Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond: International Perceptions of the uk chemistry Research Base
Download 435.25 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Areas in need of emphasis and encouragement
- 6.1 Nurture and Support Early Career Researchers (ECRs)
- Recommendations 6.1.a
- 6.2. Develop a viable strategy for sustaining the excellent infrastructure, shared facilities and national facilities
- Recommendation 6.2
- 6.3 Build on regional strengths, pooling as appropriate between local universities to create centres of excellence, alliances with Research Councils and Regional Development Agencies
- Recommendation 6.3
- Responsive mode versus Defined Programmes
- Recommendation 6.4.a
- Recommendation 6.4.b
- 6.5 PhD degree to reflect achievement
- Recommendation 6.5
6.0 Overall RecommendationsThe following recommendations were developed by the Panel on the basis of the presentations and discussions during the review. Other recommendations are contained in the main body of the report.
Areas in need of emphasis and encouragement:
compare with the US which has finally acted boldly by funding of 46 Energy Frontiers Research Centres10)
(There is a role/opportunity for Universities – spinouts and ‘big Pharma’)
(Nanomedicine and more)
(There is a need to enhance the participation of theory and computation especially in areas that involve energy and health applications)
6.1 Nurture and Support Early Career Researchers (ECRs) Institutions in the UK have too many mechanisms for providing ECRs with a starting career. Some of those that have been introduced by the Research Councils (e.g. Accelerated Career Fellowships) and the Royal Society University Research Fellowship Scheme provide a level of support for research expenses including some start-up money, ability to support students, etc. A number of these ECRs spoken to by the Panel had already served previously in the same institution, either as a graduate student or as a post-doctoral researcher. The best of the ECRs that the Panel encountered had also spent time in post-doctoral training outside the UK. For the most part, ECRs holding the aforementioned fellowships were very satisfied with their situation. Perhaps even more significant was the pervasive feeling that a permanent job would arise eventually, although not always at their present location. At some universities in the UK there are also special dedicated (college) Junior Research Fellowships designed for individuals to carry out creative work unburdened by typical faculty duties. There seems to be however a much larger group of ECRs who are typically directly appointed to either shorter-term fellowships or junior academic positions by institutions offering minimal support mechanisms; they are effectively being penalised by lack of start-up funding and career guidance support. The Panel had the impression that overall, considerable resources are being directed toward ECRs in the potpourri of fellowships that are available. It seemed to the Panel worthwhile to consider redirecting those resources to create a structure that more uniformly: a) encourages the best of the best to pursue an academic career in UK Chemistry, b) gives those ECRs an opportunity to prosper and develop to their fullest potential, and c) is sufficiently transparent to be fair. In seeking to accomplish this the aim should not be to treat all ECRs equally; mechanisms should be able to selectively recognise and reward only the best. The current spectral range of post-doctoral fellowships spanning 2 to 10 years and the spectre of writing 10 or so proposals per year is surely not optimal. Moreover, it is not to the UK’s advantage that many ECRs do not have a real road map for their career. A majority of the Panel thought that the UK should create a tenure-track-like system. By becoming more selective and, at the same time, more transparent the system would give the ECRs well defined goals and by giving significant start-up funds and competitive access to substantial grants for a given period through special proposals, the new system would also help them to be more independent with respect to senior scientists in their own institutions. If fellowships from Research Councils and/or the Royal Society are a major (the principal) mode of funding such probationary faculty members, then there should also be some mechanism to ensure that they and the institution commit to provide sufficient start-up resources to allow these ECRs to fully and independently exploit their creativity and be judged on the results. Recommendation__6.2'>Recommendations__6.1.a'>Recommendations 6.1.a: Create a tenure track probationary period of about 5 years for ECRs where excellence in teaching and in research is the criteria for promotion to tenure. 6.1.b: There is an opportunity for the Research Councils, the Royal Society, other charities and institutions to form partnerships in equalising the opportunities for ECRs, more clearly defining the expectations and possibilities of a given ECR position. Specifically, there is a need to make special provision for funding for ECR start-up. 6.2. Develop a viable strategy for sustaining the excellent infrastructure, shared facilities and national facilities One of the most striking observations for the Panel during the Review was the excellent laboratory infrastructure that has been set up in the UK during the past decade. Large investments have been made for new buildings, as well as for large pieces of “general” equipment, such as, mass spectrometers, large NMR machines, and the like. However, to ensure that optimum use is going to continue to be made of the existing infrastructure it appears that funding for highly trained research technicians is urgently needed