Chemistry at the Centre

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

Load more