Post at Nature’s Soapbox Science: Policy as an outreach activity

I recently had a post published on the Nature Soapbox Science blog. You can check it out here. It forms part of the #reachingoutsci series.

James

Improving diversity and tackling inequality in science

This is an edited version of a post which first appeared at the British Ecological Society’s blog.

Equality and diversity in science was the focus of last week’s Policy Lunchbox, run at Charles Darwin House by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society.

Sarah Hawkes, Head of Scientific Engagement at the Royal Society (RS), gave a presentation about her work on the Society’s new four-year programme (scroll down), which focuses on removing the barriers to increasing diversity in the scientific workforce.

The science sector in the UK – and the RS itself – have been the subject of criticism for the notable lack of women amongst their ranks, particularly in more senior positions. In the UK, men are six times more likely than women to work in science, technology, engineering or maths (STEM) subjects, and of the 46 Fellows appointed at the RS in 2012, only two were women.

The RS’s new programme, funded by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, aims to address this gender imbalance – as well as tackling other issues of diversity incorporating ethnicity, disability and socio-economic status – across both academia and industry. The idea is to learn from and build upon the number of equality initiatives which already exist to work towards three objectives:

1. Defining and understanding the scientific workforce;
2. Identifying barriers to entry and progression within the scientific work force, which a view to removing them, and;
3. In the long-term, increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce.

The programme will involve data gathering and a large scale policy study, significant work to engage with the scientific community, organising diversity events and activities, and engaging with the Athena SWAN initiative (which the Biochemical Society co-funds) and actors within education.

The scheme has strong backing from Sir Paul Nurse, PRS, who made a statement recently saying that “we must have an environment in which all scientists, including those from previously underrepresented groups, have an equal chance to excel”.

Much of the work so far has been to establish the programme and begin to embed it within the RS’s work. An initial scoping study has been carried out to identify existing data on the diversity of the scientific workforce and knowledge gaps that need to be filled. As part of this work, the programme is exploring the possibility of joining up existing datasets to reveal long-term trends, which may indicate whether the suggestion of some commentators – that it is ‘just a matter of time’ before equality will come about in science anyway – is true (I would propose that it certainly won’t any time soon, without more significant intervention).

A consultation and engagement conference held at the end of March also provided vital feedback from the scientific community, identifying the barriers and issues people working in the field experience. Areas including careers guidance, career trajectories, improving awareness of STEM careers, the importance of role models and widening Athena SWAN were suggested and will be used to shape the RS programme’s work. Further consultation and a large scale policy study this summer will also investigate whether the diversity issues in science are replicated in other sectors and help identify evidence to make a ‘business case’ for improving diversity. This is an increasing focus in Europe too, as the recent Gendera conference brought to light.

Consideration will also be given to different measures of ‘excellence’ within science, as women are particularly affected by the challenge of maintaining a reputation through publications. This is due to factors including maternity leave and the potential loss of association with a publication record if names are changed in marriage.

The programme will focus initially on the academic sector but, building on Sarah’s previous experience working on the Athena SWAN Charter, it is hoped the RS programme will collaborate with the Charter to broaden its scope beyond universities to pilot work in research institutes and, perhaps in the future, industry. This will also help any best practices from industry be absorbed more widely. Unilever, for example, drew praise at the 2011 European Gender Summit for its active approach to diversity.

Of course, in addition to reaching out to pursue diversity externally, the RS must address the significant gender imbalance within its own Fellowship which, in the last 10 years, has elected only 43 women as Fellows out of a total of 438 (at the Biochemical Society, we acknowledge a similar problem with our awards, which we are working to address). Although low, this is an improvement compared to previous decades and now with the significant support of Sir Paul, Sarah feels progress will be made faster. A major barrier to overcome is the fact that Fellows are elected based on nominations by existing Fellows, which means the demographic is likely to perpetuate without interventions.

Sarah suggested that Learned Societies can help the RS programme, and more broadly make progress with addressing diversity issues, by participating in satellite expert groups which the programme is hoping to establish and informing Sarah of their own diversity initiatives, or providing examples of role models and case studies. There may also be the opportunity to work collaboratively, to run joint mentoring schemes for example, and the RS may provide some funding for this. This is definitely worth keeping an eye out for.

More details of the RS’s work on equality and diversity are available on their website. Our thanks again to Sarah for giving such an interesting presentation, which is available here, and for dealing with all of our questions, especially the toughies from me!

