london

Dearing: reaction to his report will produce far-reaching educational reforms. Credit: PA/MICHAEL STEPHENS

At the beginning of a year that will bring some of the biggest changes in British higher education since the mid-1960s, universities are waiting nervously to see what the recently elected Labour government expects of them for the new millennium.

Despite the doomsayers, research in British universities is flourishing. A survey in 1997 by Sir Robert May, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford and the government's chief scientific adviser, showed that in many fields the quality of research is second only to the United States.

Some see this as a reflection of the success of mid-1980s reforms, in particular rigorous research assessment exercises used by the government as the basis of distributing money to institutions. But others warn that it also reflects relatively high past investment — investment now threatened by government parsimony.

Many such concerns were highlighted in what is inevitably seen as the most important policy document since the Robbins report of the 1960s — the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, under Sir Ron Dearing.

Most publicity surrounding the Dearing report concentrated on the way in which it paved the way for the introduction of student fees, ending the tradition of free university education still cherished by many other European countries. But the report contained other important recommendations for university research.

The government is due to respond with a policy statement in the next few months. An indication of the importance it attaches to university research will lie in its response to the report's complaint — almost universally endorsed — that the main problem facing researchers is lack of funding for infrastructure. Dearing recommended an extra £110 million (US$184 million) a year, although the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) calls this a “serious underestimate”.

Sir Aaron Klug, president of the Royal Society, is one of many who have recently warned that unless adequate money for overheads is provided for in grants from research councils, cutbacks are likely in the overall volume of research that could have a crucial impact on the economy. “This small sum could make a huge difference to the health of the science base,” he says.

Dearing did not suggest any basic change to Britain's cherished ‘dual support system’, which is designed to ensure a balance between ‘core’ funding provided through the four regional higher education funding councils and project funding through research councils.

But, in a further step away from the concept that all universities should automatically qualify for ‘core’ research support — and thus towards US-style research universities — it recommended raising the level of scientific recognition that individual departments must meet to qualify for such support.

Some are arguing that the committee may not have gone far enough. The Council of Science and Technology, the government's top independent advisory committee, says that “over time the qualifying standard may have to be raised further to ensure that the best groups are funded at an adequate level”.

But others are more cautious. The CVCP — perhaps inevitably for a body that represents the collective interests of higher education institutions — agrees with Dearing's suggestions, but argues that the present level of selectivity in funding is broadly acceptable. “We do not want to see an over-concentration of research in too few universities,” it says.

If the government response is expected to indicate how far it is prepared to go down the selectivity road, equally critical is how much it is prepared to nurture creativity among individuals and groups that have yet to establish a robust research track record.

Dearing suggested that university departments that agree not to bid for core research funding should be compensated with £500 for each faculty member to encourage independent ‘scholarship’. This has been widely criticized for lack of focus. But a modified scheme, in which the money would be pooled and then distributed by competition, is said to be gathering support — and could play a key role in ensuring British research is continuously supplied with the new blood it needs.