1

REVIEW OF THE

CHEMISTRY/CHEMICAL ENGINEERING INTERFACE WITHIN THE UK (2010/11)

2

In the words of the community………. “Analysis by the Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network of the Department of Business Innovation and Skills 2009 R&D Scoreboard has revealed that chemistry, chemical engineering and biology taken together underpin some £800bn of activity in the UK economy covering all sectors from aerospace and automotive to transport and health care. These attractive markets are under continual pressure from cheaper labour countries, more expensive raw materials and increasing energy prices. Government regulation and societal concerns are driving the need for further changes to increase sustainability in raw material usage, water usage, CO2 emissions and product recyclability. These effects combine to produce an intense pressure for innovation both in products and the processes needed to manufacture them. This requires integration between the basic sciences and the engineering disciplines to create the most creative and efficient innovation system we can imagine. Linear innovation - where the chemists hand it onto the chemical engineers and the process moves only forwards - is no longer sufficient - we need these steps to merge together so that the art of engineering the possible is combined with the science from the word go. With the UK’s imperative to rebalance the economy toward manufacturing, we need to get the maximum we can from our research and innovation processes to give the maximum opportunity to make progress.” ……………………………………………….. “Some of society’s biggest challenges e.g. carbon capture, are essentially chemical engineering problems. But, solutions to these problems often depend on new science. It is vital that these scientific developments are translated quickly into engineering solutions. This cannot happen without workers or teams at the science/chemical engineering Interface. The chemistry/chemical engineering Interface is one of the most obvious of these. Put simply, engineering on its own tends to provide incremental change. Step change tends to need science and chemical engineering to work together.” ……………………………………………….. “Lets face it, the major societal changes, e.g. clean water and carbon capture etc are not going to be solved unless these two disciplines work together!!”

3

INDEX

Page 1. Executive Summary 4

2. Review Objectives 6

3. Background 6

4. Review Methodology 7

5. The Need for a Strong Chemistry - Chemical Engineering Interface 9

6. Review Outcomes

Part 1: Review of Interventions: 2002 – 2008 11

Part 2: Health of the Interface 15

Part 3: Opportunities and Barriers 17

7. Conclusions 21

8. Recommendations 23

9. Annexes

Annex 1: List of Directed Research Funding opportunities targeted/relevant 25 to the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface (2000 – 2008)

Annex 2: Review Panel Membership 27

Annex 3: Copy of Online Surveys: Questions and Results 28

Annex 4: Head of Department Telephone Interview Proforma 105

4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2010, an expert panel of UK based researchers was convened by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) to review the impact of past interventions in support of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface and the current health of this interface. Three different types of previous EPSRC intervention at the interface were assessed. These were discipline hopping awards, networking workshops and directed funding opportunities (a variety of managed calls). The panel concluded that the effect of the interventions had been substantial and, to some extent, persistent. However, the initial focus which the interventions had provided had declined and substantial loss of momentum had been experienced. This was felt to be a matter of immediate concern because of the importance of this interface in UK research generally as well as its role in supporting the chemical-using sector, one of the top three industrial sectors in terms of providing social return on research capital invested. Looking at the detail of the interventions, the building of collaborations was found to be a common strong feature of each of them with many showing a longevity well beyond the single PhD timescale. All three mechanisms led to a higher impact on the individual than the research landscape. The discipline hopping awards were most successful at building multidisciplinary teams of chemists and chemical engineers. The directed funding opportunities had the highest overall impact with more people involved, a wider range of junior/senior people and best balance of impact on individuals and landscape. While the impact of all the interventions was felt to be good, the rate of change has been slow, particularly in recent years and without continued intervention (especially engagement with end-users) the gains made so far could easily be lost. Regarding the health of the interface, the panel believes that there has been improvement since the EPSRC interventions. The community perception was that the numbers of researchers working at the interface has increased, although there was broad agreement that insufficient funding is available. There also appears to be an opportunity for improved training at this interface, although there were different perceptions among those surveyed about the needs at graduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral career stages. Overall, the flow of ideas across the discipline boundary was perceived to be much better within industry than within academia, or between academia and industry. University structure was not considered to be a huge barrier to collaborative working at this interface by many heads of department, but the majority of other stakeholders feel that it is. Forums for better community engagement were perceived to be an important future need, but views differed about whether there were sufficient opportunities according to stakeholder group (by discipline and industry versus academia). Although there was an overall belief that insufficient funding opportunities were available, it was apparent that awareness of those opportunities that are available was poor; this creates an opportunity for better communication and awareness among researchers. A perceived barrier to the training of researchers with skills at the interface was the lack of crossover of personnel from one discipline being appointed to the department of the other, especially in Chemistry departments. Overall, while there remained significant awareness of the importance of a healthy interface, it was not a sufficiently high priority for all of the community stakeholders involved in the study. This was surprising given its high economic significance and the enormous role that it will play in seeking answers to the Grand Social Challenges of the next decade.

5

Main Recommendations EPSRC should consider:

• taking immediate action to reverse the decline of the last few years in the Research community’s focus on the interface. This should involve treating this interface as a key priority under the new objectives of the Engineering Programme: (safeguarding long term research, inspiring leaders and shaping the research portfolio). In particular EPSRC should consider:

o seeing the interface as being an area of the portfolio which should be actively shaped o facilitating and stimulating greater leadership and support, ensuring more high quality

proposals and/or fellowships at the interface o undertaking further studies encompassing an international comparison of this

interface and researcher behaviour in the UK o considering how a continuing strategic overview of the health of the interface may be

maintained o targetting support for cohort-based training at the interface (with high levels of dual

supervision) o improving communication of opportunities and achievements through other sources

of support, eg the Energy Programme o by considering how to help the community set up and participate in the establishment

of an ongoing activity to identify important challenges at the interface Universities should seek to:

• minimise any barriers to collaborative working created by internal structures by encouraging activities likely to bridge disciplines, particularly, where necessary, across Faculties.

• encourage joint project supervision, joint academic appointments and consider inclusion of relevant interface material into courses to increase employability of graduates

• capture the interest and participation of senior industrialists and facilitate industrial/academic engagement

Professional bodies should:

• indentify ways of ensuring that the interface remains as high as possible up the agenda of all relevant bodies

Industry should seek to:

• increase buy-in to interface-nurturing activity and participative leadership of processes used to identify challenges

• continue to stimulate world class work at the interface • work in conjunction with RCs, professional bodies etc to increase the esteem associated

with work at the interface • communicate benefits widely where significant commercial advantage is gained from

working with academia at the interface Individual researchers should:

• increase awareness and embrace the breadth of opportunities to work at the interface The community as a whole should:

• seek to set up and participate in a National Endeavour to ensure that the UK has a world class Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface in its research activities. This should involve increased funding and greater participation from the widest possible range of sources. It should be strongly supported by an effective process of communication which enables our high quality work to be understood, influenced and accessed by all stakeholders to a much greater degree. In view of the crucial importance of this interface for facilitating social

6

progress and addressing 21st century engineering problems, it should be linked very clearly to the National effort to address the Grand Challenges.

2. REVIEW OBJECTIVES

Last year the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) undertook a review of the chemistry/chemical engineering interface within the UK. This review comprised of three parts:

a) An evaluation of the impact of various EPSRC interventions (in the period 2004 – 2008) aimed at facilitating and fostering closer interaction between the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering disciplines,

b) An assessment of the current level of collaborative working between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,

c) Identification of barriers or opportunities for collaborative working between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.

The review findings and conclusions will be taken forward in discussion with the Physical Sciences and Engineering Strategic Advisory Teams and will be a major input to future strategy development within the EPSRC. This document presents the outcome of this review activity, and the panel’s recommendations.

3. BACKGROUND

In 2002 the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface was highlighted by the DTI report “Enhancing the Competitiveness and Sustainability of the UK Chemicals Industry” as an interface of major importance to UK plc. At about the same time a delegation of UK Chemical Engineers went to the US to review the strategy and structure of Chemical Engineering Research there. One of the key recommendations made by the group in their report “Changing the Culture: A report to the EPSRC on the Strategy and Structure of Chemical Engineering Research in the USA” was that “the UK should focus more research effort at the boundaries between engineering and science”. Furthermore, the International Review of Chemistry “Chemistry at the Centre: An International Assessment of University Research in Chemistry in the UK” (coordinated by the Royal Society of Chemistry, commissioned by the EPSRC) published in 2003, identified that “Chemistry has relative little contact with chemical engineering in the UK, and chemical engineering (although not explicitly reviewed by the committee) seems more narrowly based here than elsewhere”. As an initial response to the International Review of Chemistry, the EPSRC in conjunction with the RSC and IChemE held a community workshop in December 2004, with participants representing Chemistry and Chemical Engineering from academia and industry, as well as key personnel from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). This workshop identified key issues and opportunities at the interface, and highlighted the importance of both short-term and long-term actions and activities involving all levels of the community. It also called for greater engagement with both the RSC and the IChemE.

In response, the EPSRC supported a number of community building activities at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface, which are summarised below:

• Discipline Hopping Awards (DHAs)1

• A range of Networking Workshops (NWs),

2

1 In 2004/2005, the EPSRC held two three-day Discipline Hopping workshops for early-career academics and industrialists from both Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (invited participants included EPSRC’s Advanced Fellows and First Grant holders) to develop Discipline Hopping Awards to allow young academics to “hop” into the other discipline or into industry. In total 11 Discipline Hopping partnerships were funded as a direct result of these two workshops.

.

7

• A range of Directed Funding Opportunities (DFOs) through a number of managed calls3

In conducting this review it was taken as axiomatic by the working group that whilst the focus of this report was for work at the interface of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, this did not imply that support for either of the pure disciplines should be diminished. The interface was conceptualised as composing those activities (including by way of example teaching and research) for which some combination of chemistry and chemical engineering skills are required for optimal impact.

The September 2010 report, published by the RSC4

provides clear evidence of the economic benefits of research in this field. In 2007, the UK’s upstream chemicals industry and downstream using sectors contributed a combined total of £258 billion in value-added. This was equivalent to 21% of UK GDP, and supported over 6 million UK jobs. The UK’s chemicals industry is shown to be a major source of UK exports, accounting for 15% of the goods exported by UK companies. The report suggests that the exploitation of fundamental chemistry research is indispensible to the solution of some of the most important technological and societal challenges facing both the UK and the wider world. Examples identified include climate change, energy, security, food supply and health. Annex 7 of the report analyses the case for investing in a strong research community demonstrating that this sector is one of the leading sectors in UK manufacturing in terms of delivering high levels of social return on research investment. The Panel took the view that a strong interface community is an essential part of this activity.

4. REVIEW METHODOLOGY

The core principle of the methodology was that it should be informed by a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data, and that this should be gathered using a mixture of surveys, telephone interviews and desk-based research (information from EPSRC and other sources where appropriate and possible). The approach is summarised below:

Expert Peer Review A small Peer Review Panel (Annex 2 for panel membership) of UK research chemists and chemical engineers was established to provide expert judgment on the evidence collected and provide additional anecdotal information.

The Panel met three times, firstly on 1st July 2010 to be briefed on the review objectives and process, and to examine and advise on the contextual data and information to be provided for the review. They met again on 23rd November 2010 to undertake the actual review, and finally on 25th January 2011 to draft a Review Report, with findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Surveys A set of three surveys were generated; one to gather information from individuals awarded discipline hopping grants, another for participants at the Networking/Discipline Hopping workshops, and a third from applicants responding to EPSRC funding opportunities targeted at or relevant to this interface in the period 2000 to 2008 (Annex 1 gives a list of all relevant calls).

2 In 2006, the EPSRC in partnership with the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and the Institute of Chemical Engineering (IChemE) organised two thematic Networking Workshops entitled “Delivering Sustainability and Green Chemical Technologies” and “Chemistry and Engineering for Life”. 3 In order to build on these Discipline Hopping and Networking activities, the EPSRC issued a variety of funding opportunities which targeted or provided an opportunity to develop research activities at the Chemistry/ Chemical engineering interface around this time. These are listed and summarised in Annex 1. 4 “The Economic Benefits of Chemistry Research to the UK”, Report prepared by Oxford Economics, Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry, September 2010. www.rsc.org/images/Economic_Benefits_of_Chemistry_Sep_2010_tcm18-191337.pdf

8

A second set of surveys was used to gather views from a broad community of stakeholders; one was a general survey open to anyone working at, or with a view on this interface within the UK. A second survey targeted the Heads of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering departments within UK universities for their views. Copies of all the surveys and a summary of the responses can be found in Annex 3.

Survey Response Rates Discipline Hopper’s Survey (DHS) – live between 23rd August and 29th October 2010 23 recipients of discipline hopping awards were requested to complete an online survey; this produced 20 returns, giving a response rate of 87%. Networking Workshops Survey (NWS) – live between 23rd August and 29th October 2010 Workshop participants* were requested to complete an online survey. Of the 98 contacted**, 26 submitted information, giving a response rate of 27%.

*Please note: that those participants that were awarded a discipline hopping grant were asked to complete the Discipline Hopping Survey (DHS).

** that each of the four workshops had approximately 40 participants, once duplicate names, industrial participants, and uncontactable attendees had been removed the total number of workshop participants reduced to 98. Directed Funding Opportunities Survey (FOS) – live between 23rd August and 29th October 2010 600 applicants*** (regardless of outcome) to a variety of targeted/relevant EPSRC funding opportunities (Listed in Annex 1) were asked to complete an online survey. This produced 113 returns, giving a response rate of 19%.

***total includes principal and co-Investigators Stakeholder Survey (SS) – live between 21st August and 19th October 2010 An online survey was used to gather information and views on the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface, from the broad stakeholder community within the UK. A link to the survey was advertised on the EPSRC website, sent directly to chemists/chemical engineers of the EPSRC College and distributed on our behalf by a number of organisations that included the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), and Chemistry Innovation KTN. In addition to this we used a number of contacts to raise awareness within industry (via EPSRC Business Relationship Managers), and Universities (via SAT members, Research Office contacts) of the stakeholder survey. In summary, a total 226 submissions were received of which 47% were from individuals based in Industry, 47% were from individuals based in academia and 6% felt they fitted neither category, e.g. retired, government, consultant. An alternate cut of the 226 submissions shows that 62% of these were from Chemists, 16% from Chemical Engineers, and 15% from individuals that considered themselves to be both. Where it was felt to be appropriate and beneficial, dividing the survey responses into different cohorts allowed the survey responses to be analysed by discipline (Chemistry vs Chemical Engineering) or employment environment (Academia vs Industry). Head of Department Survey (HoDS) – live between 23rd August and 5th October 2010 We invited the Heads of 39 Chemistry and 18 Chemical Engineering departments within UK universities to complete an online survey in order to gather their views on the current health of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface, in particular:

• The current level of multidisciplinary working • The supply of trained people • The level of integration between the two disciplines

In total we received 34 submissions, giving a response rate of 60%.

9

Head of Department Telephone Interviews In order to probe further the views of departmental heads, several responders to the online Head of Department survey were approached for, and agreed to participate in, a phone interview. In total six phone interviews were conducted. These were split evenly between heads of Chemistry and Chemical/Process Engineering departments. A copy of the interview proforma that formed the basis of the phone interview can be found in Annex 4. Contextual data In addition to the Survey responses, the Panel was provided with additional contextual data on the EPSRC research and training portfolio and the UK Chemistry/Chemical Engineering landscape.

This included data about EPSRC’s recent and current support for research and training at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface, and comprised the following:

• List of EPSRC discipline hopping grants awarded at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface.

• Host department of the researchers funded via the directed funding opportunities at this interface

• Analysis of EPSRC responsive mode proposals (2000 – present day), this included • level of co-funding between the Engineering and Chemistry programmes (now Physical

Sciences and Process, Environment and Sustainability programmes) • proportion of proposals were the applicants (PI and co-Is) are based in both Chemistry

and Engineering departments

• List of EPSRC postdoctoral mobility awards at the interface (2001 – 2010)

• List of EPSRC Centres for Doctoral Training, and Industrial Doctoral Centres at the interface

Additional information was compiled on the broader UK landscape at the interface between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and included the following:

• FP7/EU funding for research at the interface (from the Cordis database)

• List of Fellowships at the interface (from the Cordis & EPSRC databases) that included • Marie Curie fellowships (2007 – 2010) • RCUK fellowships (2003 – 2010) • EPSRC research fellowships at the interface awarded (2003-2010)

• Database of research themes in UK chemical engineering and chemistry departments The review panel used these qualitative and quantitative inputs to draw the conclusions that form the main body of the report. 5. THE NEED FOR A STRONG CHEMISTRY- CHEMICAL ENGINEERING INTERFACE The Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network’s (CIKTN) Strategy report of June 20105

5 “Chemistry Innovation’s Strategy Report”, Published by CIKTN, June 2010,

makes the point that, in order to prosper, Britain needs to ensure that the right policies and investment in skills, infrastructure, innovation and science are in place to ensure sustainable long-term growth. Within this climate, the chemistry-using industries have an opportunity to make a major contribution but success will depend critically on innovation. Chemistry, chemical engineering and biology, taken together, underpin some £800bn of activity in the UK economy covering all sectors from aerospace and automotive to transport and health care. Chemistry and chemical engineering are thus key enabling disciplines for a major part of the UK economy. The chemical and

www.chemistryinnovation.co.uk

10

pharmaceutical sectors alone are worth £113 billion per annum of sales whilst other sectors, such as home & personal care, food & drink, polymers, crop protection, lubricants, which are highly dependent on chemistry and chemical engineering to support their products and processes, constitute a further £226 billion annual turnover. Added to these, a further £523 billion of sales comes from sectors including oil, gas, materials and electronics, all of which require a substantial interface input in support of their business. A similar picture emerges from the report6

prepared by Oxford Economics on behalf of the Royal Society of Chemistry which shows that in addition to the massive value added (over 21% of GDP) these sectors generate over 6 million jobs for the UK. The UK’s chemicals industry is shown to be a major source of UK exports, accounting for 15% of the goods exported by UK companies with a regular surplus on overseas trade. The analysis in that report suggests that the chemicals using sector is one of the top three in the UK in the delivery of social return on research capital invested.

In addition, as Sir William Wakeham pointed out in his inaugural address when becoming President of the IChemE, many of the world’s great future challenges, for example climate change, energy supply and demand, safe water, nutrition and affordable medicines require new chemical technologies, based on a multidisciplinary systems approach, to address them. The interface is also crucial in progressing new approaches to ensuring that products and processes can be developed safely in ways which are sustainable. In order to ensure that the UK remains competitive in a global economy it is vital that the UK chemistry-using industries continuously innovate. Innovation, alongside sustainability and differentiation, is essential to build and preserve successful chemicals-using businesses operating in the UK It has long been recognised by the UK Government that for a sector such as this to innovate successfully, interdisciplinary research is required. This thread runs through the CST report of March 20107 and has been re-emphasised in a recent pronouncement by the current Minister of State for Universities and Science.8

The interdisciplinary interface which most underpins this important sector is that between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering The need for EPSRC to encourage this interface to prosper can be seen when its stated priority research areas are examined. On the EPSRC web site9

• Digital Economy these are listed as:

• Energy • Nanoscience through engineering to application • Towards next-generation healthcare • Ageing - lifelong health & wellbeing • Global uncertainties • Living with environmental change

At least five of these areas are within the industry sectors listed by the CIKTN in their strategy report, as being highly dependent on chemistry to support their products and processes. Again it is noted that success will be based on the interplay between Chemistry and Engineering. Thus the risk, for EPSRC, of not nurturing a healthy chemistry/chemical engineering interface will be a significant impairment of their ability to deliver on priority research themes. 6 “The Economic Benefits of Chemistry Research to the UK”, Report prepared by Oxford Economics, Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry, September 2010. www.rsc.org/images/Economic_Benefits_of_Chemistry_Sep_2010_tcm18-191337.pdf 7 “A Vision for UK Research”, Published by the Council for Science and Technology, March 2010. http://www.bis.gov.uk/cst/cst-reports#vision 8 “Endorsing Excellence”, Willetts, D., Public Service Review: UK Science and Technology, Issue 1, pp12-13. 9 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/plans/pra/Pages/default.aspx

11

6. REVIEW OUTCOMES PART 1: REVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS: 2004-2008 Discipline Hopping Awards In the period 2005-2007, twenty three awards10

were sponsored by EPSRC to undertake multidisciplinary research at the chemistry/chemical engineering Interface. These were focussed upon early career researchers from both disciplines. The typical value of funding per proposal ranged from £70k to £160k. Twenty academics out of the twenty three principal investigators responded to the survey (a response rate of 87%) with a roughly even split between Chemists and Chemical Engineers.

The discipline hopping awards provided a clear opportunity to those who were proactive to broaden their research horizons and research skill sets, to raise their profile within the wider community and to meet new collaborators. These awards were also perceived as a vehicle to gain a competitive research advantage. Although the survey shows that at the time of this intervention the majority of the respondents were already part of a multidisciplinary team, with some 55% already working at the chemistry/chemical engineering Interface, there is clear evidence that the discipline hopping awards did lead to new directions (85% of respondents said that this enabled the development of some new research directions and 10% said that it totally changed their research focus). The majority of the participants were shown still to be actively involved in research at this Interface today. Amongst those who received the discipline hopping awards, a significant portion of follow-on funding was obtained from EPSRC (about 62%) with a small percentage from industry and the European commission (about 10%). This differs from the respondents across the DFO’s where the follow-on funding was secured from a wider range of sources and is split more evenly between industry and EPSRC. In most cases, academic partners (UK or International) were the typical project partners for follow-on research funding obtained after a discipline hopping award. The longevity of these collaborations was reported to be good, in the majority of cases between 3-6 years. This is well beyond a single PhD studentship and provides important evidence of sustainability in the new collaborations. The survey also shows that these new collaborations were developed and maintained with funding not directly attributable to the discipline hopping awards. The availability of funding therefore brought people together and provided an incentive for ongoing collaboration regardless of subsequent success or failure in receiving a discipline hopping award. Thus there was evidence of enhanced gearing in the sense that there was a greater positive effect than the simple support of twenty three awards. The discipline hopping awards did not bring individuals into much contact with industry and/or users. It was noted that this might simply be the result of the focus of the discipline hopping scheme upon early career individuals so that, in the longer term, there may be better impact in terms of user engagement. The data from the survey has been represented on spider diagrams (see below). These plot the Panel’s agreed perception of the impact of the intervention against a number of axes simultaneously. It is important to notice that the axes in the two diagrams do not carry the same weight, nor are they necessarily linear. The diagrams do show the Panel’s clear perception that the discipline hopping awards were seen as very successful for the individuals and tended to have the second highest impact after direct funding opportunities. However, as it was a relatively small activity representing the smallest cohort, it also had the least impact on the research landscape. Once more it was observed that, in another 5 years, the impact on the research landscape might well be more profound as the discipline hoppers move into more senior positions within the 10 These twenty three individual awards corresponded to 11 Discipline Hopping Partnerships

12

community. This was perceived by the panel not as a criticism of this specific intervention but rather an observation that the timescale for true impact might be longer than is currently available for assessment. Whereas there is clear evidence that the recipients of discipline hopping awards have disseminated the results of their research beyond the individual, there was felt to be a disappointing lack of joint authored papers and joint supervised students. The new research outputs and knowledge gained through the discipline hopping awards did not appear to have an impact at taught undergraduate level. This suggests that work still needs to be done to make the barriers between the two disciplines ever more porous. This is a process that should encompass university structures and involve the professional bodies, in order to enable better, more efficient communication at the Interface; a point strongly brought out by the responses from the HoDs survey. Networking Workshops In the relevant period, two networking workshops were held by EPSRC/RSC/I Chem E. These were “Delivering Sustainability and Green Chemical Technologies” (June 2006) and “Chemistry and Engineering for Life” (November 2006). There were approximatly 40 participants at each workshop and these were selected from a wide field of applicants. Of the three types of interventions being considered, networking workshops were considered to be the least likely to yield a very positive response since no funding of individuals was actually involved in the process. The prevailing view was that it could be taken as “an act of faith” that these workshops would have some positive influence simply by dint of the fact a large of number of people volunteered to take part and a significant number of responses were received from the participants (27%). Overall, it was clear that the events provided an opportunity for previously separate communities of chemists and chemical engineers to meet and to develop new ideas and strategies that might impact in the longer term. These events could also have influenced the positive attitudes from those of the community that participated in the subsequent 2008 Grand Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, which should also be considered as a workshop. One very strong and overriding observation that came through from the personal comments in the responses was that any intervention designed to create interactions at the Interfaces between chemistry and chemical engineering was likely to have good longer term consequences. Turning to the evidence base and the responses from workshop attendees presented in the attached spider diagrams, it was clear that there were impacts on individuals who attended the workshops. Primarily in terms of stimulating new thinking and new research directions and even in some cases new career directions. Quite clearly, the “proof” of these statements requires that some of these impacts are seen to come to fruition and this can only be apparent in the longer term. However, four years later, it is clear that some responders to the questionnaires very clearly are of the opinion that the workshops influenced their career directions. In addition, it should be noted that the impact upon the overall landscape was always likely to be much more long term but the general view of the responders was that these network events had been important and that further interventions along these lines should be considered to maintain momentum and certainly to maintain and enhance the opportunities for cross-fertilisation between chemistry and chemical engineering. Directed Funding Opportunities EPSRC carried out a series of managed calls targeted at the chemistry/chemical engineering Interface but with different points of focus. These ranged from physical organic chemistry to high throughput methods and included other events in which the community developed the focus of the areas of funding by a sandpit type arrangement. The questionnaire targeted all applicants for these

13

funding opportunities and responses were received from 113 out of 600 potential respondents (19%). These interventions have very clearly had the strongest impact, forming, as they do, the outer envelope on both spider diagrams. Notwithstanding the potential for bias due to responses being received primarily from those individuals who were successful and funded, there is clear evidence of success for these directed funding opportunities. Particular examples that were noted by the Panel include a senior Chemistry PI who not only became a fellow of the IChemE but who also sat on its Council and a chemist, appointed in a chemical engineering department and subsequently promoted to Professor, on the back of a funded project. These could be said not only to have had a strong impact on the individual but also on the research landscape as a whole. Significantly, therefore, the diagrams show that while there has indeed been a substantial effect on the individuals concerned, there has also been a significant change in the overall research landscape with initiation of further research, increased cross fertilisation of ideas and increased number of multidisciplinary teams all scoring highly. However, what was very apparent across the vast majority of responses was that the act of just preparing proposals overcame significant barriers and stimulated cross disciplinary research activities regardless of whether the grant itself was successful or not. In most cases, new collaborations were initiated in response to the funding opportunity, and most of those collaborations were subsequently nurtured for significant time periods 3 to 6 plus years by use of alternative funding sources including departmental PhD studentships and cross subsidy from other research projects. Comparison of Interventions In summary, all the interventions, somewhat inevitably, were felt to have had a lower impact on the research landscape than on the individual. It was hardest to measure the impact of the networking workshops and these were perceived as something worth doing because they offer good value for money. Building collaborations is a strong feature of all the interventions. Many of these collaborations showed longevity, indicating that the Interface possesses the capacity to be self-sustainable, albeit at a low level. The discipline hopping grant holders have generally been most successful at building multidisciplinary teams of chemists and chemical engineers to undertake their research at this Interface. Directed funding opportunities were, however, felt to have had the biggest impact, on both the individual and the landscape with more people involvement, a better range of junior/senior people involved and the best balance of impact on individuals and beyond into the landscape. It is clear from the responses that there is now much more willingness to collaborate across the disciplines and more activity at the Interface – even if might be argued that some of this might have happened anyway. Funding is a great incentive but not the whole answer, as there are other barriers which include overcoming differences in language and research management structures. The overall impact of all the interventions on the chemistry/chemical engineering Interface landscape was good, but the rate of change has been slow and in the absence of further intervention, particularly to engage with industry end-users, the initial momentum is being lost. Clearly, there is a role here for funding agencies to play, with an ongoing focus upon developments of the Grand Challenges approach involving a greater buy in from a broader range of Stakeholders. It also seems clear that there has been significant impact on individuals across all of the key factors assessed by the panel and presented in Figures 1 & 2. It is anticipated that, since much of the focus has been on early career workers, this impact could be enhanced as those concerned are promoted and gain more influence. Once again, however, this requires a continuing emphasis upon the Interface and the maintenance of an appropriate momentum. So far, in terms of the broader community, there has been a strong impact in terms of stimulating new research, forming new

