based science moves efficiently to application to industrial problems iv) to have access to specific skills present in university.

Universities in turn are interested in collaborating with industry for four reasons:

i) to have industrial financial support ii) to have access to facilities (e.g. for animal testing of drugs) in industry iii) to understand what indust ry considers to be important problems iv) to facilitate consulting arrangements that supplement university salaries.

The financial support provided by industrial sources is an important component of the overall funding available to academic groups in the UK. This coupling of industry and university probably contributes significantly to the health of UK industry.

The level of interaction varies widely: fields such as organic synthesis and computational chemistry groups may have financial support that is high (up to as much as 50%); some branches of physical chemistry such as astrochemistry or gas phase chemistry, may be much lower (less than 10%). The best people in

43 each field tend to be successful in securing some level of industrial support, if desired.

Younger members of academic staff seem very dependent on industrial funding early in their careers. The influence of this type of collaboration on the career development of young chemists is not clear. In the short -term, it helps provide support with whic h to grow their groups, and an encouragement to work in fields of general, longer -term interest to industry. In the long -term, whether it discourages risk -taking in fundamental research or encourages work in relevant problems (or both) is not evident.

Ac ademic staff reported that the interactions with industry were positive and valuable to their research.

The Quality of the UK Ph.D.: The Industrial Perspective . The committee received idiosyncratic but consistent reports from industry that the best Ph. D. students produced by the UK system are of high quality, but that there is a long tail of lower quality. Several factors may contribute to this tail: i) declining standards of science teaching at secondary school level, exacerbated by the general deterior ating image of chemistry worldwide ii) sub -critical sizes of graduate schools in some universities iii) tendency of students in the UK to stay at one university for their entire training —a practice that certainly narrows their perspective relative to students educa ted in systems that encourage or require mobility.

In order to ensure a continuous supply of top quality students some sectors of the UK chemical industry are hiring increasing number of students from outside the UK. This trend has the desirable effect o f increasing the diversity of the chemical workforce in the UK, but raises questions about the training and education of the weaker students graduated in the UK.

Recommendations . The strength of the partnership between industry and academia has become ex tremely important to the health (certainly financial, and perhaps intellectual) and indeed the survival of the academic chemistry community in the UK. In addition, academic research is useful to the chemical industry. Universities and industry enjoy a sy mbiotic relationship which is probably largely beneficial, at least in the short -term. Industry contributes to the overall quality of science by both supporting beyond the usual industrial time - horizon and by collaborating with academics to discover and t est applications of the research.

The committee had mixed opinions about the costs and benefits of the model for industrial collaboration developed in the UK. There are three issues:

i) Financial . A potential concern of this model is that it may result in over -dependence of the universities on industrial funding. In general, industry, (especially, at this time, pharmaceuticals) is undergoing major

44 change, with intense scrutiny of budgets and widespread consolidation. These financial stresses may result in decreased industrial funding, or in the expectation that university research funded by industry be more product -focussed. Vigorous efforts should be made to encourage industry to maintain its high level of support for academic research since a decreas e in this level would be a severe blow to most UK universities.

ii) Effects in Research . Industry support is particularly important for young academics beginning their careers. One of the most challenging times in the careers of academic scientists is the beginning. Industry, almost by definition, is not interested in research that does not have some potential (albeit distant) for application. The subtle influence of industrial concerns might be good or bad, but since the level of risk - taking among junio r faculty in the UK does not seem to be high, the influence of industrial support is worthwhile considering. (The question is not “Is industrial support leading young faculty into uninteresting research?” since the answer to this question is almost certai nly “No” , the relevant question is “What types of research would young faculty do, with the same level of support but from government funding, under optimised structures, and would these types of research lead to greater or lesser creativity?” ).

iii) Innovatio n. Several members of the committee take the view that the best research that a university can do in support of industry is the 20 - year research that lies entirely outside the usual industrial strategic plan: that is, the research in areas that industry w ould not explore. This is the research that occasionally produces fundamentally new technologies. It is not clear if the UK model for funding —with its exceptional reliance in industrial support —encourages or discourages this type of research, but it is m ore likely the latter than the former.

6.3 The Perception of “Fairness” in Distribution of Resources Among Universities

The committee notes that resources (facilities, research funds, students) are concentrated in a small number of departments, and that there is a perception —both within the UK and internationally —that this concentration is in some sense “unfair”. It is important not to ignore this perception of unfairness since it concerns a matter where perception alone —whether accurate or inaccurate —is important in maintaining the morale of the academic community. It is unquestionably necessary to concentrate resources, in order to have internationally first -tier departments. It is, however, crucial that this concentration must both be, and appear to be, determined purely on the basis of merit: if the first -tier universities earn the resources that keep them first, the meritocratic system under which most universities compete is operating fairly. The agencies

45 that support chemistry in the UK must mak e every effort to be —and to appear to be —fair.

