Compilation of press articles about the REF and impact agendas Compiled by NCCPE, November 2009 Compilation of REF and Impact press articles www.publicengagement.ac.uk November 2009 Impact debate THE Feb 2009 Article: Scientists call for a revolt against grant rule they claim will end blue-skies research THE Leader Feb 2009 Leader: Short-term outlook, no blue skies REF launch Reuters news story about the REF consultation launch: "Mickey Mouse" degrees face funding battle Independent 8th Comment from the Independent online: Let’s preserve the dotty, dying don. October THE 1st Oct 2009 Opinion piece by Claire Fox, the Institute of Ideas: Academy strikes back: the fight for 'useless' knowledge starts here No10.gov petition Petition to No 10: Promote discovery and innovation in UK science. Oct 2009 UCU petition UCU Petition: Stand up for Research Don and dusted debate ‘Independent’ comment THE Oct 2009 Article about David Mitchell’s Observer coulmn: The mirth-making candidate? Peep Show star's REF critique the right stuff for councils THE Letter OCt Letter from Martyn Hammersley, OU: Curious and curiouser THE Oct 2009 Article: Rethink impact plans, think-tank tells Hefce HEPI Press release Oct Press release - Proposals for the REF - a critique 2009 THE Oct 2009 Letter from Adam Corner, Cardiff University: Academic knowledge must be socially useful 1 THE Oct 2009 Alan Thorpe article: Research intelligence: 'You must spread the word' The Open letter Nov Open letter to RCUK: Only scholarly freedom delivers real 'impact' 1 2009 THE Response from Alan Letter in response from Alan Thorpe, RCUK: Impact is created in immeasurable ways 2 Thorpe THE Article Nov 2009 Article: Managers and scholars divided as resistance grows to impact agenda THE Nov 2009 Letter from James Ladyman, University of Bristol: Impact is created in immeasurable ways 1 Compilation of REF and Impact press articles www.publicengagement.ac.uk November 2009 Compilation of REF and Impact press articles www.publicengagement.ac.uk November 2009 Scientists call for a revolt against grant rule they claim will end blue- skies research http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=405350 12 February 2009 By Zoë Corbyn Letter blames research councils' policies for fall in number of UK Nobel laureates, reports Zoë Corbyn A "revolt" against the requirement that academics demonstrate the economic impact of their research was called for this week by 20 eminent UK scientists, including Nobel prizewinner Sir Harry Kroto. In a letter in this issue of Times Higher Education, the group calls for academics to rebel against new rules that state that the potential financial or social effects of research must be highlighted in a two-page "impact summary" in grant applications. The requirement to provide a summary, answering questions about who might benefit from the research and how a financial return could be ensured, is being phased in by the UK's seven research councils. The summary will be used by peer reviewers as a factor when determining which applications receive funding. But in the letter, the group, which includes eight fellows of the Royal Society, "urges" the peer reviewers to ignore the summaries - arguing that it is impossible to predict the economic impact of "blue-skies" research in advance. The letter says peer reviewers "should confine their assessments to matters in which they are demonstrably competent. In research worthy of the name, we are not aware of anyone who would be competent at foretelling specific future benefits and therefore in complying with the request in any meaningful and substantive manner." The letter also criticises the research councils for policies over the past 30 years that it claims have subjected academics to "withering barrages of control" and turned researchers' lives into "bureaucratic nightmares". The letter blames these policies for "almost a tenfold decrease" in the rate at which UK researchers have been winning Nobel prizes. "(The research councils) must become more courageous in dealing with the Government or they will not have an enterprise worth protecting," it warns. It also rounds on the Government for driving academics to increase the economic impact of their work while ignoring the "serious problem" of low-level investment in research and development by British companies. "What is the point of having a second-to-none academic sector if its commitment to innovation is not matched by commerce and industry? Academics are, of course, a much easier target," the scientists write. The letter was organised by Donald Braben, a visiting professor at University College London, and Philip Moriarty, a professor of physics at the University of Nottingham. Professor Braben told Times Higher Education that the academics had reached "the last straw" with the councils. One signatory said he would happily sign "in blood", he added. "The academic community must stand up," said Professor Braben, adding that history showed that even the most seemingly inapplicable