14

teams and new ideas. However, the general comments and feedback from the community leave little doubt that there is much more that could be done. Figure 1, Interventions: Impact on Individuals

Figure 2, Interventions: Impact on Landscape*

Stimulated novel and original

research directions

Retention of cross-

disciplinary team and/or initiated

long-term …

Enhanced opportunities to work with users at this interface

Individual profile – publications,

keynote speeches etc

Career –direction,

knowledge/skills, progression etc

Discipline Hopping Awards

Networking Workshops

Funding Opportunities

Initiation of further research

Training opportunities for

postgraduates

Training opportunities for undergraduates

Increased number of

interdisciplinary teams

Increased cross-fertilisation of

ideasDiscipline Hopping Awards

Networking Workshops

Funding Opportunities

* Different scale to Impact on Individual Spider Chart

15

PART 2: HEALTH OF THE INTERFACE The Number of Researchers at the Interface Out of 34 HoDs, 24 reported that at least 10% of their research active staff are working at the Interface with 4 reporting more than 50% at the Interface. It can be estimated from the responses that several hundred post graduate students must be working in relevant research fields. The majority of HoDs believe that these numbers have increased over the past 10 years. Whilst Chemical Engineering departments are employing chemists, virtually no Chemical Engineers have been employed in Chemistry departments. This is a surprising state of affairs, only mitigated slightly by the observation that some of the work undertaken in UK Chemistry Departments would reasonably be classed as Chemical Engineering in other parts of the world. Very few joint appointments have been made in universities having both departments. An exception to this general situation is the EPSRC Science & Innovation project DICE, (Driving innovation in Chemistry & Engineering)which has been funded at Nottingham from 2006 – 2011. It aims to stimulate research at the interface and has involved the appointment of five permanent members of staff jointly between the School of Chemistry and the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering. It has led to a joint partnership between staff on all levels in the disciplines at Nottingham. Its key feature has been to encourage interaction and communication between chemists and chemical engineers so that a multidisciplinary approach is the way that business is done every day. Despite this, 53% of HoDs are not expecting to appoint at the Interface, a slightly greater proportion than those who are (47%). The, data imply that a significant amount of the Interface research is being conducted either by chemists alone or chemical engineers alone with only 15% of HoDs reporting that all the research at the Interface involves a combination of chemists, chemical engineers and/or other relevant researchers. Nearly 50% of HoDs report there is insufficient connectivity between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Departments within Universities (as demonstrated by a lack of joint projects and joint appointments) compared to only 20% who report that there is. A similar view was expressed by the Stakeholders. Despite the estimated numbers of post graduate students working at the interface, most stakeholders believe that there are not enough trained chemists and chemical engineers able to work at the Interface. It can be speculated that if there are positions at the interface that are difficult to fill, this might be because many of those who train at the interface move on to something else. Alternatively, despite their experience of working at the interface, the skills learnt are insufficient. There may also be other reasons. Stakeholders also believe that there are more job opportunities within industry at the Interface, now compared to those available in the year 2000. Extent of Training Opportunities Generally, there is a view that training opportunities at the Interface could be improved at the graduate level. Currently, only 32% of HoDs believe graduate Chemists and Chemical Engineers are being produced with the skills required to work effectively at the Interface. However, at post graduate and post doctoral level approximately 60% or more of HoDs believe that researchers are being equipped with the necessary skills. However, Stakeholders are less convinced that chemists and chemical engineers are being produced with the skills required to work at the interface at all levels - undergraduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral. Relatively few universities (approximately 20%) offer shared undergraduate or postgraduate degree options. Joint courses are even rarer since they can suffer from a lack of demand and encounter difficulties with timetabling. Moreover, there has only been a slight increase in chemistry content in taught chemical engineering courses and vice versa. Of the shared undergraduate courses that do exist, many provide real overlap and interaction

16

At the postgraduate level, however, the majority of universities (84%) believe it is a strategic priority to support multidisciplinary training and whilst the Panel took the view that cohort-based training does provide a good approach to this, generally it is even more effective for the researcher to be part of an interdisciplinary research grant or to have a collaborative studentship such as an Industrial CASE award. Both are therefore required. The Stakeholders also believe it is a strategic priority to support multidisciplinary postgraduate training and have similar views to the HoDs as to the effectiveness of different training opportunities. Level of Research Funding at the Interface Based on the responses from 34 Departments, it can be estimated that those departments alone have attracted a total of around £90 million for research at the Interface, though it is not clear over how many years this sum is spread. The EPSRC is the largest provider, with significant support coming from other public sources such as other Research Councils, The Royal Society, The Technology Strategy Board and the EU. It is also shown that nearly 20% comes from industry sources. 50% of HoDs believe the current level of funding is inappropriate with only 15% believing it is. This is not greatly different to the responses of the 226 stakeholders, who are split roughly 50:50 between academics and industrialists. User Involvement / Influence In general, more Stakeholders (42%) think industry does not exert enough influence on the level of research activity at the Interface. 24% consider industrial influence to be appropriate. Whilst there is little difference between the views of Chemists and Chemical Engineers, there is a marked difference between academic and industrial stakeholders, where 55% of industrial stakeholders think industry does not exert sufficient influence and only 14% think it does, compared to 29% of academic stakeholders who think industry does not and 35% who think it does. Flow of ideas across discipline boundaries The Stakeholders response to whether or not there is a healthy exchange and flow of ideas across the Interface varies according to which Interface is being considered. More responses took the view that there is a healthy flow within industry regardless of their Stakeholder group – academia, industry, chemists or chemical engineers. Within academia the opposite was true, so that more people thought there was not a healthy flow, again regardless of their Stakeholder group. The stakeholders also held this view for the flow between academia and industry. In summary, whilst no comparative data are available for the period 2004- 2008, there can be little doubt that the data produced in this survey provide a picture of a better and stronger Interface than would have been found then and this is confirmed in qualitative terms by the interviews with HoDs, which, in general, acknowledge the progress that has been made. What was missing from the discussions was the strong sense of urgency on the issue which was generated at the time of the EPSRC interventions. Whilst the importance of the Interface was recognised, this recognition was accompanied by the feeling that this was an old problem or one that had somehow gone away.

17

PART 3: OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS University Structure and Culture There is a marked difference in perception between HoDs and Stakeholders as to the effect of Departmental Structure on the degree of integration of the two disciplines. Just over 40% of HoDs think the Departmental Structure is not a barrier, compared to 20% who think it is, while 65% of Stakeholders think it is a barrier, compared to 9% who don’t. In some Universities Chemistry and Chemical Engineering are both part of the same school structure or are in the same department, but this is a rarity. Amongst the most significant barriers identified by Stakeholders are the different ‘languages’ used in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and an appreciation and understanding of problems, concepts and capabilities in each other’s discipline. It is noted that “Colleges of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering” are more common in North America and Europe and potentially provide a more efficient route to Interface research. Good examples include the University of California, Berkeley, Caltech, the Premiere Chinese Institutes (State Key Laboratories) and ETH Zurich. With regard to Chinese Institutes, it was noted that Chemistry and Chemical Engineering are viewed as a whole entity. Teaching and research are conducted in contiguous but distinct locations and that research activities are topic rather than discipline based. China does not see demarcation of disciplines. It is about 80:20 Chem/Chem Eng based on the number of groups or academics. The State Key Laboratories are focussed around a single topic, eg Polymers or Chemical Physics. The research institutes tend to be in the University grounds and not include teaching at all; this allows the academics to complete their teaching and then walk 10 minutes to get on with their research. The centres are goal oriented and seek to obtain a balance between long and short term outputs. Forums for Engagement For those who attended EPSRC sponsored Discipline Hopping Award and Networking workshops and responded to the surveys, the impact on establishing new collaborations and extending their research at the Interface has been very positive even if funding was not obtained directly as a result. In many cases collaborations that were established and funded have continued well beyond the initially funded project. Even just the funding of calls for specific projects at the Interface was seen to be positive resulting in new collaborations and research directions at the Interface. The perception of Stakeholders, as to the availability of opportunities such as special interest groups and networks to build collaborations at the Interface, varied according to whether the collaborations were within academia, within industry or between industry and academia. For opportunities within academia roughly equal numbers thought there were sufficient opportunities as did not. However more Chemists thought that there were not sufficient opportunities than did, whilst Chemical Engineers held the opposite view. This could be in part due to more postgraduate and post doctorate chemists in universities than chemical engineers. For opportunities within industry significantly more thought there were sufficient opportunities than did not and this was regardless of the subgroups – academics, industrialists, chemists or chemical engineers. For opportunities between academia and industry the response was mixed with more industrialists and chemical engineers believing there are sufficient opportunities than not, whilst slightly more academics and chemists thought there were insufficient opportunities than thought there were enough. Overall the Panel felt that the way the UK forms international links means that the senior management of very few British companies get involved in high-level international committee work so that the UK has less influence and is not taking advantage of the opportunities that are already out there. Work goes on in an ad hoc way, compared to, for example, China or Korea where there is a more formal system. It was noted that it is difficult to get funding for participation in Networks in Europe with examples being quoted of the UK being slow off the mark in gaining representation on relevant high level European committees. There was also some discussion of the issue of how well we disseminate to the wider international community what work does take place.

18

Funding Opportunities 44% of Stakeholders believe there are insufficient funding opportunities for the Interface compared to 13% who think there are. However, their awareness of funding sources supporting research at the Interface is very poor. Roughly three quarters of respondents did not realise that other research councils, TSB or charities fund research at this Interface and only about 40% were aware of EU funding. Generally there were no major perspective differences between Chemists and Chemical Engineers, although Chemists were slightly more aware of diverse funding sources. The general lack of knowledge of funding opportunities can be viewed as an opportunity if appropriate mechanisms can be put in place to raise people’s awareness. Training – skills, ability of researchers to work at the Interface It was felt that undergraduates and postgraduates now feel a great deal of uncertainty about career structures and progression. In the past, the bigger companies played a key role in this and that structure was considered, for the most part, to be missing now with the break-up of the larger UK chemical companies. A barrier to training researchers at the Interface was felt to be the lack of appropriately trained staff from one discipline appointed to the department of the other; this is particularly so for Chemistry departments where very few Chemical Engineers have been appointed over the past 10 years. This makes it particularly difficult for training undergraduates. At postgraduate level there are many examples of projects for researchers that require the skills of both Chemists and Chemical Engineers and are undertaken by multidisciplinary teams. This leads to career delay with many researchers not developing appropriate skills until post graduate level and an even better situation with post doctoral researchers. The Panel felt that there is variation in the way chemists and chemical engineers engage with each other with different behaviours exhibited even in different industrial sectors. Smaller organisations are usually more integrated in the way they operate. A particular feature in the UK is that for many projects involving both chemistry and chemical engineering, the full integrated story is difficult to communicate. It is relatively easily portrayed from either of the two perspectives, but seldom both – as evidenced by the low level of joint publications. By bringing the two disciplines even further together it would be possible to develop a holistic perspective that would undoubtedly alter our strategic view of important issues, including energy. A way forward would be to commission the presentation of case studies, in journals, magazines, books and at conferences that track both the science and the engineering in a quantitative way, so that in the widest sense there is the ‘whole-cycle’ appreciation of how the disciplines interact. This would also enhance the understanding of ‘language’ relating to terms, definitions and units, and also the appreciation of scale, sensitivities and relevance or importance of key parameters. A further, strongly perceived barrier to projects at the Interface being supported for EPSRC research base grant applications, is that reviewers often do not have the skills themselves to judge both the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering aspects of the proposal, which can lead to the proposal being disadvantaged compared to applications in a single discipline. It was felt that this remains an issue, which is of major concern to the EPSRC. Users / Impact – future identification of challenges that require research at the Interface The role of the Professional bodies was considered against the background of their high level of leadership in previous initiatives. RSC (67%) and IChemE (33%) are joint venture partners in Chemistry Innovation Limited (CIL), the corporate vehicle for the Chemistry Innovation knowledge Transfer Network (CIKTN). Both shareholders aim to leverage more out of this arrangement, which operationally is funded through the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), for the wider benefit of the chemistry and chemical engineering professions. Outside of this, the learned societies undertake activities, on a case-by-case basis, delivering joint events (seminars, conferences) and some publications. There is some common membership on scientific/engineering committees between the two bodies, and also through third parties, such as within the Energy Institute. Both the IChemE and

