A View to the Fringe of the Carpet. (June 26, 2008)

The latest issue of Nature in its editorial "Unbalanced portfolio" and the News article by Geoff Brumfiel, "Payback time" discusses an issue which has significance for Australia, particularly in the light of the reviews that are underway which will effect Australia's universities, and the research undertaken by their staffs.

As Mr Brumfief points out: "Since 1998, [UK] government funding for the nation's seven research councils has nearly doubled in real terms to around £3 billion (US$5.9 billion) this year. The boost has helped make the United Kingdom an attractive country for science, but as one researcher told Nature the government is using its money to push the country's scientific enterprise towards commercial profitability. “Blue-skies investigator-driven research is getting squeezed out."

In "Unbalanced portfolio" the writer comments: "[Governments] consider it their duty to seek return from the tax monies they spend [on research] — a point of view that is reasonable and responsible for someone in charge of public funds."

But "The trick is to avoid taking too narrow a view of what constitutes a return." Put another way, it is incumbent for a government to be able to look beyond the fringe of the carpet when determining policy and nowhere is this more true when determining science policy.

In Nature's view: "[G]overnment funding officers will often try to measure success with corporate-style metrics and milestones... [But] almost by definition, the frontier of human knowledge is a realm that has no milestones and that encompasses many dead-ends and failures for every advance. Viewed purely by the numbers, researchers' efforts can seem grossly inefficient... Government officials, understandably eager for a return on their investment in science, are encouraging research councils to build partnerships with industry, and are redirecting funds towards societal problems such as ageing and climate change... many of the research councils' chief executives... have willingly gone along with them. The challenge is to strike an appropriate balance. In practice, continued pressures have led some councils to cut their basic-science portfolios... [and] slashed funding for fundamental fields such as astronomy and high-energy physics in favour of innovation campuses and government initiatives."

If what is seen as essentially an attack on basic research continues there will come "a decline in such intangible benefits as inspiring the young and national pride".

But Nature sees a possible reversal of the short-sightedness: "The person responsible for developing advocacy for research council budgets is the director general of science and research, currently absent within government. When Adrian Smith, a statistician currently principal of Queen Mary, University of London, takes up the job in September, he should make it a top priority to ensure that the government fully appreciates the added value of basic science and the costs of its neglect."

TFW is told that Professor Smith is expected by colleagues to do "an excellent job".

In addition astronomer Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society says: "In most respects, I think we're in a fairly healthy situation," but neurobiologist Colin Blakemore, who led the Medical Research Council (MRC) from 2003 to 2007 says: "I think that the Treasury is increasingly questioning the return on its investment in R&D. The issue is what role the research councils should play in research and innovation."

John Denham, the secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills, who oversees the councils says: "We've not sent instructions to the research councils to say that you choose your funding according to whom can show economic return, and points to the government's announcement of a full review of STFC management in response to the criticisms. "Nevertheless," Geoff Brumfiel writes,  "The councils have been 'encouraged' to show where they have created an economic benefit, [Mr Denham saying] such returns will 'strengthen my argument with the Treasury to get more money... There are some strategic, massive problems that we as a society face. We want to be sure that part of the research efforts maximizes our chances of dealing with those problems'".

Mr Brumfiel concludes, however, on not an altogether sanguine note:

Ultimately, in the current difficult economic environment, Willis [Phil Willis, head of the House of Commons select committee on innovation, universities and skills] believes that continued pressure will cause funding for investigator-driven fundamental projects to shrink. “The worst-case scenario is that you go to what I would call a command economy science,” he says. “I think that would spell the death-knell of British research.”