CAPTIVE KNOWLEDGE

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 13 May 2009

George Monbiot

The Funding for Academic Research Has Been Taken Over by Business

Why is the Medical Research Council run by an arms manufacturer? Why is the Natural Environment Research Council run by the head of a construction company? Why is the chairman of a real estate firm in charge of higher education funding for England?

Because our universities are being turned by the government into corporate research departments. No longer may they pursue knowledge for its own sake: now the highest ambition to which they must aspire is finding better ways to make money.

At the end of last month, unremarked by the media, a quiet intellectual revolution took place. The research councils, which provide 90% of the funding for academic research in Britain(1), introduced a new requirement for people seeking grants: now they must describe the economic impact of the work they want to conduct. The councils define impact as the “demonstrable contribution” that research can make to society and the economy(2). But how do you demonstrate the impact of blue skies research before it has been conducted?

The idea, the government says, is to transfer knowledge from the universities to industry, boosting the UK’s economy and helping to lift us out of recession. There’s nothing wrong, in principle, with commercialising scientific discoveries. But imposing this condition on the pursuit of all knowledge does not enrich us; it impoverishes us, reducing the wonders of the universe to figures in an accountant’s ledger.

Picture Charles Darwin trying to fill out his application form before embarking on the Beagle. “Explain how the research has the potential to impact on the nation’s health, wealth or culture. For example: fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom … What are the realistic timescales for the benefits to be realised?”(3) If Darwin had been dependent on a grant from a British research council, he would never have set sail.

The government insists that nothing fundamental has changed; that the Haldane Principle, which states that the government should not interfere in research decisions, still holds. Only the research councils, ministers say, should decide what gets funded.

This is humbug of the same species as newspaper proprietors use. Some of them insist that they never interfere in the decisions their newspapers make. But they appoint editors who share their views and know exactly what is expected of them. All the chairmen of the five research councils funding science(4), and the chairs of the three higher education funding councils(5) (which provide core funding for universities) are or were senior corporate executives.

These men are overseen by the minister for science and innovation, Lord Drayson. Before he became a minister, Paul Drayson was the chief executive of a pharmaceutical company called PowderJect. He was involved in a controversy that to many feel symbolises the absence of effective barriers between government and commerce.

On 30th November 2001, the British government decided to buy large quantities of a variant of the smallpox vaccine called the Lister strain. The only company which possessed enough of it was a firm called Bavarian Nordic. On December 6th 2001, Paul Drayson was among a small group of businessmen who took breakfast with the then prime minister, Tony Blair. At around the same time, Drayson gave a donation of £50,000 to the Labour party. Soon afterwards, government officials sought to buy the vaccine from Bavarian Nordic.

They were told that they were too late: PowderJect had just bought the exclusive distribution rights for the UK(6). So the government had to buy it from Drayson’s company. It paid PowderJect £32m: £20m more than PowderJect had paid Bavarian Nordic(7). The prime minister’s office and Paul Drayson both refused to answer questions about whether the Lister strain was discussed at the breakfast in Downing Street. It is not clear whether Lord Drayson was aware at that time of the government’s decision to choose the Lister strain.

Drayson doubtless rubs along well with the chairman of the Medical Research Council, Sir John Chisholm. Chisholm founded a military software company before becoming head of the government’s Defence Research Agency. He was in charge of turning it into the commercial company QinetiQ, through a privatisation process which was completed while Lord Drayson was minister for defence procurement. During this process, Sir John paid £129,000 for a stake in the company. Its value rose to £26m when QinetiQ was floated(8). The former managing director of the Defence Research Agency described this as “greed of the highest order”(9).

Lord Gilbert, a former minister of defence procurement, remarked that “frankly the money made by the leading civil servants was obscene. … They did not contribute anything to the turnaround of the company, it was the work of the research staff that made the difference.”(10) Sir John Chisholm remains chairman of QinetiQ. Is there anyone outside government who believes that these people should be overseeing scientific research in this country?

In March Lord Drayson told the Royal Society that “the science budget is safe … there will be no retreat from pure science.”(11) A month later, this promise was broken, when the budget transferred £106m from the research councils “to support key areas of economic potential”(12): which means exchanges of staff and research with industry(13).

Science policy in the United Kingdom is now governed by the Sainsbury Review, which the government says it will implement in full. It was written by the Labour donor, former science minister and former supermarket chief executive Lord Sainsbury. The research councils, the review says, should “be measured against firm knowledge transfer targets” to show that they are turning enough science into business(14).

They have been told to fund £120m of research in collaboration with industry. This has been topped up with £180m from the regional development agencies(15,16). The government is also spending £150m a year “to change the culture in universities: boosting the work they do with a whole range of businesses and increasing commercial activity.”(17) All this is another covert bail-out, relieving companies of the need to fund their own research.

The economic impact summaries they now have to write ensure that all researchers will be aware that the business of the universities is business. As the government’s white paper points out, universities are already “providing incentives (for example promotion assessment)” to persuade researchers to engage with business(18). If your research doesn’t make someone money, you’re not likely to get very far.

Even judged by its own objectives, this policy makes no sense. The long-term health of the knowledge economy depends on blue skies research that answers only to itself: when scientists are free to pursue their passions they are more likely to make those serendipitous discoveries whose impacts on society and the economy are both vast and impossible to predict. Forced to collaborate with industry, they are more likely to pursue applications of existing knowledge than to seek to extend the frontiers of the known world.

But knowledge is not just about impacts. It is about wonder and insight and beauty. Much of it might never have an application, but it makes the world a richer place, in ways which the likes of Lord Drayson would struggle to perceive.

References:

1. Lord Drayson, 17th November 2008. Speech to the British Venture capital Association. http://www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/lord_drayson/venture

2. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/HowToApply/EIFAQs.htm

3. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/EIGuidanceForApplicants.pdf

4. BBSRC: Dr Peter Ringrose – formerly Chief Scientific Officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb
EPSRC: John Armitt – formerly Chief Executive of Network Rail
MRC: Sir John Chisholm – currently chairman of QinetiQ.
NERC: Ed Wallis – currently chairman of W S Atkins
STFC: Peter Warry – currently chairman of Victrex PLC and BSS Group PLC.

5. HEFCE: Tim Melville-Ross – formerly chief executive of the Nationwide Building Society. EFCW: Roger Thomas – formerly senior partner of Eversheds solicitors. Scottish Funding Council: John McClelland – currently Chair of Technology Ventures and NQ Consulting Ltd.

6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/29/politics.freedomofinformation

7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/17/uk.labour

8. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article5683362.ece

9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3622997/Letters-to-the-Daily-Telegraph.html

10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/21/military.immigrationpolicy

11. Lord Drayson, 3rd March 2009. Academy of Medical Sciences Forum Annual Lecture, Royal Society. http://www.dius.gov.uk/generate_pdf?id={4D3CEA50-034E-4174-AEF1-9C2EE8341A48}

12. Page 136, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Budget2009/bud09_completereport_2520.pdf

13. John Denham, April 2009. Letter to stakeholders on Budget. http://www.dius.gov.uk/budget2009

14. Page 11, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/sainsbury_review051007.pdf

15. ibid, p66

16. ibid, p152

17. Lord Drayson, 17th November 2008, ibid. He is referring to the Higher Education Innovation Fund.

www.monbiot.com

GO TO ORIGINAL – MONBIOT.COM

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.