SCI call to arms aims to
halt decline of science education
Closure of university science departments prompt Science &
Technology Committee inquiry and action from SCI
 In
April, The UK Government’s Science & Technology Committee
published its report Strategic Science Provision in English
Universities, which was prompted by the recent spate of university
science department closures and the axing of various science
courses across the UK.
In 2004, several UK universities, including
Exeter, Kent and Queen Mary London, announced they would be
closing their chemistry departments.
Apparently, due to a combination of factors
— namely a long-term decline in the uptake of science,
technology and medicine at universities and a funding system
that allocates the lion’s share of funds to those university
departments that achieve certain standards of excellence —
the closures have caused widespread concern within the scientific
community and beyond.
And for the UK Government, for whom science
is at the heart of their political and economic agendas, the
closures have come as a blow.
As a result of the inquiry and submissions from
a number of Members, SCI rapidly formulated a working party,
headed by Jayshree Mistry of GSK to submit written evidence.
SCI was one of a number of expert witnesses,
including the Royal Society of Chemistry, Chemical Industries
Association and staff and students from affected universities,
to put forward evidence to the Committee.
‘Many of SCI’s Members come from pharmaceuticals,
food, agriculture, chemicals, water, materials, environmental
protection and construction areas, and it is indisputable
that chemistry is a core discipline throughout these areas,’
says Mistry.
‘Rapidly diminishing provision of chemistry
as a subject in many universities will severely compromise
the development of the UK pharmaceutical and biotechnology
industries and affect other parts of the economy.’
The working party made a number of key points
in its submission, and set out a summary of recommendations
to halt the decline in UK science education.
The submission emphasised the importance of
chemistry throughout the spectrum of science, technology and
medicine. This includes not only large numbers of chemists
required for employment in industry, but also chemistry teachers
who are required in large numbers to ensure the provision
of key occupations.
‘Countries that expect enterprises and
institutions based on science, technology and medicine to
play a significant part in their future national economy and
quality of life must expect to invest appropriately in substantial
quantities of high-quality science education at all levels,’
the submission stated.
In particular, the party was keen to convey
that chemistry relies on ‘the stimulus and renewal that
comes from interaction with research workers’. This interaction
and collaboration requires spatially distributed centres of
excellence covering the main centres of population, but also
more specialised centres of excellence in clusters.
The party also recommended a Government-backed
national strategy for the provision of chemistry teaching
in the UK, to meet the needs of industry and also regional
demands.
It suggested that rationalisation of research
provision needs to be better managed and coordinated within
the UK, and that a funding system be implemented that will
enable maintenance of good teaching departments throughout
the country — not all of which should be expected to
engage in research at the highest level.
‘Chemistry is not a dispensable or optional
extra,’ adds Mistry. ‘By closing chemistry departments,
groundbreaking medicine related research and development is
threatened.’
The inquiry, which was published on 5 April,
has called for the Government to overhaul university science
funding or risk losing key science graduates and subsequently
miss out on economic goals.
The Committee has proposed what it calls a ‘radical’
solution to achieve this. Instead of all universities competing
for funds, it recommends that each institution plays to its
particular strengths. With the assistance of a new Regional
Affairs Committee to ensure that each region in the UK has
at least one major research hub in each of the core disciplines,
this ‘hub and spokes’ model would encourage universities
to specialise and collaborate to ensure the provision of research
and teaching in the core STM subjects at a regional level.
The Committee’s report, Strategic Science
Provision in UK Universities, can be obtained from the Science
& Technology Committee's website, www.parliament.uk/s&tcom.
|
