David Adam, LondonAfter a national tour of every universitystaff room in the country, the debate overBritain’s Research Assessment Exercise(RAE) finally rolled into the House of Com-mons last week, amid acrimony, name-calling and threats of legal action.

Introduced in 1986, the assessment — anexhaustive audit of university research car-ried out every few years and linked directly tofunding — is widely credited with raising thequality of British science, and has attractedinterest from governments around theworld. But it has not been without contro-versy, most recently when funds could not be

found to reward record increases in RAEgrades awarded by the 2001 exercise (seeNature 414, 834; 2001).

The process has faced even closer scrutinyand much scepticism at home since theresults of the latest audit were announced inDecember last year. On 26 June, the HigherEducation Funding Council for England(HEFCE), the body that operates the RAE,announced a major review to decide whetherand how the exercise should be repeated. “Wewant to get people to look forward to whatwill happen in the future,” says Philip Walker,a spokesperson for the council.

But in the Commons debate on 27 June,Ian Gibson, Labour Member of Parliamentfor Norwich North and chair of the House ofCommons Science and Technology SelectCommittee, said that HEFCE officials hadbeen “arrogant and dismissive” about criti-cism of the RAE. And a group representing theheads of environmental-science departmentswrote to the council on 28 June demanding areview of the way their subject is assessed.

The environmental scientists say that astatistical analysis of the latest audit for theirdepartments reveals irregularities. They saythat their departments scored, on average,two grades lower than departments in otherdisciplines, and complain that there were toofew specialists from their subject on theassessing panel. With no appeal mechanism

open to them, some departments have con-sidered asking a court to overturn the results.

“Possible legal action is being discussedbut it’s expensive and I don’t think any uni-versity would embark on a legal process ontheir own,” says William Stephens, head ofthe Institute of Water and the Environmentat Cranfield University in Bedfordshire.

Last week the HEFCE also published itsresponse to a highly critical report releasedby Gibson’s committee in April. The com-mittee labelled the assessment a “damagingdistraction” and said that it distorts researchpractices, ruins careers and hastens depart-mental closures. The HEFCE retorted thatthere is no hard evidence to support the criti-cisms. Gibson responded that the council is“out of touch with the community it serves”.

Several researchers contacted by Natureside with Gibson. One physicist at a leadingUK university even claims that scientists’names have been inappropriately added toresearch papers to boost their departments’scores in the audit.

But HEFCE officials stress that the RAE hasachieved its goals, adding that critics are tooquick to blame the exercise when unpopulardecisions are taken for other reasons. “Disen-tangling the effects of the RAE from other pres-sures on the sector is not as straightforward asit may appear,” says Bahram Bekhradnia, theHEFCE’s director of policy. ■

news

6 NATURE | VOL 418 | 4 JULY 2002 | www.nature.com/nature

Recriminations inflame UK research debate

Angry scientists march on Moscow in budget protestBryon MacWilliams, MoscowDozens of scientists trekked more than 130kilometres over three days, through heavywind and rain, in a bid to hold RussianPresident Vladimir Putin to a promise onresearch spending. It didn’t work.

In March, Putin pledged to budget 49.5billion rubles (US$1.5 billion) for scientificresearch in the 2003 fiscal year, which beginsin January. But last month, he released abudget proposal that allocates just 35 billionrubles to science.

The long march from Pushchino — a city south of Moscow that houses severallarge biology laboratories run by theRussian Academy of Sciences — was calledby trade unions in protest against scientists’living conditions.

But government officials declined to meetwith union officials and said that the revisedbudget figures would stand. And the march,which began with 30 protesters in theexpectation of gathering support along theway, attracted only about 100 scientists. Thatallowed a closing rally in Moscow on 27 Juneto be dominated by flag-waving members of

the opposition Communist Party, who easilyoutnumbered the marchers.

The latest budget proposal comfortablyexceeds this year’s annual science spendingof 21.7 billion rubles. But union leaderscalled for the march after meeting withministers and failing to win promises ofmore overall spending, better housingallowances for young scientists and

increased grants for graduate students.“Government bureaucrats are

sabotaging the decision of our president tosupport the sciences,” claims Valery Sobolev,chairman of the trade unions of the RussianAcademy of Sciences. Union officials say thatlow wages are forcing researchers to earnmoney from commercial sources, damagingbasic scientific research. ■

Tired and flagging: beleaguered researchers hold a rally to mark the end of their marathon march.

Environmental scientists at Cranfield Universityand elsewhere feel left out of assessment panels.

CR

AN

FIE

LD U

NIV

.

A. Z

EM

LIA

NIC

HE

NK

O/A

P P

HO

TO

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group