19

the RSC have developed extensive technology road maps which set out their respective views of the technology challenges facing society. Work is underway to bring these documents together into a one single road map. The interface continues to be strongly supported by some industrialists in both bodies and support is given by both to some academic institutions to encourage closer working where chemistry and chemical engineering departments are proximate – examples are Newcastle, Durham and Nottingham. Both organisations acknowledge that these good examples of leadership can be extended further by acting in concert. Much of the consideration of the future for the Interface centred on analysis of the survey results on the Grand Challenge Activity and an update on the Dial a Molecule and CO2 grand challenge networks which was also considered. The discussion was conducted against a background that such an activity should be seen as part of a process rather than as a discrete event. The meeting in Manchester in 2008 had engendered a great deal of focus and enthusiasm within the community. However, whilst the Stakeholder questionnaire responses identified a number of similar future Interface opportunities, including energy, green chemistry and biological technologies, more than 60% of responses said they were unaware of the Grand Challenge activities. Even amongst those who were aware, the reaction from stakeholders was mixed both towards the topics selected and process by which they were selected. The panel was disappointed by the responses received regarding awareness of the Grand Challenges. It thought that overall the initial challenge definitions had been good but there was a clear perception that momentum had been lost, even within the EPSRC. This was partly because of unfortunate criticisms but also because the universities had decided that this was not a Directed Funding Opportunity and so had moved on to search for more lucrative opportunities. It was noted that the Interface required overt leadership, strong advocates and successful role models. These had emerged to some extent during the Grand Challenge process, but the impact had now died away. The panel felt, in particular, that there had been issues with communication of the Grand Challenges – what they are and how the networks were being used to take the ideas forward. Within the broader community, there appears to be a lack of knowledge of how Grand Challenges need research focussed at the Interface in order for problems to be successfully solved. Some in the community had not seized the opportunities presented, so that many of the initial proposals had not achieved the creativity and adventure that was desirable. Overall, grand challenge activities needed to attempt to do more, in particular provide more user engagement and greater inclusion. It was noted that this review and others like it tend only to focus on the technology and on the funding. The people behaviour part of managing change is hardly ever considered. There is a need to determine how short term funding initiatives can be turned into longer term self-sustaining academic trends. Greater understanding is required of how academic behaviour (including peer review and research project definition) is influenced by the funding process. It was felt that further work on this might be taken forward as part of an endeavour to make proper international comparisons of UK researchers’ behaviour with those from overseas. There is a role for EPSRC in leading such an activity as part of the process of maintaining a strategic overview of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface. This should involve consultations with relevant EPSRC advisory bodies including between the Physical Sciences and Engineering SAT’s. However the Panel was strongly of the view that the idea of a continuing series of activities to identify challenges at the Interface is beneficial and should be an important part of the role that Research Councils and Professional Bodies have in bringing people together frequently. It was felt that such an activity needed to do much more than the initial Grand Challenge exercise had done. In particular it was necessary to be as inclusive as possible and to achieve buy-in from the broader community by encouraging industrial engagement to give greater credibility. Expectations need to be managed and the scope of such activities made clear. The use of the term “Grand” implies long timescales, the next 30 or 50 years. This may not always be the most appropriate way forward and consideration of more immediate “Not so Grand” Challenges might be worthwhile pursuing also. It

20

was thought the EPSRC User Panel could be involved more in an effort to identify how best take forward this activity. Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations/Centres have tended to be successful and so the engagement of end-users might be successfully captured through them as well as through interventions associated with the Technology Strategy Board or the Technology Innovation Centres (TICs). It was noted that currently the remit of organisations such as these does not explicitly recognise the importance of the Interface or seek to nurture its health. Nonetheless, they depend on a healthy Interface in order to achieve success in their own objectives. The Interface requires visible, structured and continuous leadership in order better to engage with government and to allow both companies and individuals to strengthen the Interface. One of the traditional mechanisms by which this happens in research is through conference attendance. However, National conferences, focussing on National activities in our disciplines are no longer the desirable norm. In Chemical Engineering, and to a lesser extent in chemistry, the preference over recent years has been to attend international conferences in order to create the international reputation required by the RAE. Ironically this has sometimes had the effect of individuals becoming recognised internationally to a greater extent than they are nationally. It does tend to inhibit the emergence of National leaders and prevents important messages getting out to the community. As a result, awareness of funding opportunities and activities is poor, there is a lack of knowledge of other people’s activities and work is more likely to be conducted in isolated pockets. The community needs vehicles through which leadership can be delivered and into which better communication can be incorporated. This would allow the Interface to be nurtured by demonstrating the clear benefits of working at the Interface and cascading change throughout the community. The Interdisciplinary Centres and the learned societies have a role to play and it is noted that IChemE and the RSC do not have a regular meeting of those working at the Interface. Going Forward....... The last decade has seen a radical shift in the contract between Society and Universities. The traditional role of providing an educated workforce remains but Universities are now expected to be active agents in social development whether by implementing an equality agenda through admissions policies or by focussing research, and increasingly teaching, on the Grand Challenges faced by Society. The nature of these Grand Challenges has been much discussed and they include topics such as sustainable energy, security, the ageing population, water, healthcare and so on. Such issues are easy to communicate to a wide audience and, because public money should be used to provide public benefit, they provide a powerful driving force for change. However, they do not sit entirely comfortably within the traditional University structures of Faculties and discipline based departments focussed on well defined professions. Nonetheless, disciplines provide an important pedagogical scaffold, developing graduates with the high level skills necessary to tackle the Challenges. In the post-Browne era, where 18 year old students are often characterised as investors in their own future through the purchase of higher education, the professions, with their systems for accrediting degrees and promoting good practice, provide the best available guarantee of a good quality, high value education. This survey suggests that whilst there is strong and detailed understanding of the need for overlap between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at the postgraduate level, discipline based teaching remains and is likely to remain, the cornerstone of graduate access to our professions. It is through research that our community is most able to respond to the changes of the last decade by adopting the new research agenda that they imply. The general nature of Society’s needs is well understood, but the link between traditional research and this new agenda remains elusive for most of those involved. Discussions during this review showed extremely clearly that the Chemistry Chemical Engineering Interface is of special significance. In fact, very few of the problems of the new research agenda could be tackled without a joint approach by Chemists and Chemical Engineers. Tackling issues of the scope envisaged will, for example, require teams developing materials for which the emphasis is on function, rather than the more traditional focus of structure.

21

Manufacture, at a scale sufficient to allow them to make a difference, will require close attention to the important effects of the production process on the properties of the product. The entire range of skills will be required from pure chemistry to pure chemical engineering with all possible combinations in between. Chemistry and chemical engineering have a symbiotic relationship and the two disciplines have always been interdependent. A recent article11

by Professor George Whitesides, whose remarks did much to trigger the interventions that we have examined, has called for greater integration between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Departments in the US. This is a view which would find many adherents in the UK and, from the limited information that was available to us from the small number of departments that have done this, it seems that it would certainly strengthen the Interface. It would, however, do very little to open up other important interfaces which, whilst not being so fundamental to the disciplines, are also important if we are to respond to the new research agenda. These include interfaces with microbiology, medicine, physics, mathematics and crucially for chemical engineering the other branches of engineering.

Given the obvious difficulties of total integration, the future is likely to be much more about working together than joining together. This will require two types of change and this has been reflected by the way that the data gathered in this exercise was brought together. The first is at the individual level. Individuals need to believe that collaboration through the Interface towards a concrete outcome is not only desirable, it is essential for success, especially when looking at new research agenda problems. This requires not only explicit understanding and experience of the Interface but also and more importantly, trust that peer group judgements will, in future, attach as least as great an esteem to interdisciplinary work as is now associated with that of the “pure” discipline. There is substantial evidence in the response to the survey of a strong perception that interdisciplinary work tends not to fare so well in review processes. There is thus a long road to travel in this regard. Correspondingly, the second change is at the community level. We need to be active participants in a continuous national endeavour which improves our perception of the way that our work can have an impact on Society’s problems. Road maps and similar devices have been produced by various organisations, but their conclusions are generally not well communicated and they are not widely used by the UK academic community. Industry has a greater experience of such research management tools and has an important future leadership role in signposting important research directions. Ultimately, however, whilst they may need as much support and encouragement as possible to provide the opportunities, it is the researchers themselves that need to own this process. 7. CONCLUSIONS The EPSRC has demonstrated considerable commitment to this Interface and is, at the moment, the only organisation which sets out explicitly to nurture it. The Grand Challenge activity and the setting up of this survey are both good and, in the Panel’s view, effective examples of this continuing commitment. There is a lot of evidence that EPSRCs historical interventions have been successful, both at the individual level and on the landscape. They have reinvigorated the Interface but momentum has been lost in terms of increasing the volume of activity. This was not unexpected since these sorts of initiatives tend to experience damping effects with the passage of time and require periodic reenergising by the EPSRC. However the results of the survey demonstrate that sustainable activity has been realised in discrete pockets and the Panel generally considered that the Interface can be described as healthy and capable of considerable further growth. The current financial constraints are recognised but the Panel was strongly of the view that given the loss in momentum over the last few years and the enormous importance of this interface to the UK economy, more and substantial interventions were urgently required. These should include significant access for 11 Whitesides, G M., and Deutch, J.,”Let’s get Practical”, Nature, 6th January 2011, 469, p21-22

22

chemists and chemical engineers to directed funding opportunities, cohort training of PhD students at the interface and the leadership of an on-going national endeavour involving a programme of inclusive Grand challenge activities enabling novel interdisciplinary solutions to the new research agenda to be brought forward. The Panel noted recent reorganisation of EPSRC activities into a single Engineering Programme with its 3 key objectives:

• To safeguard the sustainability of long term engineering research • To inspire current and future leaders of engineering research • Shape the underpinning research portfolio and integrate it with challenge domains.

The Panel felt very strongly that these objectives matched well with its own views for the future of the interface and felt very strongly that the Chemistry-Chemical Engineering interface was an area that the EPSRC should be seeking to shape and grow. In the context of the changing research agenda, the Interface is not just as important but more important than before the interventions. There is substantial evidence for this from a range of recent industry and government led reports. There is evidence of a growing and an unmet demand from industry for trained people who can work at the Interface. In order to meet this demand, particularly at the graduate level, industry will recruit more people from outside the UK, or have to provide extra training of graduates, if the UK universities cannot respond to this demand. However, there are important and difficult to overcome structural barriers to cross-discipline undergraduate teaching within many universities. Individual Departments should, therefore, work together to find ways of increasing the overlap in teaching between the subjects without a diminution of overall standards. At the postgraduate level, the situation is much improved but the survey suggests that much larger numbers of postgraduates with experience of working at the Interface are required by Industry. In research, there remain significant structural and cultural barriers to working at the Interface. Some of these exist within Institutions, for example not all universities have Chemical Engineering Departments to sit alongside their Chemistry Departments. Even where both departments exist, there is a general acceptance, with one or two exceptions, that they could often be better organised to allow work across the Interface. Other barriers exist more widely, particularly within the academic community with evidence being provided of strong perception that there is a lack of parity in the esteem given to more applied multidisciplinary work as opposed to “pure” research. Large scale interdisciplinary goals, for example, the grand challenges have been effective in influencing a significant subset of the community but issues of pervasiveness, motivation and communication still need to be addressed more effectively. There is some suggestion that interdisciplinary goals motivate the two disciplines differently with chemists tending to operate more in their own discipline as highlighted by the recent International Review of Chemistry12

. There is a case for further studies of such effects, focussing upon how short term funding initiatives can be turned into longer term self-sustaining academic trends and incorporating a comparative study of the behaviour of UK researchers at this interface with their counterparts overseas.

A good many in the community believe that mission-focused research centres produce more meaningful results, with examples being quoted from China, the US and elsewhere. In such organisations, teaching and non research administration duties belong to a separate unit from research activities. It was felt that, in future, this would be encouraged via the TIC’s as part of a general trend towards pulling down of barriers. It was felt important that progress in this direction was not seen as implying less blue skies research, rather the presence of much more market information in the research project design phase.

12 “Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond”, EPSRC International Review of UK Chemistry Research, 2009.

23

The Interface requires much better leadership to deliver the growth that is required. However, it lacks the mechanisms by which such leadership can grow and, more importantly, be delivered. At least in part this may be due to an increased emphasis in recent years on attaining and international reputation for the purposes of RAE assessment. This has led to a reduction in the importance of National meetings. There are corresponding problems with communication resulting in a lack of awareness amongst the community of what is going on and a lack of consensus on appropriate ways forward. For example, much work has been accomplished on technology road mapping that is not widely understood and accepted by the community any more than the Grand Challenge exercise was. This lack of appropriate channels for communication is a substantial barrier for the growth of the community. The important role of the Professional Bodies in reformulating the Interface over the last 10 years is acknowledged. Without this leadership much less would have been accomplished. Nonetheless, previous momentum needs to be maintained and interface issues should be brought as high as possible up their agenda. In particular, they have a major role to play in capturing, to an even greater extent, the interest and participation of senior level industrial management and in bringing together industrialists and academics on a regular basis. It is noted that IChemE and the RSC do not have a regular meeting of those working at the Interface. The UK undoubtedly has both world-class chemists and world-class chemical engineers. Even after the improvements identified during this study, it does not yet have a world class interface between the two in its research activities despite their importance in economic, social and environmental terms. What is required is a whole community effort to upgrade the interface involving better funding, greater participation, regular communication and consequently more understanding and collaboration. Such an effort may rightly be termed a National Endeavour. However, once more it is stressed that Individuals do need to be proactive and that they cannot simply wait for a funding to be given them, they need actively to seek it out. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS

EPSRC should consider:

• taking immediate action to reverse the decline of the last few years in the Research community’s focus on the interface. This should involve treating this interface as a key priority under the new objectives of the Engineering Programme: (safeguarding long term research, inspiring leaders and shaping the research portfolio). In particular EPSRC should consider:

o seeing the interface as being an area of the portfolio which should be actively shaped o facilitating and stimulating greater leadership and support, ensuring more high quality

proposals and/or fellowships at the interface o undertaking further studies encompassing an international comparison of this

interface and researcher behaviour in the UK o considering how a continuing strategic overview of the health of the interface may be

maintained o targetting support for cohort-based training at the interface (with high levels of dual

supervision) o improving communication of opportunities and achievements through other sources

of support, eg the Energy Programme o by considering how to help the community set up and participate in the establishment

of an ongoing activity to identify important challenges at the interface •

Universities should seek to:

• minimise any barriers to collaborative working created by internal structures by encouraging activities likely to bridge disciplines, particularly, where necessary, across Faculties.

