I. Other observations and recommendations

5.I. Other observations and recommendations

One major overall weakness in the UK system is the near absence of significant start-up funds from the academic institution for new young faculty members. This practice is in stark contrast to that in the US, where the start up funds for an assistant professor at an academic research institution typically range up to $1,000,000, or in the EU, where the start-up funds can also be generous. In addition, the structure of the current funding for ECRs available from EPSRC is completely incompatible with even the current 3 year PhD system, because of the requirement that the limited funds be expended within 2 years. A new lecturer is forced to write tens of applications to fund a research group of critical mass. While the Panel did see a few examples of young faculty members who were able to fund a research group of critical mass through the present system, these ECRs would likely have been both more productive and creative had their effort gone into the execution of research as opposed to the writing of multiple proposals. These anecdotal stories highlight the perceived unevenness and unfair treatment of ECRs in the present UK system of support.

The lack of institutional support for ECRs also affects the choice of faculty hired at an institution. The panel observed and heard explicit statements to the effect that certain frontier areas for recruiting (e.g., modern physical chemistry) are being avoided because the equipment for start-up is not available and perceived as ‘too expensive’ for current schemes. This is affecting established researchers but it is especially a problem of ECRs and thus likely to harm the future efforts directed at, for example, energy research. Seemingly, instead of hiring the best young people, institutions are choosing to hire only those scientists whose research can be executed on equipment of minimal cost or by utilising already available infrastructure in the department. This practice stifles creative, innovative research and propagates ‘research as usual’. This might have some influence on the perceived common practice of many institutions to hire their own postdoctoral students.
Recommendation__I.1'>Recommendation

I.1: There is an urgent need to address the current failure of existing mechanisms of research support to direct resources into university chemistry departments for equipment and start-up funds; an issue that is hampering the development of the discipline in emerging areas that demand technologically sophisticated and expensive instrumentation for start-up.
Research Councils and their Communities

The Panel offers the following summary concerning issues where action is required:

• 
  Improve engagement between the academic chemistry community and the Councils
  
• 
  Improve engagement between the Councils and the academic chemistry community
  
• 
  Peer-review should be sought and considered at all stages of proposal processes
  
• 
  International advice and industrial input into funding policies, decisions and processes
  
• 
  Mechanisms to encourage academics to more actively link research to broad social needs
  

The limited funding available for academic chemistry in the UK creates a tense environment for communication between all Research Councils and the chemistry community. Given its central role as a funder of basic chemistry the issue is particularly acute for the EPSRC, which has experienced in the recent past an increase in demand from the research community that significantly exceeds the growth of resources made available by the UK government. It is precisely under such circumstances, however, that government and academia need to redouble their efforts to sustain open and clear communication. This communication is not one way but instead must engage both sides.

The singular most distinctive signal sent to the International Review Panel was the failure of the various units visited to highlight their women faculty. Of all the scientists chosen to make presentations to the International Committee, none of the academic and only one of the industrial presentations to the ‘West’ sub-panel was female and none would have been considered an ethnic minority. The situation for the ‘East’ sub-panel was only marginally better. Apparently, few of the institutions were willing to “risk” reputations by advancing a woman as a spokesperson. This observation was particularly surprising given that the Panel perceived that a substantial fraction of the ECR faculty is female (lectures and plethora of research fellows). While the latter observation could be viewed as a potentially positive development, there are issues with regard to the perceptions held by these female ECR lecturers and fellows regarding their chances at promotion and/or subsequent career advancement that cannot be interpreted as representing a level playing field.

The current funding schemes for graduate students in the UK seem to make it challenging to recruit chemistry graduate students from the excellent global pool, especially from Asia. The Panel was presented with an imaginative solution to this problem that involves support from a regional government that seemed to appreciate the crucial role that chemistry has in the regional economy. UK chemistry is likely to be missing out on an opportunity to increase the talent pool from which to execute its research.

A significant challenge going forward will be to ensure that the UK chemistry research community retains its special relationship to the drug discovery enterprise, which has demonstrated significant global impact on health and wellness. The Panel had testimony indicating that the chemical industry is a significant contributor to the output and income of UK plc through the production of fine chemicals and derived consumer products. It also received testimony concerning the significant number of block-buster drugs produced by the UK pharmaceutical industry (in proportion significantly more than by US companies). Moreover, the origin of this success can be traced back to researchers whose PhDs were in fundamental organic chemistry. If the quoted numbers stand up to scrutiny, by, for example, the RSC and stakeholders of the International Review outcomes, then it is likely that a strong case can be made to seek novel ways to boost R&D efforts involving this sector. The most effective way to achieve this end is probably through thoughtful and constructive dialogue involving the Research Councils, Industry (SME and large), and the academic chemistry community.

The Panel was given evidence of a significantly overloaded peer review system for research grant proposals. Moreover, funding success rates were typically 20% or less. The Panel also heard from one ECR who had submitted 15 proposals this year and another who had already submitted 9 proposals. This is surely an untenable situation calling out for some form of control to be instigated (as, for example, in other countries) both by the Research Councils and university administrations. Moreover, when the number of fundable proposals is similar to the number of panellists carrying out the review the system is ripe for abuse through tribalism and bias.

Multidisciplinary collaborative science involving Chemistry and its many sub-disciplines has an obvious and critical role to play in coming to grips with certain aspects of these societal challenges; indeed, the ‘Whitesides’ Review anticipated the need for UK Chemistry to think more expansively about its link to societal grand challenges when it highlighted opportunities in materials, chemical biology, green chemistry and national security back in 2002.

Unfortunately, the Panel had insufficient time during its 4-days of site visits to probe the role of Chemistry in helping the UK face these daunting challenges. It is the Panel’s view that this role should be articulated through extensive dialogue with the science and engineering community. This process seems to have begun but not yet concluded. The Panel’s view is that there is a danger in attempting to define the grand challenges too closely to a single discipline, although there are obvious examples where a particular discipline might play a leading role.
The Panel offers the following tentative observations:

• 
  Societal Grand Challenges need Chemistry
  
• 
  Need dialogue with funders and within the community to evolve and refine the UK Chemistry role in key societal grand challenges
  
• 
  Panel reserves comment on the current situation until the aforementioned process is complete
  
• 
  Scientific community is struggling with this globally; see examples of actions from US: DOE and NAE
  

A recent DOE report in the US: Directing Matter and Energy:  Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination⁶ concluded that research focused to ultimately allow unprecedented control over the microscopic world (electrons, atoms, and molecules) could possibly be the key to a sustainable future (see also: Graham Fleming & Mark Ratner, Physics Today, July 2008⁷)

The US National Academy of Engineering recently identified 14 Grand Challenges awaiting solutions in the 21^st century⁸. Many of these challenges are multidisciplinary and involve Chemistry: environmentally friendly power, capturing the carbon dioxide, computer-created virtual realities, improved methods of instruction and learning, sustaining the ageing infrastructures of cities and services, quality and quantity of water, reverse-engineering the brain, countermeasures for nitrogen cycle problems, develop new medicines, computerised catalogues of health information, nuclear fusion, enhancing exploration at the frontiers of reality and knowledge, reducing vulnerability to assaults on cyberspace.