They must also, of course, make every effort to preserve the strength of the best research universities. Research is not a democratic activity, and the best universities will inevitably consume a dispropor tionate share of the resources in executing first -class research.

This problem of focus of resources in a few centres, and suspicion of unfairness among the others, occurs to some extent in every country; it seems to the committee to be at a higher level in the UK than in most other countries. Many policies can help to disarm suspicion. These include:

i) ensuring broad representation (including international participants) on peer review panels and making every effort to ensure high -quality peer review ii) maki ng the process used to award grants as transparent as possible iii) making sure that first -rate faculty and first -rate students have the opportunity to move to the top -tier departments based on unbiased appointments and admissions iv) including international partic ipation or opinion in the peer review system and in the processes used in making faculty appointments.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS TO E PSRC

1. Restructure Ph.D. Education and Support for Chemical Research to Encourage Revolutionary and Multidisciplinary Scien ce and Engineering.

Chemistry is expanding into new areas. The role of chemistry has also expanded dramatically in science and technology. The peer review process now used by EPSRC in judging responsive proposals is based on a historical, “small - science ” model of chemistry that no longer fits the field. A wider range of types of grants, and of proposal reviews, is needed to match the available resources to the opportunities facing the field and the needs of the society.

In the past, chemistry was conce rned largely with a small set of core scientific roles. It now has the following set of tasks: • To expand the boundaries of “chemistry” to make a new “molecular science” that includes chemical biology and materials science • To maintain its core disciplines (e.g. synthesis, analysis and theory, ….); • To support other technologies such as biotechnology, materials science, analytical science, …

46 • To serve society by playing major roles in environmental science and technology, development of sustainable technologie s, and national security/crime prevention

For chemistry in the UK to fill its potential, chemistry Ph.D.s must have more maturity, breadth, and creativity. As competition for jobs becomes global, technologically developed countries such as the UK will ha ve to enhance its ability to compete globally. Creation of new science; new technologies and new jobs will become critical in maintaining the economic health of the UK.

EPSRC and the academic departments, working cooperatively should:

• Redefine the Ph. D. EPSRC should work with other government agencies to achieve changes in policy that would make the time -to -Ph.D. more flexible, encourage four -year Ph.D.s as the norm, and eliminate deadlines and penalties during the Ph.D. process.

• Develop Mechanisms f or Support that Reward Discovery and Innovation, and that Provides the Several -Year Stability in Support Required to Take Risks in Research. The UK has evolved to a system of small (often 1 student), short -term (often 1 -2 years) responsive grants. Longer -term (3 -5 years), larger (3 -5 students), grants are required for programmes focused on risky, discovery/innovation based research.

• Develop mechanisms that Support Multidisciplinary Research , especially in chemical biology and in chemical aspects of mate rials science. Appropriate mechanisms should also be developed to strengthen chemical engineering, and strengthen its connections (and connections of other relevant areas of engineering) to chemistry.

• Increase Mobility of Students and Faculty Among Unive rsities. EPSRC should develop strategies to encourage mobility among universities, for both students and faculty (but especially for students). Doing so would increase the breadth of experience of chemists, and allow a more transparently merit -based syst em of academic rewards to develop in the UK.

2. Compete for Talent Globally.

In order to be competitive globally, chemistry in the UK must compete for human resources (and money) globally. EPSRC can play an important role in this process by catalys ing changes that facilitate hiring at all levels:

• Faculty. Total compensation and start -up packages for faculty are not presently globally competitive. Some of the disparity in salaries is outside the control of EPSRC, and universities may have to overc ome

47 their reluctance to have large disparities in internal salary structures in order to recruit outside the UK. EPSRC, in collaboration with other branches of government and in discussion with universities, should in particular, focus on helping younger faculty to get started, and on bridging starter and long -term support.

• Graduate Students. The Research Councils should try to influence government policy to eliminate the high costs of Ph.D. students from outside the UK, to allow graduate programmes in the UK to recruit the best foreign students without financial penalties.

• Women and diversity. The representation of women and ethnic minorities in university positions is much too low: the UK is not utilizing a valuable pool of talent. Understanding ho w to increase this representation is a problem that must be solved on a country -by -country basis, so EPSRC, the funding councils, and the universities will have to engineer a solution appropriate to the UK

3. Work with the Universities to Develop and Ar ticulate Opportunities and to Formulate a Shared Strategy for Academic Chemistry.

Because the EPSRC is the major source of responsive funding in the UK for research in chemistry and chemical engineering, it has a special responsibility and opportunity to work with the universities to improve the system that supports these areas. Both EPSRC and the universities must work together to achieve the most cooperative and efficient working relationship that they can. We recommend that EPSRC work with other gover nment agencies and with the academic departments to:

• Develop a rolling strategic plan for chemistry. The components of this strategy will help the departments to focus on key areas in which the UK must compete globally, and will stimulate creativity and foster innovation.