On postgraduate education

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer and originially appeared on the Society of Biology’s blog.

I recently stumbled upon an article from the February 9^th, 1952 edition (guess why?) of Nature, in which the Vice Chancellor of the University of Leeds was reported holding forth on ‘Postgraduate Studies in the Universities’. Said VC, Mr C.R. Morris, was reportedly adamant that “young men and women do not… sufficiently realise the importance, or the significance, of the fundamental scientific inquiries proceeding in… university departments.” He also said that “the future of Britain as a great nation, and its future eminence in the sciences themselves, depend upon the maintenance of the high tradition of a university in which all the great fields of human knowledge and speculation are represented in strength.”

Times change. If we consider Morris’ statement as intended to recognise the value of interdisciplinarity, these views still echo true. But on the students themselves, most would agree that today’s cohorts are highly aware of university science and its high quality. In the current climate though, the channelling of students towards academia alone looks increasingly less sensible.

This is one of the issues currently being looked at by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), who are running an inquiry into Postgraduate Education. With the recent criticism of the government for seemingly neglecting this important policy area, there has been much interest in this inquiry. I worked with the Society of Biology to respond to their initial consultation, raising our concerns but also highlighting important strengths and opportunities, in consultation with our memberships. You can read the full submission here (PDF), with key points highlighted in bold. Subsequently, we were invited to take part in a roundtable discussion focussing on the life sciences. This provided an opportunity to discuss some of the issues further with members of the commission and a number of postgraduates from around the UK.

At the session, hosted by the Wellcome Trust, we heard from Professor Julia Buckingham (Pro-Rector (Education & Academic Affairs) at Imperial College London), Dr Malcolm Skingle, (Director of Academic Liaison at GlaxoSmithKline) and Harriet Dickinson (a PhD student and Biochemical Society member from the University of Cambridge), before the floor was opened up for discussion. Some of the key points raised by the speakers, myself and the rest of the group were:

• The priorities of undergraduates are gearing more and more towards gaining internships and contact with employers. More students are looking ‘away from the bench’ as they see limited opportunities, particularly with fewer individuals able to get funding from e.g. the Wellcome Trust.
• MSc qualifications are becoming increasingly requisite for entry to PhD programmes, but there are significant financial disincentives for both the individuals and the universities (who, Professor Buckingham said, are “at the end of the day, a business”).
• There are a variety of ways further study could be made more attractive; financially e.g. no interest charged on student loans whilst still in further education (for current new entrants to the system, interest is inflation-linked even when repayments are not being made) and career-wise e.g. creating clearer career progression pathways.
• We need to increase fluidity between industry and academia at all levels (Dr Skingle said that the CASE Studentships programme is “amazing” and expressed support for the Doctoral Training Centre model) but that student experience is vital if individuals are to become the institute leaders of the future.
• Students no longer ‘look down’ on industry, but it can be unclear how to get a clear idea of the opportunities. There is significant concern that if you leave academia you are seen to have ‘jumped ship’, and there are real and perceived difficulties regarding hiring processes in any return to academia.
• The necessity for postgraduate mobility creates problems for access; there need to be more supportive programmes to provide support.

Professor Buckingham raised the important point that to develop the ‘leaders of tomorrow’ we need to let students “get out” – not be a clone of their principle investigator (PI) – as well as open their eyes to careers outside science and help them to succeed. Harriet made the point that it is difficult even to get PI/institutional support for gaining transferrable skills such as learning foreign languages, and one of the other delegates expressed frustration that his North American collaborators are facilitated to develop entrepreneurial and business skills; opportunities he felt were closed to him in his UK programme. The criticism of ‘funnelling’ to pure academia has been growing recently and was echoed by Dr Skingle, who outlined the essential skills required for graduates and postgraduates to be hired. Amongst them were the traditional areas that are often lamented as being lacking, such as skills in numeracy and communications, but he also stated:

• subject knowledge
• ability to solve real problems
• ability speak the language of different scientific disciplines
• knowledge of how different industries work; being a good team worker
• ability to network outside own area of science
• computer-based systems ability (e.g. smart data mining)
• ability to change and adapt.

However, his view was that GSK does generally get what it needs from graduates and that UK students match up well internationally.

