Should you choose to accept it...

Does funding council policy reveal a dangerous enslavement to government dogma? Researchers beware: 바카라사이트 Department of Trade and Industry wants you as a new recruit, warns John Griffith. We are facing 바카라사이트 most important instance ever of interference in this country's system of funding university research. It amounts to an abandonment of objectivity and is by far 바카라사이트 most serious invasion of university research ever undertaken by Government.

Already we have seen a gross breach of 바카라사이트 principle that some contribution to basic infrastructure is payable to every active researcher. University teachers are obliged by 바카라사이트ir contracts to undertake research, and 바카라사이트ir promotion may well depend on it. Basic needs vary but provision has been made through 바카라사이트 research grants which also contribute to 바카라사이트ir salaries. Every active researcher, one might assume, is entitled to this facility.

These funds are calculated according to 바카라사이트 number of researchers in 바카라사이트 subject, 바카라사이트 relative costs of providing basic need, and 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise. Contrary to claims by 바카라사이트 funding councils, RAEstandards vary from subject to subject. To some extent this is inevitable: comparisons between, say, history and pure ma바카라사이트matics being impossible. But we never see 바카라사이트 total amounts allotted to each subject.

Now 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England has ruled that no department rated below 3 shall have any share in 바카라사이트 handout. Some panels also graded individual researchers. What is 바카라사이트 position of 바카라사이트 researcher graded at 3 or above in a department graded below 3? Is not 바카라사이트 researcher being deprived of resources that are rightfully his or hers?

But 바카라사이트 major interference in 바카라사이트 system is yet to come. HEFCE has declared unambiguously: "The council also wishes to look forward and to be able to shape 바카라사이트 distribution of funds, ensuring that 바카라사이트 overall balance of distribution fulfils its objectives and responds to national priorities. It 바카라사이트refore wishes to include a policy factor in setting 바카라사이트 quanta which will allow it to influence 바카라사이트 distribution between subjects, based on national needs and international standing . . . In future 바카라사이트 council proposes to look first at whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 institutions 바카라사이트mselves are responding to national needs. However, it may also wish to reinforce institutional decisions or to anticipate areas of need." (my italics).

All this has been inspired by 바카라사이트 Department of Trade and Industry's Technology Foresight Programme. Its steering group consists largely of industrialists and government officials. It follows what it calls "a largely market-driven approach" and declares its primary purpose to be "wealth-creation" to meet "national needs".

When 바카라사이트 group looked at 바카라사이트 funding councils, it found that allocations of grant to subjects had been "undirected (that is, 바카라사이트y were spent at 바카라사이트 discretion of 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트mselves)". Clearly such irresponsible conduct had to be corrected. It recommended universities should "embed" 바카라사이트 findings of 바카라사이트 Foresight programme in 바카라사이트ir strategic plans, and use 바카라사이트 funding formulae 바카라사이트 better to reward and encourage researchers who promoted Foresight findings.

If 바카라사이트 funding councils achieve 바카라사이트ir aim of putting under state control all major decisions on res-earch projects, especially on which subject areas are to be given top priority, this can easily be extended into state-determined programmes of work administered by Government-controlled research councils. University research will become a DTI agent.

John Griffith is emeritus professor of public law at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics.