Yesterday saw the launch of Science for the Future and it
certainly did what it was intended to: make a splash! The launch got a large
amount of media coverage on the mainstream media, and on the blogosphere and
twittersphere. However, a lot of what was reported was reported second or third
hand by people who weren’t actually there.
Below I summarise what Science for the Future is actually
concerned about. Essentially the way EPSRC has forced through policies that we
believe to be damaging the ability to conduct scientific research in the UK,
without the full, proper and transparent consultation with academics,
professional bodies and industry. These policies are:
1) The move away from investigator driven research to
directed research portfolios. No evidence has been supplied by EPSRC to suggest
that directed research portfolios produce better science.
2) The collectivisation of PhD studentships into DTCs which
has led to the reduction in DTA funding and the banning of project studentships
on responsive mode grants. A total reduction of 33% has occurred. This is contrary
to the EPSRC's own commissioned review of studentships, and EPSRC has not
provided evidence that DTCs produce higher quality PhDs that have done higher
quality research.
3) The increasing amounts of money which are allocated in an
opaque manner on the whim of EPSRC which completely circumvents proper peer
review. For example £10M made available by EPSRC without peer review and without
publishing the names of the “expert panel” that advised them.
4) The downgrading of peer review in the grant assessment
process and the introduction of non-scientific and subjective criteria such as
"importance" and "impact" to determine funding. As well as “guidance”
being given to panel members as to which proposals have best fit with EPSRC
priorities, regardless of scientific excellence.
5) The non-resubmission of all non-funded research
grants, even if deemed excellent by peer review and fundable by panel, but were
not funded due to budgetary constraints.
6) The limitation of fellowship applications to certain
areas within the EPSRC remit for funding. These areas are decided by
administrators and means that an excellent proposal will not be considered if
it falls within EPSRC remit, but outside these arbitrary areas.
Science for the Future is not calling for more taxpayer's
money to be wasted by EPSRC. We are not calling for political intervention
into which science gets funded. We are calling for Parliament to investigate
the operations of EPSRC and to decide whether their current policies and
methods for funding science are in the best interest of the UK.
Science for the Future is made up of scientists and
mathematicians from all branches of the scientific community, from all
universities/institutes and from all age/career demographics. It is made up of
academics who have good track records at getting EPSRC funding, including
a number of prominent Leadership Fellows; young researchers who see their
chance of doing science in the UK being eroded by these policies; established
researchers who see how these policies are reducing their ability to do science;
and by senior members of the community (Nobel Laureates, FRSs, etc) who are
worried about the state UK science will be left in.
Yesterday's launch and parliamentary lobby day got Science
for the Future noticed. Our interactions with MPs have been uniformly positive
and we will now try to progress our campaign through these avenues.
The scientific community via the professional bodies,
individuals and lobby groups such as Science for the Future are more than
willing to engage with EPSRC to try and work through these difficulties.
However, so far EPSRC has ignored offers to engage and hold a meaningful
dialogue to discuss these concerns. I hope that EPSRC change their attitude and
sit down with the community to work these problems out.