for maintenance of the equipment, training of PhD students and post-docs, etc. The Panel was initially told that the idea behind the “full economic costing” (FEC) model was that the universities would be able to use this additional budget to take care of such issues. However, at all universities visited the Panel heard that this FEC money is not used for this, but that it is rather used to pay the “gas-bill”. Moreover, it was mentioned several times that even with the current 80% FEC it is impossible for the universities to appoint support-personnel from this additional budget or use it for research related actions such as new faculty start-up. From the university perspective, the introduction of FEC has gone some way to compensating the perceived subsidy of research from teaching income. Going forward, the cost of maintaining these central facilities may be a driving force for a new focus on shared local and regional facilities rather than institutional-level provision which seems to predominate at the moment. This could be one step towards creating a viable long-term solution. In addition, while it probably goes against the culture of typical Chemistry departments, internal recharging against research grants might provide a partial mechanism for sustaining such shared facilities. The UK national Large Scale Facilities delivering neutron and synchrotron x-rays, such as ISIS and Diamond, are indispensable tools for modern research involving many of the vibrant areas of Chemistry, including physical, materials, supramolecular and biological sub-disciplines. Similarly, the EPSRC National Mass Spectrometry Service is a jewel in the crown of EPSRC centrally provided services. Facilities such as these should be a national priority. Recommendation__6.4.a'>Recommendation 6.2: Create a dialogue with stakeholders to set in place policies, procedures and mechanisms to sustain the recently created infrastructure, shared facilities and nationally funded facilities and enable actions such as salary support for university technical research support staff, etc. Evaluate if the FEC scheme is achieving its original goals. 6.3 Build on regional strengths, pooling as appropriate between local universities to create centres of excellence, alliances with Research Councils and Regional Development Agencies Pooling between local universities to create centres of excellence, and building alliances with Research Councils and Regional Development Agencies is, of course, occurring to some extent already. The Panel notes the positive influence in those examples that it saw. Such activity is a way to build critical mass and hence strategic advantage in particular fields. It is a way to create employment opportunities. The Regional Development Agencies are most effective (and capable of doing this) in the areas where traditional industry has declined and government stimulus is being provided for regeneration. The Panel certainly saw sufficient evidence of successful outcomes that these kinds of partnerships should be encouraged elsewhere. [see Chapter 9 “The Race to the Top” by Lord Sainsbury of Turville (October 2007)]11 A pressing area of need is to develop a viable strategy for sustaining the excellent infrastructure, shared facilities, as well as national facilities that have resulted from the past decade of investment by government. In particular, there is a need for expanding and sustaining the participation of the chemistry community in effectively utilising those facilities. Pooling resources at a local and regional level should be a way to improve research infrastructure in the UK. Recommendation 6.3: Pooling resources at a local and regional level should be encouraged in order to improve and stimulate more efficient and effective use of research infrastructure in the UK. 6.4 EPSRC portfolio balance, responsive mode versus programme/platform grants and mechanisms for sustaining high risk research There is no doubt that the Panel heard a strong plea from the Chemistry community at large for more funds to be made available in responsive mode as that is the area where UK chemists have felt that they have traditionally delivered their best funded research which has been unencumbered. Inevitably, the more recommendations the Panel makes about use of Research Council funds for other activities (e.g. ECR, PhD etc) the smaller the amount available for responsive mode. The counter point of view, expressed by a minority of the community but strongly endorsed by the Panel, was that such opportunities for adventurous creative endeavours could still be found for research carried out under “signposted” and programme projects. The Panel also heard a plea from the community to set a cap on the size of possible responsive mode funding in order to allow an increase in the success rate of proposals. The suggestion was offered that large responsive mode grants, including those demanding large-scale instrumentation, should be handled separately from competitions with capped grants. One unconstrained area of research is in the DTA. A PhD student can work on anything that is funded by DTA. On the other hand, no PhD adviser is likely to suggest a really high risk project for a starting PhD student as they do need some chance of getting sufficient results for a PhD. A longer PhD would allow the introduction of some high risk research in the later stages. The concern expressed repeatedly to the Panel by the Chemistry community is that the institutions (rather than Departments) have now been given the overall management of distribution of DTA funds, with the result that support for doctoral training by this mechanism from the Research Councils may not necessarily reflect the success (or lack of success) in allocation of Research