The government’s Efficiency Unit was given 90 days to review 53 science
institutions owned by the research councils and government departments.
Its brief was to find ways to privatise laboratories, rationalise them
or otherwise improve them. The unit will present its recommendations to
Waldegrave next month.

In a statement published last week, the Royal Society accuses Waldegrave
of rushing the review and not consulting properly. ‘This could be an upheaval,
a revolution,’ says the president, Michael Atiyah. ‘The danger is that the
success of the exercise will be measured by the number of places which are
closed. Behind the scenes there is a lot of dirty dealing going on with
»å±ð±è²¹°ù³Ù³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õ.’

But Waldegrave says that although the Efficiency Unit delivers its recommendations
next month, decisions can still be reversed. ‘People who have any views
on the future of these bodies should write to me now,’ he told New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ.

In its statement, the Royal Society says such a hurried and secretive
review of the laboratories cannot provide ‘a secure basis for decisions
on their future’.

Atiyah also questions the remit of the study, saying that it neglected
to address key issues. Many laboratories, for example, have specific missions,
and the review takes no account of how well they would fulfil them if they
were privatised or ‘rationalised’.

It also fails to consider the need for long-term commitment to basic
research or the advantages of some duplication of research. ‘Financial efficiency,
important as it is, must here take second place to the long-term effectiveness
with which government research establishments fulfil their unique missions,’
says the statement.

Trade unions representing staff at the institutions dismiss Waldegrave’s
response as meaningless. Valerie Ellis, assistant general secretary of the
Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, says: ‘They’ve never
indicated before that there’ll be any public consultation. This is just
an afterthought.’

Atiyah says the Efficiency Unit is ‘coming in with preconceived ideas
that establishments should be in the private sector. The scientific objectives
have been left on one side. It seems almost impossible that it (the review)
can end up with sensible answers.’