Regarding the next steps, the HEC are running a number of roundtable events like the one outlined above, the outcomes of which will be combined with the written evidence received and reported to David Willetts (Minister for Universities and Science). We were informed that they intend to take a strategic view to Mr Willetts to present a clear picture. We’ll be following this with interest, as the issues surrounding postgraduate education in STEM have been overlooked for too long.

How is agreement reached on what counts as sufficient evidence to inform particular policy decisions?

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

The title of this post is one of the 40 questions that form the bulk of a new article in PLoS ONE (Open Access), entitled ‘A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda’ (March 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824).

The article ‘shortlisted’ the most important questions in science policy and was contributed to by our former Head of Policy, Beck Smith. The questions were decided by a range of participants (who are named authors of the paper) from across government, NGOs and learned societies, academia and industry.

The paper says that “we need to ask not just how science can best inform policy, but also how policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence in the first place”. This is key to unlocking discussions on the often controversial and difficult relationship between science and policy, and evidence-based policy. The paper offers a number of inquiry strands to scrutinise the relationship.

Amongst the other questions are:

• How do scientists and policy makers recognise and convey the limitations of scientific advice?
• Under what conditions does scientific evidence legitimise political decisions?
• Which commissioning and operational arrangements lead to the most effective use of science in policy-making?
• How do policy makers understand and respond to scientific uncertainties and expert disagreements?
• What governance processes and enabling conditions are needed to ensure that policymaking is scientifically credible, while addressing a perceived societal preference for policy processes that are more democratic than technocratic?
• What impact has research on the relationship between science and policy actually had on science policy?

As a PLoS ONE article, it is open for comments and annotation.

Listen again to Voice of the Future and Science Question Time (along with 100,000 others)

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

I was in Stuttgart on Tuesday (discussing gender equality in science) when I had an email from Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering and a collaborator on Science Question Time. Apparantly our recording of last Thursday’s SciQT Nuclear Debate had gone viral, with over 30,000 listens at SoundCloud.  We knew it had been an interesting and provocative policy debate, but the evident public appetite was surprising, to me at least. It was not entirely unaided though, and we must thank the good people of Boing Boing for promoting our debate to their audience, and helping us to reach 117,000 (as of now…)

Last week also saw Voice of the Future take place in the House of Commons, with many young scientists – including some sixth form students – having the opportunity to ask difficult questions of David Willetts MP, Chi Onwurah MP and members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology (with several of them making their debut appearances). The recording of this event (with full video)  is available here. In all, it was a good week for biology in the House, as Monday saw student Nicholas Love (University of Manchester) take home first prize from SET for Britain, held in the Commons Terrace Marquee, having won the Biological and Biomedical Science category and then taking the gong ahead of the winners of Physical Sciences (Chemistry and Physics), and Engineering. Both of these events were primarily organised by the Scoiety of Biology, with support from various Member Organisations including the Biochemical Society.

Excuse the brevity of this post, but there’s lots of info in the embedded links above!

Incentivising Private Sector Investment in R&D

The original version of this post appeared on the British Ecological Society’s Ecology and Policy Blog.

As a whole, UK businesses invest less in research and development than their major international competitors, and there is more that the Government can do to address this disparity. That was the message from Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), addressing yesterday’s meeting of the Policy Lunchbox network. Beck provided a fascinating overview of an area of policy that members of the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society (partners in organising Policy Lunchbox) may know little about but, Beck made clear, should familiarise ourselves with given the vital importance of support from business to the health of the science base in the UK.

The previous Labour Government stated its aim to increase the overall investment in research and development (R&D) from all sources to 2.5% of GDP by 2014, although the current Government doesn’t intend to adopt national targets. In any case, at present, we stand at just 1.8% of GDP being invested; indicating the significant distance that remains for us to catch up with other ‘G7′ countries. Given that the UK Government is committed to tackling the budget deficit and therefore tightening spending, the importance of leveraging other sources for investment in R&D is clear. At the moment, however, the UK is third from bottom amongst the G7 group (ahead of Canada, just, and Italy) in terms of business spend on R&D. In 2009, the 1000 UK companies that invested the most in R&D spent a total of £25.3bn, down 0.6% on the previous year. So what can the Government do to address this potential downward trend?