24

• encourage joint project supervision, joint academic appointments and consider inclusion of relevant interface material into courses to increase employability of graduates

• capture the interest and participation of senior industrialists and facilitate industrial/academic engagement

Professional bodies should:

• indentify ways of ensuring that the interface remains as high as possible up the agenda of all relevant bodies

Industry should seek to:

• increase buy-in to interface-nurturing activity and participative leadership of processes used to identify challenges

• continue to stimulate world class work at the interface • work in conjunction with RCs, professional bodies etc to increase the esteem associated

with work at the interface • communicate benefits widely where significant commercial advantage is gained from

working with academia at the interface Individual researchers should:

• Increase awareness and embrace the breadth of opportunities to work at the interface The community as a whole should:

• Seek to set up and participate in a National Endeavour to ensure that the UK has a world class Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface in its research activities. This should involve increased funding and greater participation from the widest possible range of sources. It should be strongly supported by an effective process of communication which enables our high quality work to be understood, influenced and accessed by all stakeholders to a much greater degree. In view of the crucial importance of this interface for facilitating social progress and addressing 21st century engineering problems, it should be linked very clearly to the National effort to address the Grand Challenges.

25

ANNEXES Annex 1: List of Directed Research Funding opportunities targeted or relevant to the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface (2000 – 2008)

• Collaborations Between Chemists and Chemical Engineers: Three separate calls for proposals between 2000 – 2004

The purpose of these funding opportunities was to encourage the creation of long term multidisciplinary collaborations for the pursuit of innovative research at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface. These calls sought proposals that would support genuine collaborations between chemists and chemical engineers and proposals needed to clearly demonstrate the added value of the synergy that would occur from the interaction of the individual researchers involved.

• The Chemistry-Chemical Engineering Interface: Call for Collaborative Proposals (closing date Feb 2007)

The purpose of this funding opportunity was to encourage collaboration at the interface between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (applicants did not have to be Chemists or Chemical Engineers, but the research proposed had to be at this interface). The EPSRC Chemistry and Engineering Programmes allocated up to £3.4M to support a number of research proposals through this call.

Other opportunities which although not specifically targeted at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface, nevertheless provided an opportunity to develop research activities at the Chemistry/ Chemical engineering interface. These were:

• Green and Sustainable Chemical Technologies Integrated with Sustainable Energy Solutions (closing date March 2007) A call to invest up to £3M in high quality research proposals in the area of green and sustainable chemical technologies and sustainable energy solutions. This call covered research in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Energy of relevance to the sustainability agenda. The Engineering Programme provided funding towards this call as this area of research is seen as a prime opportunity for collaboration between Chemists and Chemical Engineers.

• Physical Organic Chemistry (POC) – Two calls for proposals (closing dates April 2006 & April 2008) There were two calls to invest a combined total of up to £5M in the area of POC, which was defined as “studies of the dynamics, reactions and interactions of organic molecules and systems, leading to quantitative understanding of the interplay between structure, function and reactivity”

The call sought to strengthen and encourage the research base in physical organic chemistry (POC), and to begin addressing the stated need for more skilled practitioners in POC, as people skilled in the approach of POC will be central to helping address future challenges, for instance at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface where they act as translators.

• High Throughput Methods and Associated New Techniques – Two calls for proposals (closing dates Sept 2003 & June 2005) There were two calls to invest up to £11M in a portfolio of projects focussed on one or both of the following areas:

• Development and use of high throughput methods in a research area where high throughput techniques have not previously been used

26

• Development of radically new techniques for high throughput synthesis, purification, characterisation, performance evaluation and implementation

The call encouraged research at the interfaces between disciplines, such as the chemistry/chemical engineering interface, and life science areas such as bio-processing, genomics and post-genomic technology.

• Research in Flow Chemistry (continuous processing) (closing date June 2008) This was a joint call with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to invest £5.5M in a portfolio of activity in the area of flow chemistry. The call has two specific objectives.

1. To initiate or stimulate research in the field of flow chemistry and the development of the use of equipment for flow chemistry across numerous different academic centres in the United Kingdom.

2. To fund research in flow chemistry in the areas of

a. standard reactions and reaction sequences used in the pharmaceutical industry

b. developing flow protocols and scale up procedures for reactions rarely used in the pharmaceutical industry

c. the application of supported reagents and catalysts

d. flow processes relating to non-selective reactions

e. the development of new equipment for use in flow processes – for example in purification

• Sandpit Event: The Frontiers of Green Chemical Technologies: From Grand Challenges to Real Solutions (held in November 2005) This was a workshop to generate and develop innovative ideas, activities and projects in the area of green and sustainable chemical technologies based on ‘Grand Challenges’ (which were to be identified by the participants). The EPSRC Chemistry and Engineering Programmes allocated at least £1M to fund activities/research arising from the sand-pit, to be taken up by genuinely novel and adventurous approaches. The long-term aspiration was for the development of collaborations across the Physical Sciences and Engineering disciplines to address the challenges within this vital research arena.

27

Annex 2: Review Panel Membership

Professor Ray Allen, Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Sheffield (Chair) Professor Steve Howdle, Chemistry, University of Nottingham

Dr Paola Lettieri Chemical Engineering, University College London

Professor Andrew de Mello Chemistry, Imperial College London

Dr Barry Maunders Consultant Also in attendance at the meetings on 23rd November 2010, and 25th January 2011 were Professor Nigel Perry Vice President (Technical), Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)

Dr Richard Pike CEO, Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

28

Annex 3: Copy of Online Surveys: Questions and Results A. Discipline Hopping Awards Survey (DHS)

B. Networking Workshops Survey (NWS)

C. Funding Opportunities Survey (FOS)

D. Heads of Departments Survey (HoDS)

E. Stakeholders Survey (SS) includes additional survey results (free-text responses)

29

A. EPSRC Review of the Impact of Discipline Hopping Awards at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface Results (DHS)

Survey Overview Number of respondents: 20 Expected number of respondents: 23 Response rate: 87.0% Launch date: 23 Aug 2010 Close date: 29 Sep 2010

Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Which community building workshop(s) did you attend?

Discipline Hopping Workshop 1: New

Opportunities -- December 2004:

n/a 11

Discipline Hopping Workshop 2:

Collaborating for Success -- October

2005:

n/a 11

EPSRC-IChemE-RSC Networking Workshop

1: Delivering Sustainability & Green

Chemical Technologies -- June 2006:

n/a 1

EPSRC-IChemE-RSC Networking Workshop

2: Chemistry and Engineering for Life -

December 2006:

n/a 2

2. What were your motivations for getting involved with this/these workshop(s)? (select all that apply)

2.a. To broaden research horizons -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 17

Moderately important:

n/a 3

Neutral:

n/a 0

Less important:

n/a 0

Not important:

n/a 0

2.b. To meet new collaborators -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 19

30

Moderately important:

n/a 1

Neutral:

n/a 0

Less important:

n/a 0

Not important:

n/a 0

2.c. To meet up with existing collaborators -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 0

Moderately important:

n/a 1

Neutral:

n/a 4

Less important:

n/a 6

Not important:

n/a 9

2.d. To gain a competitive research advantage -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 9

Moderately important:

n/a 7

Neutral:

n/a 4

Less important:

n/a 0

Not important:

n/a 0

2.e. Curiosity about the workshop process -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 4

Moderately important:

n/a 9

Neutral:

n/a 3

Less important:

n/a 3

Not important:

n/a 1

2.f. Important to be seen in attendance -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 0

Moderately important:

n/a 2

Neutral:

n/a 3

Less important:

n/a 5

Not important:

n/a 10 3. Was there any other motivation for attending this/these workshop(s)?

results 62955 3167463 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

31

3.a. How important was this reason?

Very important:

5.0% 1

Moderately important:

15.0% 3

Neutral:

35.0% 7

Less important:

0.0% 0

Not important:

45.0% 9 4. Broadly speaking, do you consider yourself to be a Chemist, Chemical Engineer or from another discipline?

Chemist:

45.0% 9

Chemical Engineer:

40.0% 8

Both (Chemist & Chemical Engineer):

5.0% 1

Other (please specify):

10.0% 2

chemical engineer and mechanical engineer

I am a chemical engineer by training working in a mechanical engineering department 5. Broadly speaking, in which department were you based at the time of your attendance at the Discipline Hopping/Networking Workshop?

Chemistry Department:

40.0% 8

Chemical Engineering Department:

40.0% 8

Process Engineering Department:

0.0% 0

Other (please specify):

20.0% 4

results 62955 3167466 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

5.a. Is this the same as your present University department?

Yes:

85.0% 17

No:

15.0% 3

5.a.i. If No, what is your present department?

results 62955 3167468 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

32

6. Were you already part of a multidisciplinary (at any interface) research team before attending the Discipline Hopping/Networking Workshop?

Yes:

75.0% 15

No:

25.0% 5 7. At the time of attending the Discipline Hopping/Networking Workshop, to what extent were you actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research was at this interface:

5.0% 1

The majority of my research was at this

interface:

10.0% 2

Some of my research was at this interface:

55.0% 11

None of my research was at this interface:

30.0% 6

7.a. If you were undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface was this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

60.0% 12

No:

5.0% 1

No, as none of my research was at this

interface:

35.0% 7

8. To what extent are you today actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research is at this interface:

10.0% 2

The majority of my research is at this

interface:

15.0% 3

Some of my research is at this interface:

75.0% 15

None of my research is at this interface:

0.0% 0

8.a. If you are currently undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface is this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

90.0% 18

No:

10.0% 2

No, as none of my

0.0% 0

33

research is at this interface:

9. To which EPSRC funding opportunities at this interface did you submit a proposal?

I did not apply to any specific EPSRC calls

targeting this interface:

n/a 4

3 x Calls for Collaboration between

Chemists and Chemical Engineers -

held between 1995-2001:

n/a 5

Sandpit Event: The Frontiers of Green

Chemical Technologies: From

Grand Challenges to Real Solutions - held in

November 2005:

n/a 1

The Chemistry-Chemical Engineering

Interface: Call for Collaborative

Proposals - closing date Feb 2007:

n/a 11

Call for Green and Sustainable Chemical

Technologies Integrated with

Sustainable Energy Solutions - closing date

March 2007:

n/a 0

First call for Physical Organic Chemistry

(POC) -- closing date April 2006:

n/a 0

Second call for Physical Organic

Chemistry (POC) -- closing date April 2008:

n/a 0

First call for High Throughput Methods and Associated New

Techniques -- closing date Sept 2003:

n/a 0

Second call for High

n/a 1

34

Throughput Methods and Associated New

Techniques -- closing date June 2005:

Research in Flow Chemistry (continuous

processing) - closing date June 2008:

n/a 4

Section 2: IMPACT OF DISCIPLINE HOPPING AWARD - Research Outputs & Collaborative Working

10. Did the Discipline Hopping award support a new collaboration which emerged during the workshop or an existing collaboration with its origins prior to workshop attendance?

A new collaboration that developed as a

result of workshop attendance:

100.0% 20

An already existing collaboration with its

origins prior to the workshop attendance:

0.0% 0

11. What difference has the Discipline Hopping award made to your research direction/focus?

Totally changed my research

direction/focus:

10.0% 2

Enabled the development of some

new research directions:

85.0% 17

Enabled the strengthening of

existing research activities:

5.0% 1

None at all:

0.0% 0 12. Can you give examples of new areas of research that emerged at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface as a result of the Discipline Hopping award?

results 62955 3167477 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

35

13. What follow-on research funding was obtained as a result of the Discipline Hopping award? Please identify the funding organisation, and your best estimate of the total research income raised from that source (select all that apply).

13.a. EPSRC -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62955 3167480 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

13.a.i. EPSRC -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

18.8% 3

<£50k:

6.2% 1

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

6.2% 1

<£500k:

56.2% 9

<£1M:

12.5% 2

>£1M:

0.0% 0

13.b. Other UK Research Councils -- Please identify specific funding agency

13.b.i. Other UK Research Councils -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

100.0% 5

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0

13.c. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Please identify specific funding agency

13.c.i. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

100.0% 5

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0

36

13.d. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Please identify specific funding agency

13.d.i. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

80.0% 4

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

20.0% 1

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0

13.e. Industrial -- Please identify specific funding agency

Saudi Aramco

13.e.i. Industrial -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

57.1% 4

<£50k:

28.6% 2

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

14.3% 1

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0

13.f. Other funder -- Please identify specific funding agency

13.f.i. Other funder -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

100.0% 4

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0 14. Is this research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface being performed collaboratively with other project partners?

Yes:

80.0% 16

No:

20.0% 4

37

15. If follow-on research funding has been obtained, please specify the type of project partners (select all that apply).