Council competitive funding to traditional subject areas. Responsive mode versus Defined Programmes Fundamental research is an important and necessary part of any research portfolio. However, researchers also have to respond to real or perceived societal needs, so focusing some fraction of the research portfolio into defined programmes does not seem unreasonable to the Panel. Indeed excellent fundamental research can still result, so from the Panel’s perspective the current UK system is not far out of balance. However, there is a view in the chemistry community that often (wrong) priorities are being set by the wrong people (no matter how well meaning they may be). This issue is related to having more scientific input to the decision making process and giving more authority to panels to affect the outcomes. If the pot of money for responsive mode is too small for everyone to be funded, so be it. The challenge is to put the money where there is the potential for highest impact. Thematic proposals can contribute to dynamic research, but much depends on how the programmes are built and by whom, and also on the competence of the reviewers in the targeted area of research. Thus there is nothing intrinsically wrong with making calls for proposals that are “thematic” or “programmatic” provided they are not too specific, and provided that suitably qualified reviewers judge the fitting (or lack of it) of proposals to any particular call. In the Netherlands, individual PI projects with FOM12 are now organised such that they have a time-limit of four years and a financial cap of about 550 kEuro (exceptions possible), whereas the programmes can run for as long as ten or even fifteen years, and have in principle no financial cap; this has turned out to be a good mix. Recommendation 6.4.a: Consider putting a cap on the responsive mode (individual PI) projects. Create Mechanisms that Support High-risk Research The Panel was enthusiastic about setting up mechanisms to stimulate more adventurous research. What are such mechanisms? In a sense, extensive peer review run by professional grant managers tends to create either a common denominator approach or personal fiefdoms run by the managers. There needs to be explicit input by scientific panels composed of international experts who contribute to the decision making. Another mechanism is to give grants long enough lifetimes so that there are longer horizons to explore higher risk projects, while providing ring-fenced funding for independent ECRs should also tend to stimulate more adventurous curiosity-driven research. Start-up Equipment Having complimented the UK on the large investments that have been made, the Panel is compelled to state that funding for “intermediate size” equipment appears to be very difficult to secure. The Panel heard, for instance, that the UK is far behind other countries in the area of surface-probe techniques (STM, AFM, single molecule spectroscopy) as well as in the field of ultrafast lasers and femto-chemistry. For these fields investments of typically 200-500k Euro are required for individual researchers, and it seems that it is not the total amount of money that is the problem, but the fact that it is to be spent/used by a single researcher that makes securing these funds so difficult. In part, this is connected to the problem that there are no start-up funds for young faculty, but it also holds for more established researchers who would like to start a new line of research, or take advantage of a recent technology breakthrough to advance their research agenda. Recommendation 6.4.b: The possibilities to secure medium-size (individual PI) investment grants in targeted research areas should be strengthened. Examples include modern physical chemistry equipment to probe ultrafast phenomena, single molecule phenomena, etc. 6.5 PhD degree to reflect achievement As articulated in the ‘Whitesides’ Review, ideally the PhD degree should emphasise creative achievement rather than technical training. The idea that the agenda for granting a research degree might be driven primarily by the timing rather than by accomplishment or at least by personal development is inconsistent with this view. The Panel noted that in some UK universities the 3-year DTA-funded PhD degree is evolving to a somewhat longer time period. Also, for example, the DTC supported PhDs are 4 years. However, the Panel saw no need for the UK to evolve to the US model where PhDs take at least 5 years to finish, and often much longer. Evolving to a model where students are expected to complete their graduate studies in a timely fashion but with sufficient flexibility that creative achievement is the basis for granting the degree would be a worthy goal. In Europe, the situation is far from uniform, even with the “Bologna process” which not everybody liked. Germany lost their cherished “diploma” to be replaced by an inferior MSc degree; a change that means 3 years for a BSc and 2 for a MSc before a PhD can be started. In this case a 4-year PhD is too long, given the 8-year cap on higher education. The key question for the UK is to decide if it wants to be closer to the US or the European system. The Panel’s observations suggest that typical PhD training programmes last from between 3.5 to 5 years and that the mechanisms in place should be sufficiently flexible to provide this range of training in the UK. Such flexibility should allow for an emphasis on accomplishment which in turn should generate more creative outcomes. Recommendation 6.5: DTA funds and internal university PhD degree awarding mechanisms should be adjusted to allow elasticity in the duration of the PhD training programme, but certainly not beyond 5 years. Download 435.25 Kb. Share with your friends:
|