Tonight:
5°c
Scientists like me work in laboratories and teach students. Our skills and expertise are grounded in the extensive training in the laboratory practical classes we received as students. But what awaits the next generation?
Lord Mandelson's higher education framework places greater priority on science, technology, engineering and maths. Yet at the same time we face swingeing public spending cuts: just before Christmas, Lord Mandelson announced the first wave — a £533 million cut for English universities.
For some time already, the average UK undergraduate science experience has declined. Many practical classes have been replaced by demonstrations, group work, essays and electronic “virtual” classes. In some universities we are heading towards a system of “here's-one-I-made earlier” demonstrations, Blue Peter-style. This is no way to train microbiologists or biochemists.
Teaching science is much dearer than teaching non-science subjects. Yet UK students pay the same fee regardless of course. Government funding provides a differential rate of about £2,700 extra for laboratory-based subjects. This is totally inadequate.
In our best universities, research and other hard-won income helps fill this gap. Access to excellent equipment, long laboratory sessions, specialised skills and innovative experiments have all been maintained through support from research grants. Thus those universities that are strong in research are able to give undergraduates a far better experience than those that are not. It has become politically incorrect to say so but some UK degree courses already offer more than others.
Yet good, laboratory-based teaching could be under threat even at universities gaining the best research funding. In the face of cuts, they will need to decide whether it is equal misery for all or whether to provide excellent and expensive laboratory classes only for top students.
I have always been against the accreditation of science degrees — but I have changed my mind. Where it exists, it needs to be strengthened; where it doesn't, such as in the biosciences, the new Society of Biology needs to set a gold standard.
We are also likely to see a dash for cash with overseas students. While a UK student's fees are £3,000, a foreign undergraduate on the same course pays around £13,000. Foreign students make up 20-25 per cent at University College London and Imperial, and nearly 40 per cent at LSE.
The Government's fees review is vital but fees alone will not be the solution. Even if new money flows into science education when fees rise, the temptation will be to reduce funding and increase universities' reliance on private support.
Britain has a tradition of scientific excellence and innovation. Investing in youth has always been one of our strengths. Now, untargeted cuts will damage the UK's science future at its most vulnerable point.
A perfect storm is gathering. Our next generation of scientists will need to look very carefully at the quality of degrees on offer. If we want to train top scientists — to innovate, to find out fundamental truths and to get us out of a recession — this is simply not good enough.
Keith Gull is principal of St Edmund Hall and Professor of Molecular Microbiology at the University of Oxford.
Reader views (1)
Interesing article, I'll be sure to keep a close personal interest on your future articles, Keith.
- Michael Mingos, Oxford, 08/01/2010 21:37
Report abuse
