SEB Bulletin - March 2007
Biosciences Federation news update
Another New Year has arrived. I hope that it brings you all the important things you seek and few of those that you do not.
From a political point of view I fear that the latter will not be true. The discussions about the future of the RAE have now reached a critical point. The momentum towards the abolition of peer review panels and the introduction of a metrics-only based RAE continues. This change is supported strongly by many of your employers! External to Government, the main supporters of the metrics-only approach are University Vice Chancellors and The Academy of Medical Sciences. All other 'academies', including the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institutes of Physics and Biology, and - of course - the Biosciences Federation are strongly opposed to the abolition of peer review panels. We want these panels maintained and we want them informed by robust metrics including those relating to output.
The main argument for change is to reduce costs - including those costs associated with time. We agree that strenuous efforts should be made to implement clear and substantial reductions in the bureaucracy associated with the RAE and believe that there should be serious discussion about how can this be achieved. A metrics-only approach will achieve a cost reduction but this is not at all the right route to follow.
Why do I write this? First, because the BSF holds the view that it is potentially dangerous to rely on an algorithm for an activity as critically important as the RAE. We think it essential that there is some wise evaluation of the quality of the data fed into the formula.
Second, because the BSF thinks that a metrics based formulaic approach will disadvantage some areas of the Biosciences. We are particularly concerned about those important disciplines where research is truly excellent but grant income is low and outputs may be relatively sporadic. Research in Systematics is an example where these anxieties are relevant.
Third, and following from the previous point, the BSF thinks it likely that Vice Chancellors will inevitably move to support most those areas of the Biosciences most suited to whatever algorithm that emerges. These areas will, of course, “do well”.
And finally, and personally, because I have had too many computer-generated letters from non-existent Bank managers based on incorrect information or a “mistake”. I have always managed to receive an apology and charges reimbursed. I doubt that you will get (m)any apologies out of the RAE!
There are quite a few issues emerging that will have an effect on your professional lives. By the time that you read this, I will have met with a Task Force to discuss the BSF response to a paper published by the Research Councils on Peer Review and our response will be on our web site. If you haven't seen the Research Councils' proposals, you might like to download www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/peer/efficiencypr.htm. I don't wish to prejudge our response to these proposals, but I am 100% confident that we will not be 100% supportive - and nor will you!
I am anticipating a busy year. However I don't want all the activity to be reactive. A proactive position, taken at the right time, can often be more influential than “fire fighting”. Ideally, I should like some of the issues where we should trigger debate to come from the Member Organisations. If you have thoughts about important matters to address in the next year or so please
let us have them via your Council representative.
Richard Dyer
Chief Executive, Biosciences Federation
http://www.bsf.ac.uk/