of scientific discoveries could yield huge economic benefits, such as the development of lasers. Compilation of REF and Impact press articles www.publicengagement.ac.uk November 2009 "You cannot command developments at the frontier, it is not possible," Professor Braben said. He added that the new policy spelt the end for blue-skies research. "As soon as you identify a beneficiary for research ... the councils are going to turn it around and say, right, deliver. And then it is applied research ... You can't have blue-skies research if you put caveats on it." Philip Esler, chief executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, speaking on behalf of Research Councils UK, said: "The description of impact that the research councils work with is broad, encompassing not only the contribution research makes to the economy but also to society as a whole. "It covers not only economic benefits, but also those related to public policy, quality of life, health and creative output. Research councils will not be disadvantaging blue-skies research, nor stifling creativity. "The impact statement is not designed to ask peer reviewers or applicants to predict future benefits. It is intended to allow the applicant to highlight potential pathways to impact, especially through collaboration with partners, and to help the research councils support them in these activities. "Research councils recognise that impact cannot be solely recognised by the researchers, but requires collaboration with user communities. Where applicants feel that their research is not likely to have an immediate or obvious impact, then they should state that in the application. Excellent research without obvious or immediate impact will not be disadvantaged. We remain committed to supporting excellent research and ensuring that it benefits as many individuals, organisations and nations as possible." Professor Moriarty said: "No one has attempted this type of grassroots boycott before." Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, said the UK is committed to increasing the amount invested in research and development by firms, as evidenced by its R&D tax-credit scheme for business. The 20th signatory of the letter, Herbert Huppert FRS, was added after the letters page of Times Higher Education went to press. [email protected] Readers' comments Mark Bretscher, FRS 12 February, 2009 The suggestion by Don Braben and supporters that grant applicants simply ignore the new requirement of providing a 2 page "impact plan" has an alternative. An all-encompassing "impact plan" could be drawn up and used by all who regard their research as basic but don't have anything helpful to add to their scientific proposal. This would allow the all-powerful bureaucrats to fill their files with that which they think they need. Of course, it might conflict with the Government's green posture........ Professor Mike Glazer 12 February, 2009 Here we go again. This is substantially the same argument we went through during the Thatcher period. Then the catchphrase was "wealth creation". The latest policy is as much misguided as the it was then. It resulted in the Save British Science movement and in the rejection of Mrs Thatcher for an honorary degree in Oxford,as well creating turmoil amongst research scientists. It is high time that scientific research was recognised for what it is: it may be inefficient in terms of directly leading to applied results, but history has demonstrated time and time again that the the really important discoveries, the ones that have transformed our world, have not come about through guided programmes, but instead have turned up accidentally. As always with these government inspired schemes there is a basic confusion between scientific research and technology. It is vital that able scientists are allowed to follow their instincts in research rather than to be dictated to from above. Otherwise, the likely outcome will be the stifling of major discoveries. Professor Lee Cronin 12 February, 2009 Compilation of REF and Impact press articles www.publicengagement.ac.uk November 2009 The political establishment presently has an obsession with control, and hides behind the fact the tax payer ultimately funds a large percentage of the scientific endeavours in UK Universities, to exert this in areas which they have no business or understanding. Right now, chemists, like many disciplines may be able to contribute to solving some of the greatest problems of our generation associated with energy, health and pollution. But we must not lose sight of the scientific research process that requires chance, inspiration, free thinking, and the need to embrace the chase of finding out what is possible without justification. Also, I believe fundamentally that scientists, even those funded by the tax payer, should be able to research areas that have no immediate economic value. Ironically, these are the areas which yield incredible insights that can have economic value, or win a noble prize (or both!).