Poorly understood free market principles applied to science funding pose a threat to long-term research, says Derek Roberts.

I am disappointed, but not surprised to see (THES, March 10) that the Office of Science and Technology is considering permitting industry to bid for science vote funds. This is not new. Indeed it was covered in The THES on September 4 1992. It stems from a report submitted on June 26 1992, by the then chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The key phrase was "Research council funding of Government and other laboratories should take place whenever this is appropriate in achieving the best scientific objectives".

Incredibly, this loose and potentially damaging view had been taken at a meeting of the heads of research councils. I can only assume that they felt obliged to respond to Government pressure to apply (badly-understood) free-market principles, and that they wished to be seen purely as "efficient purchasers" of specific research, rather than as protectors of a strategic, long-term research capability.

What has been inadequately addressed is the fact that research council-funded research in universities provides three benefits:

ÖйúAƬ

1. the actual research output itself;

2. the environment (and essential funding) for PhD training;

3. benefits to the undergraduate educational experience gained from exposure to teachers who are also researchers.

ÖйúAƬ

Any flow of funds, which are already inadequate, out of the universities and into industry might at best be justified against benefit 1 but what about 2 and 3?

Furthermore any loss of research council funds for research has financial knock-on effects. One is that PhD training costs have to be subsidised by other research income, the other is that the research element of the ÖйúAƬ Funding Council for England block grant is calculated on a formula which implicitly depends on the level of research council income. Thus any leak of research council funds will be magnified in their impact on a research university. Since academic research, and its attendant education and training benefits, are recognised as vital to the social health and prosperity of the United Kingdom, why take the risk of damaging such a tender and vital plant, for such a marginal (if any?) short-term apparent benefit to industry?

What makes the original heads of research councils/ABRC view so dangerous is not just that it was so ill-thought-through before it was presented to and welcomed by the Office of Science and Technology, but also that it is being pursued against a background of "market" and "relevance" slogans which have a superficial appeal to some, even though the enthusiasts rarely understand their meaning. Unfortunately, one strand of thought running through the original OST White Paper could be interpreted as: "The United Kingdom's competitive position in the world market for manufactured goods has been in long-term decline. This must be because the science base - which has been strong - is not responsive to the needs of industry. Therefore, give industry greater control over the science base."

This is where I challenge the analysis. Yes, the UK's position has deteriorated. However, what is the evidence, sector by sector, that this is a result of inadequate responsiveness by the universities to the needs of industry? Any objective analysis will highlight the significance of such factors as:

ÖйúAƬ

* management, which is inadequately educated, and not trained to think strategically about world market opportunities;

* a history throughout the 1960s and 1970s of atrocious labour relations;

* a short-term attitude in politics, financial institutions and industry.

Given a deterioration in trading conditions, the reflex in too much of UK industry has been to cut R&D and training. I know the market place/customer-contractor arguments, but the logic, as in the case of "Rothschild", assumes an intelligent customer. This is where "Rothschild" failed in practice. To identify as the customer that very sector of the community which has performed inadequately and give that same customer greater authority is, to say the least, risky.

ÖйúAƬ

Derek Roberts is provost of University College London.