• Encourage Community -Generated Initiatives in Research. It would be better to have EPSRC respond to initiatives generated by the academic community, and to cooperate with the community on developing these initiatives, than to initiate them. For EPSRC to operate in a mode in which they largely respond to initiatives generated by the community of chemists and chemical engineers, or jointly by this community and EPSRC, would give the departments a greater sense of ownership than they now have. EPSRC should develop methods of stimulating and rewarding good, community -based initiatives.

• Use the Power of the Top Universities to Strengthen the Next Tier. The UK system is one in which the best departments have excellent resources. Those bel ow the very top have rapidly diminishing resources.

48 EPSRC should consider strategies in which it provides incentives for the top departments actively to work to strengthen those that are strong but not quite in the top tier. An example of an instrument t hat would accomplish this objective would be grants that require the collaboration of departments with different RAE rankings.

It is essential that efforts to increase the number of first -tier departments do so by processes that do not arbitrary redist ribute resources away from departments that are already first -tier. Allocation of resources must be: i) merit - based and ii) transparent.

8. FINAL REMARKS

Chemistry in the UK has the most distinguished of histories, and enormous potential for the future. Society needs chemistry: it is the science that manipulates and understands the matter of which the world is made.

This committee believes that the UK will benefit if the academic chemistry community becomes more innovative. Currently, it is a schola rly and analytical community, and careful analysis is an important part of any science. But analysis is generally an enterprise of both lower risk and lower reward than invention and discovery. Ideally, a balanced academic community will include both sch olarship and innovation.

Given the history of creativity and imagination that has characterized chemistry in the UK, and given the fact that chemistry is in a period when it has enormous opportunity for discovery and invention, why does chemistry in the UK seem, by comparison with the most active areas of chemistry in other countries, to be relatively conservative? The committee can only speculate. Some part of the problem is undoubtedly the fact that the system of higher education in the UK is, as the Economist has recently pointed out (November 16, 2002) under financial stress; some part of the problem is that running a world -class research university is an unabashedly elitist and unquestionably expensive proposition, and one that requires a difficult and often unpopular concentration of resources; and some part is that the society that universities serve must believe (usually in the absence of quantitative, affirming data) that it is essential to invest in scientifically trained people, and in the sci ence and technology they create.

Whatever the reasons, the university chemistry community and the government funding agencies in the UK have, together, created an environment that favours incremental research (albeit of very high quality) over revolutio nary research. There are, we believe, ways of supporting academic research in the UK that could stimulate the best research groups and best departments to be more innovative and exploratory than they now are, even on a limited budget. Doing so will proba bly require that the system become both more competitive and demanding, and more outward looking.

49 It is possible —and even desirable —that the UK should develop a style of research that is uniquely suited to its system: for whatever the financial constrai nts now imposed on chemistry in the UK, they are unlikely to change soon. Very large, open -ended projects are probably less practical in the UK than in some other countries. Projects that require only moderate size, but are based on able and courageous p eople, working in important areas, is, however, a style that has prospered in the UK in the past. The committee believes that this style is also a recipe for the future, and that changes in the system that are within the powers of EPSRC, other funding age ncies, and the departments to accomplish, can do much to reinvigorate innovation and discovery in chemistry and chemical engineering in the UK, and bring them again to the distinction and eminence they have enjoyed.

50 APPENDIX 1

Copy of the letter sent t o all Departments of Chemistry in the UK with the exceptions of those departments visited by the review panel.

Dear Professor …

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has commissioned the Royal Society of Chemistry to co -ordinat e a major review of academic research in chemistry in the UK. The focus of the review will be academic science: that is, the Panel will report on the quality, international standing, balance, and potential of research in the chemical sciences being undert aken at universities in the UK. It will also compare trends in the UK with those in chemistry elsewhere. The panel will not deal directly with financial or administrative issues concerning the support of chemical science in the UK. Other matters are, ho wever, within the scope of the review: for example, the adequacy of the infrastructure supporting chemical research, the quality and supply of graduate students, and the effectiveness of the chemical sciences in generating and supporting chemical technolog ies.

The EPSRC will use this review strategically: it may, therefore, influence funding for chemistry.

An International Panel, of which I am the chairman, will be visiting the UK for six days during the week commencing 27 October 2002. Before that w eek, the panel will be provided with background information on a number of subjects, including research projects supported by the research councils, university personnel, publications, citations and international awards, the academic/industrial interface, and the RAE.

During the review, the panel (divided into four subgroups) will visit eight university departments. These visits are not evaluations of these departments; they are intended to allow the panel to discuss issues concerning the state of chemi stry in the UK with a spectrum of active researchers.

