REF impact weighting should be 25 per cent, says Witty

As John Milner says, industry "historically has done both research and development". It also did "blue skies" research. Sometimes at a level superior to anything that went on in universities. (Think ICI, Marconi and IBM.) Not only has industry pulled out of blue-skies research, it does less applied research than it did back then, leaving it focussed on development. Many companies rarely look more than a few years ahead when it comes to R&D. This means that industry now, more than ever, needs universities to do both blue-skies research and "pre-competitive" applied research. It is for the paymasters to decide on the balance between "pure and applied". If taxpayers are shovelling money into research, then it seems reasonable to expect that research to have impact. Academics who do not want to play that game, can find other ways to support their work. Remember, government support for academic research started as a wartime phenomenon. On impact, it should not be beyond the wit of researchers to present their research in a way that demonstrates the impact of even the bluest of blue skies research. Sadly, some of the impact statements I have seen do a or job of explaining the impact of excellent research that has undeniably benefited industry and the other "customers" for research. Sprinkling the I word throughout a submission is not evidence of impact. (Actually, I advocate excising the word wherever possible, especially when used as a verb.) Nor does throwing in yet more academic references. There is still time, just, for universities to hire someone to cast a critical editorial eye over their submissions. Many have already gone down this road.

"There is still time, just, for universities to hire someone to cast a critical editorial eye over their submissions." Is the proposal that the tax-payer should be paying someone to explain what it is that the university department is doing (i.e. more support for administrators and less for teaching and research?) Apologies if I misunderstood. Also, in my view, public support for universities should be in order to protect these institutions from political and economical control; the suggestion that the "paymasters" (where did they get their "money" from, I wonder) should control the direction of academic research would imply that they know better than the academics in charge. If that is the case - they can go ahead without paying universities. If that is not the case - they should realise that too much interference can be very harmful. I am with Paul Nurse on this one (but I wish I could see more evidence at the top of generating policy accordingly...): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/sir-paul-nurse-science-needs-inspiration-not-top-down-allocation/2007984.article