Short-term research contracts in science and engineering : eighth report of session 2001-02 / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2002
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Short-term research contracts in science and engineering : eighth report of session 2001-02 / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    64/228 (page 16)
    3 July 2002] [ Continued Chairman 119. Up until now I have always thought you were the employers of people in universities. You have identified all the problems but you do not seem to be taking responsibility for sorting the damn things out. All your answers have been that it is somebody else’s fault, blame the Government, but you can always find ways in industry to solve problems when you recognise them. You have not come up with anything yet to say how you are tackling these issues. (Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe) But I do not accept that at all because I think that, having described the problem way back in 1995/96, we did set up with other partners the Research Careers Initiative. That has meant that we now have RCI co- ordinators in the vast majority of institutions. We set out a series of aims for the RCI which have been picked up subsequently by various other initiatives, I am very pleased to say, so a lot more work is being done in this area. We have been monitoring the outputs of the RCI aims every year and we publish a report every year. We have produced a very substantial amount of good practice. We have seen appraisal systems introduced for contract research staff. We have seen training, not in every institution, I know that, but if you look at the statistics, because the research councils are now also monitoring some of the outputs of the RCI, you can see the statistics improve year on year. I am not at all complacent about that. I can see, and you have heard from so many people who are either involved currently in short term contract research or who have been, that there remain a large number of problems. The universities themselves are committed to do what we can through the conditions over which we have control to try to improve that situation. 120. We have been told that the implementation of the RCI is very patchy across the country. Surely you could be tougher about it. You have an influence on the universities and represent them all. You negotiate with them; you talk to them. (Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe) Indeed, and our job is to try to use the influence that we have. I believe that that influence has been effective but there is still a lot more that needs to be done. The question is whether or not, through this initiative and through the other initiatives like the contract research staff good management practice, like the HEFCE funding of the human resource initiative, we can embed solutions for these problems associated with short term contract staff into human resource strategies of institutions because it seems to me that if we continue to deal with this as an add-on we will still have individual institutions not matching what the best are doing. The best are doing very good things indeed. Not all institutions are yet doing their best. 121. So why did we need the Roberts Review then? Why have you not been operating that kind of study into practical solutions to it? Why did we need to have the Treasury ask Gareth Roberts to come in? (Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe) 1 think because the Roberts Review, as indeed the funding council initiative, has been a follow-up to the work that has been done both through the RCI and through the Athena project of unpacking some of these issues and identifying the problems. I hope that the report that Professor Roberts has produced will mean that there are additional resources attached to the changes that are required because without those resources we will continue to try to change some of the systems but it will end up being a considerable degree of tinkering I think you will realise when you look at the outcome of the RAE this year that the impact of an unexpected change in funding, which followed on from a huge extra commitment by staff to improve quality, to deliver the results that were demanded of them, was a kick in the teeth effectively, because the money was not there to support that research and now departments are having to review whether or not they can even maintain some of that research, even though it had been identified as improved and excellent, seems to me to be something that the universities cannot address but, just to go back to the point you made earlier, the Government will have to address. Mr McWalter 122. The Royal Academy of Engineering told us that the Research Careers Initiative was failing for two reasons. One was lack of funds but the other was that universities were not really implementing the policy through their organisations. There was a bit of gesture stuff going on but there was not any real commitment. Is that fair? (Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe) The first part is fair, that there is a shortage of money. I do not think it is fair to say that the university sector as a whole is not addressing these points seriously. I think the amount of effort that Universities UK has put into delivering good practice is testament to that and I think that both we and the unions have signed up to all these areas of good practice. I come back to the point that I realise, and I think we all realise, that progress in some areas is patchy, but there is no doubt that for major research institutions, and perhaps I can ask Glynis to make a comment on this, unless they value their research staff, including their contract research staff, they cannot deliver the excellence which is expected of them in the research area. They cannot generate the research resources that are required in order to maintain their reputations. They are entirely reliant on the quality of their staff to do that. (Professor Breakwell) Obviously, I would agree with that. It seems to me that it would be necessary to give very clear examples of institutions that were not complying with the requirements of the RCI. Blanket statements about being disappointed with the institutions are very difficult to respond to. I can say what my own institution is doing and it is totally compliant, probably more than compliant. One of the reasons that we want to be more than compliant is that if we look now at the development of our human resource strategy and a clear statement of the human resource strategy, this is a fundamental part of that strategy. We are rewarded through HEFCE for developing effective human resource strategies. There is a big incentive to universities to do this well. It baffles me, the suggestion that universities would not be responding to that incentive. It makes no sense. It makes no business sense.