Britain may abandon whole areas of research and focus its resources
on the things it does best, the government鈥檚 chief science adviser warned
this week. As the government published its annual review of expenditure
on research and development, Bill Stewart said: 鈥業 don鈥檛 think any country
in the world can do everything now . . . We must focus on areas of real
and perceived strength and ensure that these areas are well chosen and that
we lead the world in those fields.鈥� 鈥楤ut we need a strong fundamental base
in basic physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.鈥�
These, he explained, are the subjects that underscore all new fields
of research and are easiest to adapt to fast changing circumstances. 鈥榃e
must not be overprescriptive on the applied topics,鈥� he warned.
Stewart鈥檚 comments offer a clue to what can be expected in a major government
White Paper on science and technology to be published early next year. They
come in the wake of the biggest shake-up for decades in government machinery
for managing science. Following the election in April, the government made
William Waldegrave, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the first minister
for science for 30 years. It also established an Office of Science and Technology
under Stewart鈥檚 direction (This Week, 25 April).
Advertisement
鈥榃e should not let the past dictate where resources might be concentrated
in the future,鈥� said Stewart. He stressed that the government will be seeking
better value for money from what it spends on science.
The review reveals that between 1990-91 and 1994-95, the government
plans to scale down expenditure on R&D from 拢4962.9 million to
the equivalent of 拢4793.6 million. Within that, the government is
to shave spending on civil research from 拢2772.8 million to 拢2686.5
million.
Despite this, and signalling shift in policy, money allocated to the
research councils will rise in the same period from 拢823.3 million
to 拢986.3 million. This week, as the first move in a plan to redirect
research funds, the research councils are to receive 拢150 million
that in the past would have been allocated to the universities through the
Universities Funding Council.
The objective is to exercise more control over the money than if it
was allocated directly to universities, which tend to be less accountable.
The UFC admits this in the review, pointing out that the figures for UFC-funded
research are accurate 鈥榦nly to within plus or minus 10 per cent鈥�.
Research councils and representatives of the university sector make
it clear in the report that they are bracing themselves for a major belt-tightening
exercise. The Science and Engineering Research Council, which was heavily
criticised for its decision to close the Nuclear Structure Facility at Daresbury
in Cheshire, reveals that it is working with the government and with other
research councils to develop new performance indicators.
