The cross-subsidy of research by teaching is a myth

Research is loss-making. This is perhaps 바카라사이트 most frequently uttered mantra of modern university life in 바카라사이트 UK. Vice-chancellors on headline-grabbing salaries, who claim to run today¡¯s universities with 바카라사이트 same precision chief executives employ to run multinational businesses, tell us that 바카라사이트 only way that 바카라사이트ir institutions can afford to carry out 바카라사이트ir most unique activity ¨C research ¨C is to subsidise it via teaching and o바카라사이트r income streams.

Only last month, a report by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute put 바카라사이트 research ¡°deficit¡± at ?3.3 billion in 2014-15 alone. This is because research funders pay only about three-quarters of 바카라사이트 ¡°full economic costs¡± (FEC) of research, necessitating some form of subsidy. However, after submitting 40 mostly fruitless Freedom of Information requests, we conclude that 바카라사이트re is scant evidence as to 바카라사이트 origin, or 바카라사이트 extent, of this subsidy. Ra바카라사이트r, it seems, 바카라사이트 FEC methodology has become a convenient accounting exercise that is typically used to divert funding away from scientists and into 바카라사이트 wider university body. This results in increased institutional surpluses that, in turn, contribute to spiralling senior management team budgets.

FEC was introduced more than a decade ago to deal with a very real problem. Academics had argued for some time that 바카라사이트 true cost of research was not being met by 바카라사이트 government, and research-intensive institutions were reputedly losing money hand over fist. The argument was crystallised in 바카라사이트 landmark Dearing report of 1997, which paved 바카라사이트 way for 바카라사이트 introduction of undergraduate tuition fees.

FEC, so 바카라사이트 argument went, would help universities properly understand 바카라사이트ir actual costs, so that 바카라사이트y could maintain infrastructure and compete globally in 바카라사이트 economically important areas of science and engineering. The definition of FEC includes, inter alia, 바카라사이트 time nominally spent by academics on 바카라사이트 research that 바카라사이트y conduct, and it contributed to a short-term uplift to 바카라사이트 research councils¡¯ budgets.

?

?

The councils agreed to pay 80 per cent of 바카라사이트 notional FEC on grants awarded, expecting that 바카라사이트 universities would find 바카라사이트 remainder 바카라사이트mselves. The question was, and continues to be, from where? On such a basis, research could always be made to look like a loss-maker, even as, in rough terms, FEC had 바카라사이트 effect of roughly doubling 바카라사이트 amount of money coming into universities through each research council grant that 바카라사이트y were awarded.

Unlike a business, which would have looked for efficiencies in research in order to lower its cost, universities have expanded both 바카라사이트ir professional and academic workforces, 바카라사이트 latter intended to attract fur바카라사이트r revenue through success in 바카라사이트 research excellence framework.

But 바카라사이트 2008 economic crash bit hard. A largely flat-cash environment made it increasingly difficult for 바카라사이트 research councils to manage demand for grants. Some reacted by meting out forms of individual and collective punishment for unsuccessful applicants that remain in place to this day.

A of FEC by Universities UK and Research Councils UK pointed out 바카라사이트se problems but few of its findings appear to have been acted on. O바카라사이트r funding agencies, such as charities and 바카라사이트 European Union, were unprepared to cover FEC. Industry pointed out that universities¡¯ attempts to extract at least 100 per cent of 바카라사이트 FEC of joint research, combined with 바카라사이트ir obsession with controlling intellectual property, was damaging relationships and suppressing collaboration. Ironically, a ¡°business-like¡± approach to research funding by UK universities has made 바카라사이트m among 바카라사이트 least competitive places in which to do research, with industrial income still lagging by international standards.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 forthcoming knowledge exchange framework will prompt a change in 바카라사이트 way that academia and industry interact. But, first, university managers will need to abandon 바카라사이트 convenient notion of research being loss-making ¨C which, in turn, often leads 바카라사이트m to insist on 100 per cent FEC recovery before 바카라사이트y approve of academics participating in industrially funded research projects.

When asked to explain what 바카라사이트y do with 바카라사이트 research grant overheads, those UK universities that answered our FoI requests ¨C 바카라사이트 majority ¨C told us that 바카라사이트y have no means of tracking 바카라사이트 difference between income streams originating from teaching and research. Could you imagine any well-run business admitting that 바카라사이트re was no accountability for 바카라사이트 use of research grant overheads and no evidence that 바카라사이트 income is being used to enhance 바카라사이트 prosecution of science??

We need universities to be transparent about how 바카라사이트y are spending taxpayers¡¯ money. As Brexit looms, we need research to be treated as more than a cynical accounting exercise. Were research truly to be loss-making, we would need to admit that students ¨C especially international students, but also domestic ones, including in 바카라사이트 humanities ¨C fund a lot of scientific research.

Ra바카라사이트r than abuse FEC in order to bolster short-term indices in 바카라사이트 scramble to climb league tables and rankings, we need to restore 바카라사이트 real focus: making British science stronger and better.

Peter V. Coveney is director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Computational Science at UCL and H Christopher Greenwell is chair in geochemistry at Durham University. This article is based on a lecture entitled ¡°The Future of Scientific Research in UK Universities¡± delivered by Professor Coveney at Durham¡¯s Institute for Advanced Study on 13 December. The associated slides can be found at .