CAN A RESEARCH PROJECT BE MADE PRODUCTIVE?
In the increasingly technological age in which we live. the competitive position of
the United Kingdom is of concern to everyone. 'With a limited and fairly highly
skilled population and limited access to raw materials, our striving has got to be
towards higher quality in our science and technology so that industry can maintain
and, if possible, increase its lead substantially over its overseas competitors. Our
position might then be assured and the constant balance of payments crises to which
we are increasingly subject eliminated completely. In the short term, this must be
done by increasing productivity with existing manpower and equipment. There is,
however. a longer-term policy which is my present concern. This is the training of
manpower in science and technology up to the highest possible levels and the
prosecution of research at a level in the universities that enables this manpower to
lead in the chosen fields of study. A lead in fundamental science with a constant
absorption of such trained people into industry will ensure a continued revolution in
technology which, given the conditions, will maintain the country's technological
lead. There is continued talk of this country opting out of advanced technology of
all kinds. The excuses for this move are manifold--small production units, small
markets, lack of people with appropriate training, etc. The danger is that if we opt
out of too many technological activities we shall take irrevocable steps to become a
very third-rate nation indeed. In many cases, there is no need for such a course
provided we face up to the problems involved. The financial resources needed to
mount a substantial amount of university research are so large that it is inevitable it
should necessarily come from the central government. This is a pattern common to
all advanced countries no matter what their political colour. The Science Research
Council, though a large operator in this field, is not the only body concerned. At the
base of the whole scheme are the operations of the University Grants Committee,
which is responsible for providing the greater part of the income of the universities
on average, about 70 per cent. Apart from expenditure on buildings, this money is
designed to cover the general operating expenses of a university, and the university
is free to decide how it shall be spent and in particular how it should be apportioned
between disciplines. It is, however, recognized that the grant is insufficient to
support all the research that can be done by the academic staff. It is expected that
the staff will also have to seek funds elsewhere. These come, of course, from
charitable trusts, private and public industry and Research Councils. Some might
argue that the U.G.C. could supply all the funds that are needed. In that case, the
university might set up its own internal research fund and distribute it on internal
advice from the staff. The alternative and more enlightened view are that it is not
the best way to support research. It would mean that there was then only one source
of government funds. The budgets for the Research Councils for 1966/67 are
In the increasingly technological age in which we live. the competitive position of
the United Kingdom is of concern to everyone. 'With a limited and fairly highly
skilled population and limited access to raw materials, our striving has got to be
towards higher quality in our science and technology so that industry can maintain
and, if possible, increase its lead substantially over its overseas competitors. Our
position might then be assured and the constant balance of payments crises to which
we are increasingly subject eliminated completely. In the short term, this must be
done by increasing productivity with existing manpower and equipment. There is,
however. a longer-term policy which is my present concern. This is the training of
manpower in science and technology up to the highest possible levels and the
prosecution of research at a level in the universities that enables this manpower to
lead in the chosen fields of study. A lead in fundamental science with a constant
absorption of such trained people into industry will ensure a continued revolution in
technology which, given the conditions, will maintain the country's technological
lead. There is continued talk of this country opting out of advanced technology of
all kinds. The excuses for this move are manifold--small production units, small
markets, lack of people with appropriate training, etc. The danger is that if we opt
out of too many technological activities we shall take irrevocable steps to become a
very third-rate nation indeed. In many cases, there is no need for such a course
provided we face up to the problems involved. The financial resources needed to
mount a substantial amount of university research are so large that it is inevitable it
should necessarily come from the central government. This is a pattern common to
all advanced countries no matter what their political colour. The Science Research
Council, though a large operator in this field, is not the only body concerned. At the
base of the whole scheme are the operations of the University Grants Committee,
which is responsible for providing the greater part of the income of the universities
on average, about 70 per cent. Apart from expenditure on buildings, this money is
designed to cover the general operating expenses of a university, and the university
is free to decide how it shall be spent and in particular how it should be apportioned
between disciplines. It is, however, recognized that the grant is insufficient to
support all the research that can be done by the academic staff. It is expected that
the staff will also have to seek funds elsewhere. These come, of course, from
charitable trusts, private and public industry and Research Councils. Some might
argue that the U.G.C. could supply all the funds that are needed. In that case, the
university might set up its own internal research fund and distribute it on internal
advice from the staff. The alternative and more enlightened view are that it is not
the best way to support research. It would mean that there was then only one source
of government funds. The budgets for the Research Councils for 1966/67 are
