---

Science in Higher Education

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important debate. The funding of science in higher education in England and Wales is becoming a subject of considerable concern to many, my constituents in particular. When, only a few weeks ago, Reading university staff and students heard that senior management at the university, which is in my constituency, proposed to close the physics department, naturally there was shock and dismay. The shock was all the greater given that many had felt that their future was secure, following a review that concluded six months earlier. The review had expressed the hope that, with the right investment, the physics department’s £500,000 per-year losses of the past six years could be turned around. Reading university has a small but very capable physics department, which has built a strong reputation for research into atomic and molecular physics. That is why the university wanted to save it, if at all possible. Since the review, however, the university has been stung by two financial double whammies that would knock the best-run university off course. The new lecturers’ pay settlement and changes to pension arrangements are costly—there is an additional £1 million per year in extra pension contribution alone, and big rises in energy costs and an ever-growing backlog of maintenance to deal with. Those financial blows have set back not only Reading university; many other universities around the United Kingdom are looking closely at where they could make significant savings. The Reading announcement will not be the last that we hear about a department closing this academic year. I would not criticise the vice-chancellor of any university for closing a department, just as I have not criticised the vice-chancellor at Reading. Reading university is extremely well run and is now among the world’s top 200. However, it is profoundly disturbing that the axe seems to fall fastest on the pure science subjects such as physics and chemistry. Since Labour came to power in 1997, something like 19 physics and 10 chemistry departments have closed across England and Wales. About 80 science departments have closed during the past six years. The Royal Society of Chemistry believes that in 10 years’ time, only 40 chemistry departments will be left in England and Wales. Anyone who has read the Institute of Physics report, which covers 10 physics departments in English universities and was published in July this year, will understand why physics is in the same boat. The IOP report found, first, that all 10 physics departments were in deficit, usually heavily; secondly, that they were very dependent on public funding and the metrics used to allocate it; and thirdly, that they had large, fixed costs and out-of-date lab equipment that required substantial additional investment. If universities are to commit substantial funds to physics, they need to be sure that large numbers of students who are attracted to studying the subject can be found. Despite a slight increase in science student numbers in the past two years, no university can base its physics department’s medium-term future on potential big increases in physics students. Of course, when measuring a category called ““science students””, the Government net can be spread fairly widely. However, if Reading university’s experience is anything to go by, the number of physics enrolments has been dropping steadily since 2002, and probably before then, although I do not have the relevant figures. Indeed, this year Reading university is getting fewer than half the physics students that it had in 2002. I am told that this year, even in clearing, there were very few physics students wanting to find university places. However, the trend as measured by those taking A-levels is clear: there has been a big drop in those taking physics since 1997. Some 28,800 students took physics A-level in 1997, but only 24,094 did so in 2005. Many in the profession believe that the dropping numbers are due to two main factors. First, the continuing growth of what some describe as ““easier”” subjects on the curriculum—why would someone take pure physics, when they can take combined science or media studies? Some of the academics with whom I have discussed the issue believe that the overweening importance of league tables in schools has encouraged teachers to push students towards less challenging subjects. Secondly, there is a lack of properly qualified and skilled teachers. Now, 80 per cent. of physics teachers do not have a physics degree; their core skill is believed to be biology. One third of all science teachers have a third-class degree or lower. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has told me that the drop in pure science student numbers since 1997 has been a major concern. It also believes that the increasing numbers going to university without a comparative increase in funding has stretched resources to the limit, with a resultant decrease in the scope and breadth of practical science education. The association believes that the funding of undergraduate higher education must reflect the cost of teaching each subject and recognise the importance of the subject to the economy. Many organisations also believe that the decrease in the funding qualifier weighting for laboratory science undergraduate courses, from 2.1 to 1.7, introduced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 2004, makes it more difficult for universities to justify further investment in laboratory courses or the refurbishment of facilities. That has amounted to a 20 per cent. cut in science teaching and has impacted dramatically on science departments in universities. If the truth be known, it has been extremely damaging. Furthermore, if a department is scored a four under the research assessment exercise, the stepped—or should I say cliff-edge—approach to funding means that many departments will lack research funding. That student and research funding double whammy, set up by this Government, has killed a number of university science departments. I have one final point on funding. Many universities are sick and tired of chasing the multitude of small pots of funding initiatives laid out by the HEFC and others. I was at Reading university only last Friday, and it just so happened that the vice-chancellor had had word of a funding initiative to widen participation for part-time students. That initiative was extremely laudable, but Reading’s share of the pot was £985. One is left wondering whether the impact that £985 can make was worth all the effort of setting up the scheme.