Stand up for research

Statement on the funding councils proposal for 25% of the new Research Excellence Framework to be assessed according to 'economic and social impact'.

Latest news: Science and Technology Committee to examine 'impact' proposals

Following UCU lobbying, the Science and Technology Select Committee launched an inquiry into science funding and one aspect the committee will be particularly interested in is the proposals for 'impact'. The committee is interested in 'what evidence there is on the feasibility or effectiveness of estimating the economic impact of research, both from a historical perspective (for QR funding) and looking to the future (for research council grants)'.The deadline for submissions, 27 January, has now passed. You can read full details of the Inquiry's remit here.

The statement below opposing the REF proposals has now been submitted to HEFCE alongside UCU's response to the consultation. Thank you to all 17,570 people who signed.

 UCU response to the REF consultation (.pdf) [435kb]
 Signed statement on the REF proposals (.pdf) [2.5Mb]

See also:
Giant Albert Einstein joins union protests in Parliament
Third of professors would quit UK over research row, warns poll

 Discoveries that would not survive the REF (.pdf) [84kb]

'There may be lessons too about the age-old point that time-and-again it is only when discoveries are made that possible applications become obvious'
 A story about an almost extinct species – left field science, by Sir Harold Kroto (.doc) [40kb]

Read  UCU's letter on the imbalance of the REF steering group (.pdf) [17kb]

Hear also from 2009 Chemistry Nobel prizewinner Venki Ramakrishnan - video at nature.com

STATEMENT

The latest proposal by the higher education funding councils is for 25% of the new Research Excellence Framework (REF) to be assessed according to 'economic and social impact'. As academics, researchers and higher education professionals we believe that it is counterproductive to make funding for the best research conditional on its perceived economic and social benefits.
 
The REF proposals are founded on a lack of understanding of how knowledge advances. It is often difficult to predict which research will create the greatest practical impact. History shows us that in many instances it is curiosity-driven research that has led to major scientific and cultural advances.

If implemented, these proposals risk undermining support for basic research across all disciplines and may well lead to an academic brain drain to countries such as the United States that continue to value fundamental research.
 
Universities must continue to be spaces in which the spirit of adventure thrives and where researchers enjoy academic freedom to push back the boundaries of knowledge in their disciplines.

We, therefore, call on the UK funding councils to withdraw the current REF proposals and to work with academics and researchers on creating a funding regime which supports and fosters basic research in our universities and colleges rather than discourages it.