First, Beck stressed, we need to understand why business and industry aren’t investing as much in R&D in the UK as it could do. Beck outlined research suggesting that one way this can be explained is as a combination of three factors, which collectively can be called ‘market failure’:

1. ‘Spillover rationale’: the suggestion that innovators find it difficult to appropriate all returns from their innovations. For example, the inventor of the first personal computer will have seen others move in to develop this technology and will now occupy a crowded space. This disincentiveses innovation. The Government can address this through means that allow companies to keep more of the benefits of their investments, for example through tax breaks such as the R&D tax credit.

2. Coordination failure: broadly speaking, difficulties encountered by groups of individuals or firms in acting collectively. There may be a failure of businesses to network sufficiently with organisations conducting research (or vice versa) that may be of benefit to them. This could be alleviated by the facilitation of partnerships between industry and universities.

3. Information failure: Differences in the information available to both parties prevent transactions from taking place. This argument suggests, for example, that businesses seeking financial support or partners for R&D projects simply don’t know where to find the necessary information to do so.

Beck suggested that there are a number of levers that Government could use to address these market failures – thereby encouraging greater support from business and industry for science in the UK – through focusing on the following areas:

1. Skills: Universities report that many students entering courses from A-levels require remedial lessons in, for example, mathematics and experimental design, in order to perform. Furthermore, industries have complained that they need to give new graduates from universities additional training before they are competent in their jobs. There have also been reports from industry surveys that there are a shortage of graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) to fill posts. Alongside addressing school and university tuition there therefore appears a need to raise the profile of careers in science amongst young people (such as through the STEM Ambassadors programme).

Recent amendments to immigration requirements in the UK may also have sent a negative message to qualified STEM graduates from overseas – those who may be considering further study and research in the UK – regarding the UK’s reputation as a good place to pursue a scientific career. Although the Government has taken steps to address these issues for STEM graduates, these negative perceptions may take some time to dispel.

2. Financial environment: tax-breaks such as the ‘patent box’ (a corporation tax cut of 10% on all profits attributed to patents) could create a favourable environment for companies to invest in R&D. Beck also highlighted the positive role that ‘challenge prizes’, such as the $10 billion Ansari X Prize, can play in incentivising investment and scientific progress. Since the launch of the X Prize, to reward the development of the first viable craft for unmanned space flight, it is estimated that there has been an additional $100 billion of investment in this area of study.

3. Knowledge flow: the Government could amend the Research Excellence Framework, for example to make it easier for universities to employ those who have worked in industry. When budgets are cut within industry, Beck suggested, one of the first areas of investment to be cut is the travel and meetings budget. Employees therefore decrease their network at a time when this needs to be expanding. Facilitating the flow of information between researchers in academia and in industry can help to address this.

4. A long-term, cross-party strategy for science in the UK would also be very welcome.

Beck highlighted recent developments from Government which have gone some way to address the points raised. For example, an annual £250,000 prize fund has been announced (orders of magnitude less than the X Prize but nonetheless a step in the right direction), whilst the Government is pressing ahead with plans for research hubs to link business and academia (so called ‘Catapult Centres’, previously known as ‘Technology Innovation Centres’) to aid commercialisation. However, there are convincing arguments for the state to do much more; such as those recently presented in a work by Mariana Mazzucato called ‘The Entrepreneurial State’.

Speaking about the publication on yesterday’s Today Programme, in the document and online, Ms Mazzucato argues for public policy to be bold and courageous, stepping in to fund areas that the private sector has no interest in, as well as putting in place mechanisms to reap greater returns for itself for doing so. As an example, the United States supported the development of the internet by pouring huge amounts of money into the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which undertook a significant amount of the research underpinning the formation of what is now known as Silicon Valley. The private sector, Mariana suggests, has a reputation of coming into areas of research 15–20 years after a large amount of state investment. It cannot therefore be seen as the answer to addressing deficits in state funding for science and innovation (although it is clearly complementary); the Government must find innovative ways of funding large-scale investment in the science base in this country if we want to see the emergence of another Google in the UK, for example.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for Policy Officers and others working in learned societies and the third sector. It is run jointly by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. See our webpage for details of forthcoming events. The next event will be on how to get the most from party conferences.

Estimates Day debate: the Forensic Science Service

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

“We are where we are, and we must now make sure we go forward in the right direction.” – Julian Huppert MP.

Yesterday’s Parliamentary Estimates Day debates included a lengthy discussion about the Forensic Science Service (FSS) – which is currently in the final stages of its wind-down – based on the Science and Technology Committee report on which I have previously written in The Biochemist.

The full transcript is available online.