15.a. UK academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

6.2% 1

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

31.2% 5

3-6 years:

56.2% 9

6+ years:

6.2% 1

15.b. International academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

37.5% 3

<1 year:

12.5% 1

1-3 years:

25.0% 2

3-6 years:

12.5% 1

6+ years:

12.5% 1

15.c. Industrial -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

62.5% 5

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

0.0% 0

3-6 years:

25.0% 2

6+ years:

12.5% 1

15.d. Charity -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

100.0% 5

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

0.0% 0

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0

15.e. Other -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

100.0% 4

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

0.0% 0

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0

38

16. If no follow-on research funding has been secured, please specify how the collaboration will be maintained, and nurtured once the Discipline Hopping award has ended?

results 62955 3167509 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17. Have you received any prizes, prestigious awards or honours as a direct result of the research enabled by the Discipline Hopping award?

None so far:

90.0% 18

Yes:

10.0% 2

17.a. Please list award(s)/prize(s)/honour(s) recieved (award name, country of origin, year)

results 62955 3167511 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

18. Please provide details of any publications resulting from the Discipline Hopping award.

18.a. Peer reviewed journal papers -- Total number of publications?

0:

20.0% 4

1-3:

45.0% 9

4-6:

25.0% 5

7-9:

5.0% 1

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

5.0% 1

18.b. Peer reviewed conference proceedings -- Total number of publications?

0:

30.0% 6

1-3:

45.0% 9

4-6:

10.0% 2

7-9:

15.0% 3

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

18.c. Invited/Plenary talks -- Total number of publications?

0:

30.0% 6

1-3:

60.0% 12

4-6:

5.0% 1

39

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

5.0% 1

13+:

0.0% 0

18.d. Reviewed workshop proceedings -- Total number of publications?

0:

85.0% 17

1-3:

10.0% 2

4-6:

5.0% 1

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

18.e. Books/Book chapters -- Total number of publications?

0:

90.0% 18

1-3:

10.0% 2

4-6:

0.0% 0

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

18.f. Consultancy work -- Total number of publications?

0:

85.0% 17

1-3:

15.0% 3

4-6:

0.0% 0

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

18.g. Other -- Total number of publications?

0:

95.0% 19

1-3:

0.0% 0

4-6:

5.0% 1

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0 19. Have you developed research collaborations at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface

40

not directly attributable to your Discipline Hopping award?

No:

25.0% 5

Yes:

75.0% 15

19.a. If Yes, please specify

results 62955 3167528 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

19.b. Typically how long-term are these collaborations?

<1 year:

6.7% 1

1 to 3 years:

33.3% 5

3 to 6 years:

40.0% 6

6+ years:

20.0% 3 20. Have research outputs/new knowledge gained through your Discipline Hopping award been incorporated into your taught University courses?

No:

70.0% 14

Yes:

30.0% 6

20.a. If Yes, please provide more detail

results 62955 3167531 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 3: IMPACT OF DISCIPLINE HOPPING AWARD - Personal Impact

21. Has the Discipline Hopping award broadened your research skills and expertise?

No:

5.0% 1

Yes:

95.0% 19

21.a. If Yes, please specify if you are

Peer reviewing for different journals:

n/a 11

Peer reviewing for different funding

agencies:

n/a 4

Membership of different learned societies:

n/a 1

41

Attendance of different conferences:

n/a 14

Other (please specify):

n/a 2

Gained a much greater awarenesws of tthe areas of overlap

I understand much better what my collaborators in chemistry are doing and where the strengths and limitations of their methods are. 22. Has the Discipline Hopping award raised your profile locally within your department, university and/or the wider UK community

Yes:

80.0% 16

No:

20.0% 4

22.a. If Yes, please specify

Your department:

n/a 14

Your university:

n/a 7

The wider community:

n/a 8

22.a.i. In what way has your profile been raised?

results 62955 3167536 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

23. Has the Discipline Hopping award increased your international standing, e.g. participation in editorial boards, conference organising committees etc?

No:

70.0% 14

Yes:

30.0% 6

23.a. If Yes, please specify

Editorial duties in international journals:

n/a 4

Organising committees of international

conference:

n/a 5

Visiting positions overseas:

n/a 3

Key note presentations:

n/a 3

Leading a network:

n/a 1

Advisory boards/Policy makers:

n/a 2

Medals and Awards:

n/a 2

42

24. Has the Discipline Hopping award increased your level of interaction with industry?

No:

70.0% 14

Yes:

30.0% 6

24.a. If Yes, please specify in what way

Collaborative research:

n/a 6

Contract research:

n/a 1

Consultancy:

n/a 3 25. What were the most important benefits to you of workshop attendance?

25.a. Understanding the terminology of the other discipline -- How important was this?

Very important:

35.0% 7

Moderately important:

45.0% 9

Neutral:

10.0% 2

Less important:

10.0% 2

Not important:

0.0% 0

25.b. Broadening your research expertise/skills -- How important was this?

Very important:

70.0% 14

Moderately important:

15.0% 3

Neutral:

15.0% 3

Less important:

0.0% 0

Not important:

0.0% 0

25.c. Appreciation of the concepts/challenges within the other discipline -- How important was this?

Very important:

85.0% 17

Moderately important:

15.0% 3

Neutral:

0.0% 0

Less important:

0.0% 0

Not important:

0.0% 0

25.d. Developing research ideas for future collaborations -- How important was this?

Very important:

85.0% 17

Moderately important:

10.0% 2

Neutral:

5.0% 1

Less important:

0.0% 0

43

Not important:

0.0% 0 26. Were there any other significant benefits to attending the workshop(s) not covered above?

results 62955 3167550 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

27. Did the Discipline Hopping award provide a platform for a research fellowship application?

No:

100.0% 20

Yes:

0.0% 0

27.a. If Yes, were you sucessful?

No:

0% 0

Yes:

0% 0

27.a.i. If successful, please specify the fellowship awarded. 28. What other positive effects has the Discipline Hopping award had on your career?

Taken on new research projects:

n/a 19

Gained more responsibility:

n/a 5

Taken on more challenging

multidisciplinary research:

n/a 17

Had more interactions with university management:

n/a 3

Had more interactions with industry/users:

n/a 4

Been promoted:

n/a 12

Transfered to another University:

n/a 1

Other (please specify):

n/a 1 29. What impact has the Discipline Hopping award had on your group, other academics within the same department, and across the wider discipline, e.g. enhanced interdisciplinary training opportunities for researchers?

results 62955 3167555 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

44

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

45

B. EPSRC Review of the Impact of Networking Workshops at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface Results (NWS)

Survey Overview Number of respondents: 26 Expected number of respondents: 98 Response rate: 26.5% Launch date: 23 Aug 2010 Close date: 29 Sep 2010

Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Which workshop(s) did you attend?

Discipline Hopping Workshop 1: New

Opportunities -- December 2004:

n/a 2

Discipline Hopping Workshop 2:

Collaborating for Success -- October

2005:

n/a 5

EPSRC-IChemE-RSC Networking Workshop

1: Delivering Sustainability & Green

Chemical Technologies -- June 2006:

n/a 14

EPSRC-IChemE-RSC Networking Workshop

2: Chemistry and Engineering for Life --

December 2006:

n/a 8

2. What were your motivations for getting involved with this/these workshop(s)? (select all that apply)

2.a. To broaden research horizons -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 20

Moderately important:

n/a 5

Neutral:

n/a 1

Less important:

n/a 0

Not important:

n/a 0

2.b. To meet new collaborators -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 21

46

Moderately important:

n/a 5

Neutral:

n/a 0

Less important:

n/a 0

Not important:

n/a 0

2.c. To meet up with existing collaborators -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 1

Moderately important:

n/a 7

Neutral:

n/a 10

Less important:

n/a 1

Not important:

n/a 7

2.d. To gain a competitive research advantage -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 9

Moderately important:

n/a 12

Neutral:

n/a 4

Less important:

n/a 1

Not important:

n/a 1

2.e. Curiosity about the workshop process -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 2

Moderately important:

n/a 8

Neutral:

n/a 10

Less important:

n/a 1

Not important:

n/a 5

2.f. Important to be seen in attendance -- How important was this reason?

Very important:

n/a 0

Moderately important:

n/a 5

Neutral:

n/a 8

Less important:

n/a 7

Not important:

n/a 7 3. Was there any other motivation for attending this/these workshop(s)?

results 62957 3167356 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

47

3.a. How important was this reason?

Very important:

100.0% 4

Moderately important:

0.0% 0

Neutral:

0.0% 0

Less important:

0.0% 0

Not important:

0.0% 0 4. Broadly speaking, do you consider yourself to be a Chemist, Chemical Engineer or from another discipline?

Chemist:

65.4% 17

Chemical Engineer:

11.5% 3

Both (Chemist & Chemical Engineer):

23.1% 6

5. Broadly speaking, in which department were you based at the time of your attendance at this/these workshop(s)?

Chemistry Department:

65.4% 17

Chemical Engineering Department:

15.4% 4

Process Engineering Department:

3.8% 1

Other (please specify):

15.4% 4

results 62957 3167359 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

5.a. Is this the same as your present University department?

Yes:

92.3% 24

No:

7.7% 2

5.a.i. If No, what is your present department?

joint Chem & Chem E

Physics 6. Were you already part of a multidisciplinary (at any interface) research team before attending this/these workshop(s)?

Yes:

80.8% 21

No:

19.2% 5

48

7. At the time of attending the Discipline Hopping/Networking Workshop, to what extent were you actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research is at this interface:

3.8% 1

The majority of my research is at this

interface:

26.9% 7

Some of my research is at this interface:

61.5% 16

None of my research is at this interface:

7.7% 2

7.a. If you were undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface was this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

69.2% 18

No:

23.1% 6

No, as none of my research was at this

interface:

7.7% 2

8. To what extent are you today actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research is at this interface:

7.7% 2

The majority of my research is at this

interface:

50.0% 13

Some of my research is at this interface:

38.5% 10

None of my research is at this interface:

3.8% 1

8.a. If you are currently undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface is this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

80.8% 21

No:

15.4% 4

No, as none of my research was at this

interface:

3.8% 1

9. To which EPSRC funding opportunities at this interface did you submit a proposal?

I did not apply to any

n/a 7

49

specific EPSRC calls targeting this interface:

3 x Calls for Collaboration between

Chemists and Chemical Engineers -

held between 1995-2001:

n/a 3

Sandpit Event: The Frontiers of Green

Chemical Technologies: From

Grand Challenges to Real Solutions - held in

November 2005:

n/a 5

The Chemistry-Chemical Engineering

Interface: Call for Collaborative

Proposals - closing date Feb 2007:

n/a 9

Call for Green and Sustainable Chemical

Technologies Integrated with

Sustainable Energy Solutions - closing date

March 2007:

n/a 3

First call for Physical Organic Chemistry

(POC) -- closing date April 2006:

n/a 3

Second call for Physical Organic

Chemistry (POC) -- closing date April 2008:

n/a 5

First call for High Throughput Methods and Associated New

Techniques -- closing date Sept 2003:

n/a 1

Second call for High Throughput Methods and Associated New

Techniques -- closing date June 2005:

n/a 0

Research in Flow Chemistry (continuous

n/a 7

50

processing) - closing date June 2008:

Section 2: IMPACT OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION - Research Outputs & Collaborative Working

10. What difference did participation on a Discipline Hopping/Networking workshop make to your research direction/focus?

Totally changed my research

direction/focus:

0.0% 0

Enabled the development of some

new research directions:

53.8% 14

Enabled the strengthening of

existing research activities:

19.2% 5

None at all:

26.9% 7 11. Can you give examples of new areas of research that emerged at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface as a result of collaborations developed through workshop attendance?

results 62957 3167369 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

12. What research funding was obtained for the research ideas developed as a result of workshop attendance? Please identify the funding organisation, and your best estimate of the total research income raised from that source (select all that apply).

12.a. EPSRC -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62957 3167372 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

12.a.i. EPSRC -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

48.0% 12

<£50k:

4.0% 1

<£100k:

20.0% 5

<£250k:

8.0% 2

51

<£500k:

8.0% 2

<£1M:

8.0% 2

>£1M:

4.0% 1

12.b. Other UK Research Councils -- Please identify specific funding agency

12.b.i. Other UK Research Councils -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

100.0% 15

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0

12.c. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62957 3167378 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

12.c.i. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

76.5% 13

<£50k:

11.8% 2

<£100k:

5.9% 1

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

5.9% 1

12.d. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Please identify specific funding agency

EU FP7 Marie Curie

12.d.i. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

93.3% 14

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

6.7% 1

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

52

>£1M:

0.0% 0

12.e. Industrial -- Please identify specific funding agency

German and Swiss based induirty

Many companies UK and overseas

12.e.i. Industrial -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

75.0% 12

<£50k:

0.0% 0

<£100k:

6.2% 1

<£250k:

6.2% 1

<£500k:

6.2% 1

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

6.2% 1

12.f. Other funder -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62957 3167387 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

12.f.i. Other funder -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

78.6% 11

<£50k:

21.4% 3

<£100k:

0.0% 0

<£250k:

0.0% 0

<£500k:

0.0% 0

<£1M:

0.0% 0

>£1M:

0.0% 0 13. Is this research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface being performed collaboratively with other project partners?

Yes:

73.1% 19

No:

26.9% 7 14. If research funding was obtained, please specify the type of project partners (select all that apply).

14.a. UK academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

31.6% 6

53

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

26.3% 5

3-6 years:

31.6% 6

6+ years:

10.5% 2

14.b. International academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

50.0% 6

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

25.0% 3

3-6 years:

8.3% 1

6+ years:

16.7% 2

14.c. Industrial -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

54.5% 6

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

18.2% 2

3-6 years:

9.1% 1

6+ years:

18.2% 2

14.d. Charity -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

100.0% 9

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

0.0% 0

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0

14.e. Other -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

100.0% 8

<1 year:

0.0% 0

1-3 years:

0.0% 0

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0 15. If no research funding has been secured, please specify how the collaboration has been maintained, and nurtured following workshop attendance?

results 62957 3167401 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

54

16. Have you received any prizes, prestigious awards or honours as a direct result of the research enabled through workshop attendance?

