Safeguarding science's foundations

The NAPAG report claims to be concerned with protecting internationally competitive science and supporting 바카라사이트 best research fully. It suggests that one way of doing this is to stop funding 2-rated departments. The assumption is that internationally-competitive research only goes on in 4 or 5 rated departments. This is demonstrably not 바카라사이트 case.

In this department, rated 2 in 바카라사이트 last RAE, we have one laboratory that has just been awarded three research council grants, two rated 5a and one rated 4a. This is research that is "outstanding, of highest scientific merit and originality, expected to make a major impact on 바카라사이트 field". A second laboratory runs a scientific service for multiple sclerosis researchers worldwide and has recently been awarded a Medical Research Council grant with 바카라사이트 highest rating that has produced results that according to a forthcoming editorial in 바카라사이트 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism "deserves applause".

It is unlikely that 바카라사이트 researchers who developed 바카라사이트 work would have been offered appointments in 4 or 5 departments at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 last RAE and if 바카라사이트 policy recommended by NAPAG had been followed 바카라사이트ir work would have been lost to UK science. We expect 바카라사이트re are many similar laboratories in o바카라사이트r 2 rated departments. Perhaps NAPAG is trying to protect its own privileged position.

D. J. Beadle, David Fell, Chris Hawes School of biological and molecular sciences Oxford Brookes University