To ask His Majesty’s Government whether any UK Research and Innovation-funded grants to study in UK universities are not open to white or Asian applicants; and if so, what assessment they have made of the appropriateness.
Last year, UK Research and Innovation funded around 1,800 training grants to support about 27,000 PhD students. Some research organisations ring-fence a small proportion of UKRI-funded studentships for groups they can demonstrate are underrepresented in order to break to down barriers to opportunities and address inequality. None of the training grants funded by UKRI entirely excludes white or Asian students from applying for a PhD studentship. Around 1% of all UKRI studentships are ring-fenced by research organisations for widening participation.
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am afraid it is true that white and Asian applicants are told they cannot apply for at least one post, a post-doc post, funded by UK Research and Innovation. This is symptomatic of the capture of the research excellence framework by radical progressive ideology, as evidenced by recent research by Professor Eric Kaufmann at the University of Buckingham. I know that the Minister shares my concern and has recently taken steps to reduce the weight given to equity, diversity and inclusion in the REF. Would he like to take this opportunity to assure the House that, in future, research funding will be based on the applicant’s intellectual merit and not the colour of their skin?
I think the noble Lord may be referring to the scheme run by the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, which is one of the world’s greatest research institutions, with 12 Nobel Prizes to its name. It has rightly taken two posts out of 128 specifically to increase black representation among scientists. This is very similar to what happened in 1995, when the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships made positions for women more easily accessible; that led to a huge number of very successful women scientists emerging as a result of that. In terms of the research excellence framework, there is an increased weighting for research outputs, which I believe to be correct. There is, however, a significant weighting on strategy, people and research environment. A culture where bullying is tolerated, challenge is suppressed and diversity is not embraced is not conducive to great science.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with the multiple analyses of major funders, including UKRI and the US National Science Foundation, which have consistently found that white applicants have higher grant awards than ethnic minority researchers? Indeed, in 2020-21, UKRI PI awardees were 81% white and 1% black. The major reason, I suggest, is that black, Asian and other minority ethnicities are underrepresented in academia; we have just 160 black professors, of whom only a quarter are women. Does the Minister agree that efforts to address these stark inequalities should be welcomed rather than criticised?
Just to add to the starkness of those numbers, it is 160 black professors out of 22,885 professors overall. These are stark figures, and we need to do things to make sure that we get opportunity right. Yes, the figures are also stark for grants. It is interesting that the analysis of schemes that have been put in place already shows that, as a result of those schemes, not only does confidence increase for black scientists but the preparedness and quality of their applications also increase.
My Lords, I welcome the statements from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of the facts involved. Can the Minister assure us that, in scrutinising individual schemes, the Government and the Office for Students will support universities’ and research councils’ ability to use lawful positive action to tackle well-documented disparities in participation and progression in the research workforce?
Yes, much of this was about postgraduate students, but it is true in the workforce. The Office for Students recently issued guidance that makes it clear that staff and students should be free to undertake academic research within the law, and should not be restricted or compromised in any way because of the conclusions that that research may reach, or the views that it supports or any conflict with the higher education provider’s values. There are schemes right the way across the system, including in the White Paper that was recently published, for how to increase participation from multiple groups, based not just on ethnicity but also on socioeconomic deprivation and those with caring responsibilities.
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that funding for PhDs and research in the arts is going to be cut by up to 60%? There has been a huge uproar in the academic world, which believes that this is not right. Of course, science is important; STEM is important, but surely it should be STEAM, which includes the arts as well, which are crucial for our education and our competitiveness.
There is no plan to cut PhD numbers, which are running at about 5,000 per year, funded through UKRI. That makes up about 20% of the total funding, with the other 80% coming from other sources, including from European grants. In the new allocation of funding from UKRI, it will be very clear that the Arts and Humanities Research Council and people in the social sciences will be well provided for.
My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, whatever the merits of diversity in its own right, it cannot be a substitute for academic excellence. If so, does the Minister accept, in this light, that the more research funding is seen to be granted for reasons other than quality and impact, the more we risk loss of confidence in scientific research done in the UK?
Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why it is very clear that there is a focus on excellence in the very scheme that has been referred to, which is among the most excellent in the world in terms of what it searches for. It is worth going back to 2020-21, when the then Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, said: “We recognise that people from minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as other underrepresented groups, face systemic barriers to entering and progressing in R&D careers. We are committed to tackling these barriers to ensure that talent is not lost”. I agree with the last Government on that.
My Lords, I am sure that the vast majority of noble Lords would agree that genuine equality of opportunity in academia and more widely requires a commitment to fair application procedures and continuing concerted efforts to address the obstacles that prevent different groups from accessing opportunities. This includes racial and ethnic groups, lower-income groups and groups from outside of the south-east. Can the Minister outline what steps this Government have initiated to address these barriers that are faced by disadvantaged students—disadvantaged construed in the broadest sense—in accessing different kinds of postgraduate study?
UKRI is clear that, when it allocates grants, particularly for the studentships into doctoral training centres, those organisations should consider increased participation and any disadvantages on the grounds of ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status or caring responsibilities. There are a number of schemes specifically designed to do that—and a number more were laid out in the White Paper—and the analysis of previous schemes has shown that they do have an effect. I referred to one from 1995, which had a very dramatic effect.
My Lords, as someone who cannot claim to have had his career held back, can I also say that the evidence is what is important here? It was evidence that scientists from ethnic minorities were adversely judged, despite their talent and the quality of their application, that led to this necessary positive action. The data clearly shows that. This is based on data, not on any ideological measure.