Conservative MP Michael Ellis made ground early on, making numerous statements defending the decision. He cited the losses being made (the levels of which are still disputed) and that commercial providers provide an excellent service, as regulated providers will continue to do so.

The debate soon turned though, as afternoon became evening and several critical voices were heard in the chamber. These raised numerous points about what needs to be monitored going forward – as Andrew Miller MP’s Science and Technology Committee promise to do, along with many other observers (including the press, should miscarriages of justice become apparent). Here is a selection of what was said last night:

Alan Campbell MP (Lab) (20:11):

This is a risky decision. I do not envy the Minister the decisions he has to take; I envy him his job, but not his difficult decisions. This is one decision, but what about all the other things happening across Government? What about the cuts in police numbers? What about the Justice Secretary’s acceptance that crime will inevitably rise in a recession? What about the changes to the rules on DNA that the Government are making in the Protection of Freedoms Bill? Add them together, and I am worried. Whatever the Minister’s motives, this is the wrong decision. I do not doubt that the Minister has gone to the nth degree to look at the issues, but I worry.

This is my final question: why is that instead of spending taxpayers’ money to get an FSS that is fit for purpose, we are spending the same amount of taxpayers’ money to end up with no FSS at the end of it all? It just does not make sense.

Julian Huppert MP (LD) (20:25):

One aspect of the Committee’s report causes me great concern. It involves the role of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman. He was personally criticised in the report, and I very much regret that: I do not think that it was appropriate. I think that there is a problem with the way in which the Home Office looks at scientific advice, and with the seniority and the access that the chief scientific adviser is given in the Home Office. I have raised those points in the Committee with the chief scientific adviser, who has a slightly different perspective on the issue of the amount of access provided. I think that chief scientific advisers should sit on the boards of their Departments, and should have access to information enabling them to deal with any concerns at an early stage rather than waiting to be invited to comment. There is a problem across Government in regard to their role, and that means that there will be similar problems in a number of areas in which advice is sought too late in the process. I fear that the Minister will not be able to tackle that problem alone, and I hope that the Government as a whole will ensure that chief scientific advisers are given an important role.

… I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.

Alan Slaughter MP (Lab) and Bob Stewart MP (Con) (20:37)
Slaughter:

… Given that other Government Members have constantly referred to the figure (the reported annual loss made by the FSS) —the £24 million, or the £12 million —I fear that the cost argument is the best the Government have. It is not a good argument, and it is not even very valid. As I said when I intervened on Michael Ellis, although not every piece of FSS work comes from the police services, the overwhelming majority of its work does. So what we are saying is that the FSS is subsidising police services at the moment.

Perhaps the police services have got a good deal. For example, if a particular police force negotiates a fixed fee with the FSS for complex cases and an hourly rate for simple matters, clearly that police service will have got a good deal, as it will get a fixed fee for important and complex cases with many pieces of evidence, and where it thinks that there is not much involved in a case, it will pay just for what it wants. If that is right, it may actually be the right way to do things, as it may take the pressure off the police in terms of not submitting items of evidence. If a police force was paying by the hour or for every piece of evidence, and a complex crime scene had 100 pieces of evidence to be submitted, it might think, “Do we really need to submit every piece of evidence?” Perhaps the police are not expert enough to make those decisions and the systems works well, even if it produces a notional deficit for the FSS.

If that is also right, and the service is running at a deficit now, will commercial companies be prepared to allow such a situation to continue? Will they not renegotiate contracts with police forces over time to ensure that they not only cover their costs but make a profit? At least one Government Member has said, “Good luck to forensic scientists if they go off and earn more money in the private sector.” If that is right, who is going to pay for it? If, instead of working in the FSS, former senior members of its staff are hiring themselves out as consultants at a substantial daily rate, that sum will be picked up by the police and by the taxpayer. The argument about finance really does not hold water.

Stewart:

I think we might also be losing the ability to have seriously world-beating research and development in FSS-type matters. That is what worries me; we must not lose that R and D ability. If we are going to change, things must be just as good as they were before. If they will not be, we should leave them as they are.

Slaughter:

I wholly agree, and I ask the Minister, even if he is going to rely on the argument about money, to balance that consideration against the opportunity cost—the risk of losing the services that the FSS provides, which are in some cases easily quantifiable but in others are intangible, in terms of both its archives and its research and development.