Because there is only time to visit eight departments, we are using a questionnaire to gather additional information that will help us to form as accurate a set of impressions as possible. This ques tionnaire (enclosed) is therefore being sent to all UK universities that we will not be able to visit. We intend the questions to broaden our understanding of chemistry in the UK, to help us to reach broad conclusions that are accurate, and to allow as ma ny departments as possible to have a voice in the process; they are not to evaluate specific research disciplines.

I, and the panel, would be most grateful if you would be able to find the time to complete the questionnaire. Please focus on issues in re search and education, rather than on funding; a strong case for science is required to build a case for funding. If you could return it to the executive secretary for the panel, Dr. Alejandra Palermo, either by e -mail or to the address indicated below, be fore October 10, we would be most grateful. The panel will be presented only with aggregated results.

Our email addresses are, respectively: [email protected] , [email protected] Dr. Alejandra Palermo Burlington House Piccadilly London W1J 0BA UK Tel +44 020 7440 3333

I thank you very much for your time, and for your willingness to help us. I hope that, in collaborating on this evaluation, we can help both the chemical community in t he UK and the EPSRC.

51 With kind regards and best wishes,

George Whitesides Chairman of the International Review Panel

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

1) What do you consider to be the five most important achievements of research in chemistry in the UK over t he last ten years?

2) What do you perceive as the most promising and most important directions for research in chemistry in the UK during the next ten years?

3) What are likely to be the most important research areas in your own Department during the next ten years? Will they build on existing strengths, or will they represent new directions? What will you need to build these areas?

4) What are the two or three changes (in any areas, but ideally within the sphere of influence of the EPSRC) that you feel would m ost strengthen chemistry in the UK?

52 APPENDIX 2

Copy of the questionnaire with accompanying letter sent to all review panel members intended to be forwarded to their peers outside the UK to solicit their views.

Dear Professor ….

The UK’s Engineerin g and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has commissioned the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) to co -ordinate a major review of academic research in chemistry in the UK. The review is strategically important to chemistry in the UK, because its fin dings may influence patterns of funding in the future by the EPSRC. According to the terms of reference, the Panel will report on the quality, international standing, balance, and potential of research in the chemical sciences being undertaken at UK unive rsities. It will also compare chemical research in the UK with that in other countries.

An International Panel, of which I am a member, will be visiting the UK for a week. The panel will be provided with information on a number of subjects, including res earch projects supported by the research councils, personnel at UK universities, and publications and citations. During the review, the panel will also visit some eight university departments.

In order to judge the international perception of chemical research in the UK, I have asked each Panel member to send the enclosed questionnaire to 10 -15 colleagues in his own and related fields. The questions are intended to assess your general impression of UK chemistry and do not represent a rigorous evaluatio n of specific research disciplines.

I, and the panel, would be most grateful if you would be able to find the time to complete the questionnaire, and return it to the executive secretary for the panel, Dr. Alejandra Palermo, either by e - mail (copied to myself) or to the address indicated below. I hope, if you are able to help us, that you might be able to return the questionnaire before October 10.

Our email addresses are: [email protected] arvard.edu , [email protected] Dr. Alejandra Palermo Burlington House Piccadilly London W1J 0BA UK Tel +44 020 7440 3333/1223 336467

The panel will treat all responses confidentially, and use only aggregated results.

I thank you very much for your time, a nd for your willingness to help our colleagues in the UK.

With kind regards and best wishes,

George Whitesides Chairman of the International Review Panel

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

1. What is your own field of expertise?

2. How would you rate your deg ree of awareness of UK research in your broad field of expertise?

53 a. high b. low c. unaware

3. Considering only the best two or three research groups in the UK in your broad field of expertise, do you consider that their research quality in international comparison (US, Western Europe, Asia) is a. leading b. higher than average c. about average d. lower than average (You may wish to mention which groups these are, but it is not necessary)

4. Do you consider that, taken overall , UK research in your field i s internationally a. leading b. higher than average c. about average d. lower than average

5. In your broad field of expertise, do you consider that the ranking of UK research in an international context, when compared with the situation 10 years ago, is: a. much better b. better c. about the same d. worse e. much worse?

6. If you think of the three most exciting developments in your broad field of expertise in the last 5 -10 years (you may name them if you wish), have UK chemists been involved a. at the f orefront in an innovative way b. in a more derivative way, somewhat behind the leaders c. hardly at all? (If a. applies, are there also examples where results reported by UK groups have broken entirely new ground and other groups have then followed?)

7. V ery broadly, what do you consider the greatest strengths and most pronounced weaknesses in Chemistry in the UK? What would you suggest to strengthen the former, and reduce the latter?

8. Do you have any further comments?

54