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'.

REF update – campaigning works!

Victory for research - plans to force economic impact into research postponed

On 9 July 2010 UCU welcomed the announcement from the minister for universities and science, David Willetts, that there would be a one-year delay in order to review proposed changes to the Research Excellence Framework (REF): UCU welcomes decision to postpone plans to force economic impact into research

HEFCE acknowledge UCU pressure

On 26 March 2010, HEFCE announced the result of their consultation, acknowledging UCU's leading role in opposing their impact proposals. HEFCE said: 'A minority of responses, notably UCU, some of the academic associations, individual departments, individual researchers and others, opposed or objected to assessing the impact of research in the REF, even with a lower weighting. The UCU submitted a petition to withdraw the impact proposals, signed by 17,500 people, although the petition presented the proposals as seeking to predict the impact of research before it is carried out, rather than assessing "historical" impacts as we had proposed. Their key concerns were that the REF would harm long-term, curiosity-driven research or disadvantage arts and humanities research, or that the challenges involved in assessing impact would be insurmountable.'

HEFCE announce delay in REF until after the election

On 1 April 2010, it was reported in the Times Higher that HEFCE would be delaying the implementation of the REF until after the election. David Sweeney, director of research at HEFCE announced that universities could expect a minimum of another year's delay to the current timetable, pushing the REF assessment to 2014 and REF-based funding to 2015. Mr Sweeney was clear that the immense public debate over the 'impact' proposals lay at the heart of this decision: 'It has got to be delayed by a year because we are having a more detailed discussion about impact than we expected.'

Nervous Hefce 'edging out' of REF citations, THE

Political parties shifted positions on impact

The Conservatives said they will 'delay the implementation of the Research Excellence Framework so that it can be reviewed – because of doubts about whether there is a robust and acceptable way of measuring the impact of all research'. Read more here.

The Liberal Democrats said that while they believe in the value of considering impact, 'such considerations should not be used to decide whether projects are funded or not, even as tie-breakers; we recognise that the economic impact of science is inherently unpredictable, and making funding decisions on uncertain premises could ultimately be damaging. We are therefore opposed to the use of non-evidence based impact predictions when deciding resource allocations, whether that be in grant awards or through the Research Excellence Framework.' Read more here.

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 was 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 report was published on 24 March: The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research (.pdf) 

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.