… We are also losing a service that has been respected around the world, and has built up its reputation over many years. It is irreplaceable.

An embattled James Brokenshire MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime and Security tried to defend the decision, as he has done so on a number of occasions now, saying “commercial forensic service providers have provided high-quality forensic science services for the criminal justice system for a number of years, and there is no reason why the closure of the FSS will reduce impartiality or affect the accuracy of their work.” But it was Huppert’s rational voice which made the most important point: “We are where we are, and we must now make sure we go forward in the right direction.”

Policy events and news at the Society

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

It’s an exciting time in policy and public affairs at the Biochemical Society (I always feel as though ‘Policy Officer’ isn’t quite inclusive enough as my job title). A lot is going on! Here’s a quick run-down of our upcoming activities…

The Society has reserved six spaces at ‘Voice of the Future 2012‘ – an opportunity for young scientists to put their science policy related questions to the Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts MP; Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science, Chi Onwurah MP; and members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology. The event will be held on Wednesday 14 March at the House of Commons and has been organised by the Society of Biology, with the support of several organisations including ourselves.

The next Science Question Time – one of our regular collaborations with the Campaign for Science and Engineering and Dr Alice Bell – will focus on the Nuclear Debate and be held on Thursday 15 March at the Institute of Physics, London. Further details on the event, including how to submit questions and sign up, are available on the Science Question Time website.

Talkfest is back too, with an event on ‘Sounds of Science’ to be held on Wednesday 29 February at our Charles Darwin House base. You can listen to past Science Question Time and Talkfest events on our new Podcasts page. And, as always, we have Policy Lunchbox events lined up, with an announcement of May’s event expected soon.

The deadline for the Gender Equality in Science Grant Scheme is at the end of next month, which should give us some interesting and exciting projects to fund ahead of next year’s 100^th anniversary of the Society admitting female members.

Sense About Science are holding a ‘Standing up for Science’ media workshop in Manchester on Friday 23 March. As partners, the Society has been assigned five priority places for our early career researchers.

The Society is partnering with the Society for Experimental Biology and the British Ecological Society to organize a unique bioscience communication training workshop for doctoral research students and postdoctoral research staff. The workshop, to be held in London on 7 June, will enhance participants’ skills and help to demonstrate the impact and benefits of their research. Further announcements will be made as we finalise the plans.

We’re also looking ahead to responding to the Higher Education Commission inquiry examining the future of postgraduate education, and thinking about our activities for the years ahead, now that my feet are well and truly under the desk. Watch this space!

Research Fortnight loves you – 90% discount

Just a quick note this one. Research Fortnight have a special Valentine’s Day discount offer for today. They’re offering a whopping 90% off the cost of an annual print subscription. You just have to enter the disount code VDAY at the checkout.

Snap it up here.

As a bonus, it’s a great read too!

Costs, investments and empty labs

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.

I’ve just seen the shiny new(ish) video for Cancer Research UK’s new campaign called Create the Change. It’s about raising money to help fund their contribution to the Francis Crick Institute, in which they are joined in consortium by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, UCL, Imperial College London and King’s College London. They’re looking for £100m.

Personally I believe that the Francis Crick Institute is a great idea, but there are significant problems and risks associated with building and launching it at a time of severe cutbacks, and not just in capital and from government. The investment comes at the same time as CRUK (late last year) and Wellcome Trust (early last year) decisions to cut their project grants. This is a huge blow for researchers in the biomedical field, particularly young researchers. It is already very difficult to secure research funding and these decisions exacerbate such problems.

UK grant application success rates are currently around 20%, which brings its own dilemmas, and with competition increasing and renewed emphasis on excellence (seemingly being framed as if mediocre was OK before), many are at risk of exclusion from some of the foremost sources of research funding. However, if our commitment to fundamental research is to be preserved at a level which can maintain our future research excellence, we need to invest in potential. At the moment, the losers of increasingly demanding competition risk exclusion for not being judged ‘excellent’ enough. The Wellcome Trust’s long-term investigator awards are praiseworthy, avoiding the stop-start disruption which affects the planning and productivity of labs. But cutting project grants just increases the uncertainty and instability for those who are not lucky enough to secure one of these, which is the majority.

Fundamentally, project grants are increasingly hard to find. Will the paucity of opportunities start to drive researchers abroad – will there be any talent to fill the labs of the Francis Crick Institute in years to come? Are the differences between costs and investments being fully realised?