None so far:

92.3% 24

Yes:

7.7% 2

16.a. Please list award(s)/prize(s)/honour(s) received (award name, country of origin, year)

Green Chemistry prize for innovative science

RSC Award in Interfaces and Surfaces IChemE Sustainable Chemistry Award 17. Please provide details of any publications resulting from this research.

17.a. Peer reviewed journal papers -- Total number of publications?

0:

42.3% 11

1-3:

19.2% 5

4-6:

23.1% 6

7-9:

7.7% 2

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

7.7% 2

17.b. Peer reviewed conference proceedings -- Total number of publications?

0:

57.7% 15

1-3:

26.9% 7

4-6:

7.7% 2

7-9:

3.8% 1

10-12:

3.8% 1

13+:

0.0% 0

17.c. Invited/Plenary talks -- Total number of publications?

0:

53.8% 14

1-3:

30.8% 8

4-6:

7.7% 2

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

7.7% 2

17.d. Reviewed workshop proceedings -- Total number of publications?

55

0:

88.5% 23

1-3:

7.7% 2

4-6:

3.8% 1

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

17.e. Books/Book chapters -- Total number of publications?

0:

84.6% 22

1-3:

15.4% 4

4-6:

0.0% 0

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

17.f. Consultancy work -- Total number of publications?

0:

80.8% 21

1-3:

15.4% 4

4-6:

3.8% 1

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

17.g. Other -- Total number of publications?

0:

100.0% 26

1-3:

0.0% 0

4-6:

0.0% 0

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0

Section 3: IMPACT OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION - Personal Impact

18. Has attendance of a workshop provided a platform from which you have been able to broaden your research skills and expertise?

Yes:

53.8% 14

56

No:

46.2% 12

18.a. If Yes, please specify if you are

Peer reviewing for different journals:

n/a 6

Peer reviewing for different funding

agencies:

n/a 3

Membership of different learned societies:

n/a 2

Attendance of different conferences:

n/a 8

Other (please specify):

n/a 4

results 62957 3167430 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

19. Has workshop attendance raised your profile locally within your department, university and/or the wider UK community

Yes:

57.7% 15

No:

42.3% 11

19.a. If Yes, please specify

Your department:

n/a 7

Your university:

n/a 5

The wider community:

n/a 12

19.a.i. In what way has your profile been raised?

results 62957 3167435 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

20. What were the most important benefits to you of workshop attendance?

20.a. Understanding the terminology of the other discipline -- How important was this?

Very important:

34.6% 9

Moderately important:

19.2% 5

Neutral:

23.1% 6

Less important:

15.4% 4

Not important:

7.7% 2

57

20.b. Broadening your research expertise/skills -- How important was this?

Very important:

50.0% 13

Moderately important:

38.5% 10

Neutral:

7.7% 2

Less important:

3.8% 1

Not important:

0.0% 0

20.c. Appreciation of the concepts/challenges within the other discipline -- How important was this?

Very important:

46.2% 12

Moderately important:

38.5% 10

Neutral:

11.5% 3

Less important:

3.8% 1

Not important:

0.0% 0

20.d. Developing research ideas for future collaborations -- How important was this?

Very important:

65.4% 17

Moderately important:

19.2% 5

Neutral:

15.4% 4

Less important:

0.0% 0

Not important:

0.0% 0 21. Were there any other significant benefits to attending the workshop(s) not covered above?

results 62957 3167447 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

22. What impact have any new collaborations developed as a result of workshop attendance, had on your group, other academics within the same department, and across the wider discipline, e.g. enhanced interdisciplinary training opportunities for

results 62957 3167448 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

58

C. EPSRC Review of the Impact of Funding Opportunities at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface Results (FOS)

Survey Overview Number of respondents: 113 Expected number of respondents: 600 Response rate: 18.8% Launch date: 23 Aug 2010 Close date: 29 Sep 2010

Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Broadly speaking, do you consider yourself to be a Chemist, Chemical Engineer or from another discipline?

Chemist:

62.8% 71

Chemical Engineer:

15.9% 18

Both (Chemist & Chemical Engineer):

8.0% 9

Other (please specify):

13.3% 15

results 62956 3167556 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

2. Broadly speaking, in which department are you presently based?

Chemistry Department:

58.4% 66

Chemical Engineering Department:

22.1% 25

Process Engineering Department:

0.9% 1

Other (please specify):

18.6% 21

results 62956 3167557 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 2: IMPACT OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES - Stimulating Collaboration & Research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface

3. To which EPSRC funding opportunities targeting the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface did you submit a project? (select all that apply)

3.a. 3 x Calls for Collaboration between Chemists and Chemical Engineers - held between 1995-2001

59

No Project submitted:

75.2% 85

Project submitted:

12.4% 14

Project funded:

12.4% 14

3.b. Sandpit Event: The Frontiers of Green Chemical Technologies: From Grand Challenges to Real Solutions - held in November 2005

No Project submitted:

96.5% 109

Project submitted:

1.8% 2

Project funded:

1.8% 2

3.c. The Chemistry-Chemical Engineering Interface: Call for Collaborative Proposals - closing date Feb 2007

No Project submitted:

77.9% 88

Project submitted:

15.0% 17

Project funded:

7.1% 8

3.d. Call for Green and Sustainable Chemical Technologies Integrated with Sustainable Energy Solutions - closing date March 2007

No Project submitted:

94.7% 107

Project submitted:

4.4% 5

Project funded:

0.9% 1 4. To which EPSRC funding opportunities highlighting the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface did you submit a proposal? (select all that apply)

4.a. First call for Physical Organic Chemistry (POC) -- closing date April 2006

No Project submitted:

78.8% 89

Project submitted:

15.9% 18

Project funded:

5.3% 6

4.b. Second call for Physical Organic Chemistry (POC) -- closing date April 2008

No Project submitted:

76.1% 86

Project submitted:

23.9% 27

Project funded:

0.0% 0

4.c. First call for High Throughput Methods and Associated New Techniques -- closing date Sept 2003

No Project submitted:

91.2% 103

Project submitted:

2.7% 3

Project funded:

6.2% 7

4.d. Second call for High Throughput Methods and Associated New Techniques -- closing date

60

June 2005

No Project submitted:

88.5% 100

Project submitted:

5.3% 6

Project funded:

6.2% 7

4.e. Research in Flow Chemistry (continuous processing) - closing date June 2008

No Project submitted:

77.9% 88

Project submitted:

13.3% 15

Project funded:

8.8% 10 5. Was the project submitted in Q4 at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface?

No project submitted:

31.9% 36

Yes it was a wholly interdisciplinary

chemistry/chemical engineering project:

25.7% 29

No it was essentially a chemistry project:

24.8% 28

No it was essentially a chemical engineering

project:

0.9% 1

Some aspects were at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface:

16.8% 19

6. In general did the project(s) submitted in response to the funding opportunities involve collaboration between chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

63.7% 72

No:

36.3% 41

6.a. Were these new collaboration(s) formed in response to the funding opportunity or an existing collaboration?

A new collaboration formed in response to

the funding opportunity.:

69.4% 50

An already existing collaboration with its

origins prior to the funding opportunity.:

30.6% 22

7. Regardless of whether the project(s) was funded, has the collaboration(s) been maintained, and

61

nurtured?

Yes:

57.5% 65

No:

42.5% 48

7.a. How has this been achieved?

results 62956 3167582 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

7.b. Typically how long-term are these collaborations?

1 year:

4.6% 3

1 to 3 years:

21.5% 14

3 to 6 years:

43.1% 28

6+ years:

30.8% 20 8. At the time of preparing your proposal submission, to what extent were you actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research was at this interface:

3.5% 4

The majority of my research was at this

interface:

13.3% 15

Some of my research was at this interface:

53.1% 60

None of my research was at this interface:

30.1% 34

8.a. If you were undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface was this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

50.4% 57

No:

24.8% 28

No, as none of my research was at this

interface:

24.8% 28

9. To what extent are you today actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All my research is at this interface:

3.5% 4

The majority of my research is at this

interface:

18.6% 21

62

Some of my research is at this interface:

61.1% 69

None of my research is at this interface:

16.8% 19

9.a. If you are currently undertaking research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface is this being performed within a multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

59.3% 67

No:

26.5% 30

No, as none of my research is at this

interface:

14.2% 16

Section 3: IMPACT OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES - Research Outputs & Collaborative Working

10. What difference did the availability of EPSRC funding opportunities at the chemistry/chemical engineering make to your research direction/focus?

Totally changed my research

direction/focus:

2.7% 3

Enabled the development of some

new research directions:

38.9% 44

Enabled the strengthening of

existing research activities:

18.6% 21

None at all:

39.8% 45 11. Since 2000, what additional research funding has been obtained to support your research at the chemistry/chemical engineering interface? Please identify the funding organisation, and your best estimate of the total research income raised from that source (select all that apply).

11.a. EPSRC -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167591 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

11.a.i. EPSRC -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

36.4% 36

<£50k:

3.0% 3

63

<£100k:

4.0% 4

<£250k:

22.2% 22

<£500k:

11.1% 11

<£1M:

9.1% 9

>£1M:

14.1% 14

11.b. Other UK Research Councils -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167594 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

11.b.i. Other UK Research Councils -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

75.0% 54

<£50k:

6.9% 5

<£100k:

5.6% 4

<£250k:

2.8% 2

<£500k:

5.6% 4

<£1M:

1.4% 1

>£1M:

2.8% 2

11.c. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167597 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

11.c.i. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

67.1% 49

<£50k:

12.3% 9

<£100k:

5.5% 4

<£250k:

5.5% 4

<£500k:

5.5% 4

<£1M:

4.1% 3

>£1M:

0.0% 0

11.d. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167600 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

64

11.d.i. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

70.0% 49

<£50k:

1.4% 1

<£100k:

2.9% 2

<£250k:

10.0% 7

<£500k:

8.6% 6

<£1M:

4.3% 3

>£1M:

2.9% 2

11.e. Industrial -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167603 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

11.e.i. Industrial -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

28.9% 26

<£50k:

16.7% 15

<£100k:

23.3% 21

<£250k:

11.1% 10

<£500k:

13.3% 12

<£1M:

5.6% 5

>£1M:

1.1% 1

11.f. Other funder -- Please identify specific funding agency

results 62956 3167606 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

11.f.i. Other funder -- Estimate of research income raised?

£0:

68.2% 45

<£50k:

10.6% 7

<£100k:

9.1% 6

<£250k:

1.5% 1

<£500k:

6.1% 4

<£1M:

1.5% 1

>£1M:

3.0% 2

65

12. Is this research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface being performed collaboratively with other project partners?

Yes:

75.2% 85

No:

24.8% 28 13. If additional research funding has been obtained, please specify the type of project partner (select all that apply).

13.a. UK academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

42.5% 48

<1 year:

3.5% 4

1-3 years:

19.5% 22

3-6 years:

21.2% 24

6+ years:

13.3% 15

13.b. International academic -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

64.6% 73

<1 year:

2.7% 3

1-3 years:

14.2% 16

3-6 years:

9.7% 11

6+ years:

8.8% 10

13.c. Industrial -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

35.4% 40

<1 year:

9.7% 11

1-3 years:

24.8% 28

3-6 years:

13.3% 15

6+ years:

16.8% 19

13.d. Charity -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

96.5% 109

<1 year:

1.8% 2

1-3 years:

1.8% 2

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0

13.e. Other -- How long-term have these collaborations been?

Not applicable:

92.0% 104

<1 year:

2.7% 3

66

1-3 years:

5.3% 6

3-6 years:

0.0% 0

6+ years:

0.0% 0 14. Can you give examples of new areas of research that emerged at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface as a result of the research initiated/supported by the EPSRC?

Yes:

42.5% 48

No:

57.5% 65

14.a. Please provide more information.

results 62956 3167621 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

15. Have you received any prizes, prestigious awards or honours as a direct result of the research initiated/supported by the EPSRC?

None so far:

82.3% 93

Yes:

17.7% 20

15.a. Please list award(s)/prize(s)/honour(s) receieved (award name, country of origin, year)

results 62956 3167623 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

16. Please provide details of any publications resulting from the research initiated/supported by the EPSRC?

16.a. Peer reviewed journal papers -- Total number of publications?

0:

22.1% 25

1-3:

20.4% 23

4-6:

19.5% 22

7-9:

10.6% 12

10-12:

2.7% 3

13+:

24.8% 28

16.b. Peer reviewed conference proceedings -- Total number of publications?

0:

40.7% 46

1-3:

24.8% 28

4-6:

15.0% 17

67

7-9:

3.5% 4

10-12:

2.7% 3

13+:

13.3% 15

16.c. Invited/Plenary talks -- Total number of publications?

0:

34.5% 39

1-3:

29.2% 33

4-6:

20.4% 23

7-9:

1.8% 2

10-12:

4.4% 5

13+:

9.7% 11

16.d. Reviewed workshop proceedings -- Total number of publications?

0:

87.6% 99

1-3:

8.0% 9

4-6:

0.9% 1

7-9:

0.9% 1

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

2.7% 3

16.e. Books/Book chapters -- Total number of publications?

0:

71.7% 81

1-3:

17.7% 20

4-6:

8.8% 10

7-9:

0.9% 1

10-12:

0.9% 1

13+:

0.0% 0

16.f. Consultancy work -- Total number of publications?

0:

68.1% 77

1-3:

23.0% 26

4-6:

7.1% 8

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.9% 1

13+:

0.9% 1

16.g. Other -- Total number of publications?

68

0:

94.7% 107

1-3:

2.7% 3

4-6:

2.7% 3

7-9:

0.0% 0

10-12:

0.0% 0

13+:

0.0% 0 17. Have you developed research directions at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface not directly attributable to your EPSRC funding?

No:

49.6% 56

Yes:

50.4% 57

17.a. Please specify

results 62956 3167640 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.b. Typically how long-term are these collaborations?

<1 year:

10.5% 6

1 to 3 years:

42.1% 24

3 to 6 years:

26.3% 15

6+ years:

21.1% 12 18. Have research outputs/new knowledge gained through your EPSRC funded research been incorporated into your taught University courses?

No:

59.3% 67

Yes:

40.7% 46

18.a. If Yes, please provide more detail

results 62956 3167643 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 4: IMPACT OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES - Personal Impact

19. Has conducting research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface raised your profile locally within your department, university and/or the wider UK community

No:

38.9% 44

69

Yes:

61.1% 69

19.a. If Yes, please specify

Your department:

n/a 44

Your university:

n/a 42

The wider community:

n/a 50

19.a.i. In what way has your profile been raised?

results 62956 3167646 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

20. Has conducting research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface increased your international standing, e.g. participation in editorial boards, conference organising committees etc?

No:

57.5% 65

Yes:

42.5% 48

20.a. If Yes, please specify

Editorial duties in international journals:

n/a 19

Organising committees of international

conference:

n/a 32

Visiting positions overseas:

n/a 21

Key note presentations:

n/a 30

Leading a network:

n/a 9

Advisory boards/Policy makers:

n/a 17

Medals and Awards:

n/a 10

Other (please specify):

n/a 4

results 62956 3167648 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

21. Has conducting research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface increased your level of interaction with industry?

No:

40.7% 46

Yes:

59.3% 67

70

21.a. If Yes, please specify in what way

Collaborative research:

n/a 62

Contract research:

n/a 17

Consultancy:

n/a 26 22. What impact have your collaborations/research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface had on your group, other academics within the same department, and across the wider discipline, e.g. enhanced interdisciplinary training opportunities for researchers?

results 62956 3167651 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

71

D. EPSRC Review of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface - Heads of Department Survey Results (HoDS)

Survey Overview Number of respondents: 34 Expected number of respondents: 57 Response rate: 59.6% Launch date: 23 Aug 2010 Close date: 05 Oct 2010

Section 1: About You

1. Title

Dr:

11.8% 4

Professor:

85.3% 29

Other (please specify):

2.9% 1

1.a. First Name

results 62965 3167653 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

1.a.i. Surname

results 62965 3167654 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

1.a.ii. Department

results 62965 3167655 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

1.a.iii. Organisation

results 62965 3167656 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 2: About Your Department

2. Which of these would best describe your department?

Chemistry:

58.8% 20

72

Chemical Engineering:

23.5% 8

Both (Chemistry and Chemical Engineering):

2.9% 1

Other (please specify):

14.7% 5

results 62965 3167657 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

3. How many research active academic staff do you have?

0-10:

5.9% 2

11-20:

17.6% 6

21-30:

23.5% 8

31-40:

29.4% 10

41-50:

5.9% 2

50+:

17.6% 6 4. What do you perceive the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface to be?

results 62965 3167659 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

5. What proportion of these research active academic staff work at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface?

<10%:

29.4% 10

11-25%:

41.2% 14

26-50%:

17.6% 6

51-75%:

8.8% 3

76-100%:

2.9% 1 6. How many researchers would you currently consider to be working at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface within your department?

6.a. MSc Students

0-2:

55.9% 19

3-5:

11.8% 4

6-10:

8.8% 3

73

11-15:

5.9% 2

16-20:

8.8% 3

21+:

8.8% 3

6.b. PhD Students

0-2:

8.8% 3

3-5:

35.3% 12

6-10:

17.6% 6

11-15:

11.8% 4

16-20:

5.9% 2

21+:

20.6% 7

6.c. Post Doctoral Researchers

0-2:

35.3% 12

3-5:

35.3% 12

6-10:

17.6% 6

11-15:

5.9% 2

16-20:

2.9% 1

21+:

2.9% 1

6.d. Other

0-2:

79.4% 27

3-5:

11.8% 4

6-10:

2.9% 1

11-15:

2.9% 1

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

2.9% 1 7. Do you believe that these numbers have increased in the past 10 years?

No:

29.4% 10

Yes:

70.6% 24

7.a. If yes, at what career stage?

MSc Students:

n/a 10

PhD Students:

n/a 23

Post Doctoral Researchers:

n/a 18

74

Other:

n/a 4

Section 3

8. How many Chemists have been employed in your Chemical Engineering department in recent years?

8.a. During the last 3 years

N/A:

48.0% 12

0-2:

12.0% 3

3-5:

20.0% 5

6-10:

8.0% 2

11-15:

8.0% 2

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

4.0% 1

8.b. Between 3 to 6 years ago

N/A:

50.0% 13

0-2:

19.2% 5

3-5:

15.4% 4

6-10:

3.8% 1

11-15:

3.8% 1

16-20:

3.8% 1

21+:

3.8% 1

8.c. Between 6 to 10 years ago

N/A:

53.8% 14

0-2:

19.2% 5

3-5:

15.4% 4

6-10:

7.7% 2

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

3.8% 1

8.d. Over 10 years ago

N/A:

56.0% 14

0-2:

20.0% 5

75

3-5:

12.0% 3

6-10:

8.0% 2

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

4.0% 1 9. How many Chemical Engineers have been employed in your Chemistry department in recent years:

9.a. During the last 3 years

N/A:

20.7% 6

0-2:

65.5% 19

3-5:

13.8% 4

5-10:

0.0% 0

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

0.0% 0

9.b. Between 3 to 6 years ago

N/A:

31.0% 9

0-2:

69.0% 20

3-5:

0.0% 0

5-10:

0.0% 0

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

0.0% 0

9.c. Between 6 to 10 years ago

N/A:

34.5% 10

0-2:

65.5% 19

3-5:

0.0% 0

5-10:

0.0% 0

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

0.0% 0

9.d. Over 10 years ago

76

N/A:

35.7% 10

0-2:

64.3% 18

3-5:

0.0% 0

5-10:

0.0% 0

11-15:

0.0% 0

16-20:

0.0% 0

21+:

0.0% 0 10. How many joint appointments have been made between the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering departments at your university in the last 10 years?

N/A:

23.5% 8

0:

50.0% 17

1:

23.5% 8

2:

0.0% 0

3:

0.0% 0

4:

0.0% 0

5-6:

0.0% 0

7-8:

2.9% 1 11. Does your department plan to make any new appointments at the interface?

Yes:

47.1% 16

No:

52.9% 18 12. Has the amount of industry investment attracted to the department increased as a result of the academic appointments identified in questions 8, 9 and 10?

No:

41.2% 14

Slight increase:

35.3% 12

Significant increase:

23.5% 8 13. Does the university structure enable/encourage work at the interface between the two disciplines?

Yes:

70.6% 24

No:

29.4% 10

13.a. Please expand your answer

results 62965 3167694 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

77

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

14. Does the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface appear as a priority in university strategy?

14.a. At your university?

Yes:

52.9% 18

No:

47.1% 16

14.b. At a national level?

Yes:

52.9% 18

No:

47.1% 16 15. What proportion of the research in your department might be classified as being at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All of the department's research is at this

interface:

0.0% 0

The majority of the the department's research

is at this interface:

5.9% 2

Some of the department's research

is at this interface:

85.3% 29

None of the department's research

is at this interface:

5.9% 2

I don't know:

2.9% 1 16. What proportion of the department's research at this interface involves collaboration between chemists, chemical engineers and/or other relevant researchers?

All the research at this interface involves

chemists, chemical engineers and/or other

relevant researchers:

14.7% 5

The majority of the research at this

interface involves chemists, chemical

engineers and/or other relevant researchers:

17.6% 6

Some of the research at this interface

58.8% 20

78

involves chemists, chemical engineers

and/or other relevant researchers:

None of the research at this interface involves

chemists, chemical engineers and other

relevant researchers:

5.9% 2

I don't know:

2.9% 1 17. How much research funding do you think your department attracts at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

17.a. EPSRC -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167702 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.a.i. EPSRC

£0:

17.6% 6

<£100k:

8.8% 3

<£200k:

14.7% 5

<£500k:

14.7% 5

<£1M:

17.6% 6

<£2.5M:

11.8% 4

>£2.5M:

14.7% 5

17.b. Other UK Research Councils -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167705 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.b.i. Other UK Research Councils

£0:

47.1% 16

<£100k:

14.7% 5

<£200k:

11.8% 4

<£500k:

11.8% 4

<£1M:

2.9% 1

<£2.5M:

5.9% 2

79

>£2.5M:

5.9% 2

17.c. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167708 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.c.i. Other UK Government e.g Royal Society, TSB etc

£0:

29.4% 10

<£100k:

29.4% 10

<£200k:

2.9% 1

<£500k:

20.6% 7

<£1M:

8.8% 3

<£2.5M:

5.9% 2

>£2.5M:

2.9% 1

17.d. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167711 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.d.i. European Commission e.g. EU, FP, Other

£0:

29.4% 10

<£100k:

20.6% 7

<£200k:

11.8% 4

<£500k:

8.8% 3

<£1M:

5.9% 2

<£2.5M:

14.7% 5

>£2.5M:

8.8% 3

17.e. Industrial -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167714 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.e.i. Industrial

£0:

11.8% 4

<£100k:

23.5% 8

<£200k:

26.5% 9

80

<£500k:

23.5% 8

<£1M:

0.0% 0

<£2.5M:

5.9% 2

>£2.5M:

8.8% 3

17.f. Other funder -- Please identify funding organisation

results 62965 3167717 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17.f.i. Other funder

£0:

55.9% 19

<£100k:

26.5% 9

<£200k:

11.8% 4

<£500k:

2.9% 1

<£1M:

0.0% 0

<£2.5M:

0.0% 0

>£2.5M:

2.9% 1

Section 4: Training

18. "University curricula and research training are producing chemists and chemical engineers with the skills to work at the interface" - Do you agree?

18.a. At Graduate level?

Disagree strongly:

5.9% 2

Disagree:

32.4% 11

Neither agree or disagree:

29.4% 10

Agree:

14.7% 5

Agree strongly:

17.6% 6

18.b. At Postgraduate level?

Disagree strongly:

0.0% 0

Disagree:

14.7% 5

Neither agree or disagree:

17.6% 6

Agree:

55.9% 19

81

Agree strongly:

11.8% 4

18.c. At Postdoctorate level?

Disagree strongly:

0.0% 0

Disagree:

11.8% 4

Neither agree or disagree:

29.4% 10

Agree:

50.0% 17

Agree strongly:

8.8% 3 19. Has there been an increase in the chemistry content in chemical engineering taught courses in the past 10 years within your university?

19.a. At Undergraduate level?

Significant decrease:

0.0% 0

Slight decrease:

5.9% 2

No change:

58.8% 20

Slight increase:

26.5% 9

Signification increase:

8.8% 3

19.b. At Postgraduate level?

Significant decrease:

0.0% 0

Slight decrease:

0.0% 0

No change:

67.6% 23

Slight increase:

29.4% 10

Significant increase:

2.9% 1 20. Has there been an increase in the chemical engineering content in chemistry taught courses in the past 10 years?

20.a. At Undergraduate level?

Significant decrease:

0.0% 0

Slight decrease:

5.9% 2

No change:

64.7% 22

Slight increase:

23.5% 8

Significant increase:

5.9% 2

20.b. At Postgraduate level?

Significant decrease:

0.0% 0

82

Slight decrease:

0.0% 0

No change:

76.5% 26

Slight increase:

23.5% 8

Significant increase:

0.0% 0 21. Does your university offer a shared undergraduate degree option between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering?

Yes:

20.6% 7

No:

70.6% 24

N/A:

8.8% 3

21.a. If yes, what is the split between the two disciplines?

results 62965 3167730 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

22. Does your university offer a shared postgraduate degree option between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering?

Yes:

17.6% 6

No:

73.5% 25

N/A:

8.8% 3

22.a. If yes, what is the split between the two disciplines?

results 62965 3167732 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

23. At the postgraduate level, are any of the following approaches particularly effective at encouraging research across the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface?

Cohort-based training e.g. Centres for

Doctoral Training, Industrial Doctorate

Centres:

n/a 14

Project students as part of interdisciplinary

research grants:

n/a 24

Collaborative studentships e.g. Industrial CASE:

n/a 26

83

Other (please specify):

n/a 4

results 62965 3167733 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

23.a. Is it a strategic priority for your university to support multidisciplinery postgraduate training?

Yes:

83.9% 26

No:

16.1% 5

23.a.i. If yes, by what method? eg strategic DTA Allocation, dual supervision.

results 62965 3167735 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

24. At the postdoctoral level, are any of the following EPSRC mechanisms providing a particularly effective opportunity for researcher development at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

Postdoctoral mobility:

n/a 8

RAEng/EPRSC Fellowship:

n/a 6

Advanced Research Fellowship/Career

Acceleration Fellowship:

n/a 12

Platform Grants:

n/a 9

Longer, larger grants e.g. Programme

Grants, Critical Mass:

n/a 10

Science and Innovation Awards:

n/a 6

Other (please specify):

n/a 10

results 62965 3167736 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 5: General Perceptions

25. Across the UK University landscape, to what extent do you perceive the two disciplines are integrated at the university level?

25.a. At Undergraduate level?

84

The two disciplines are completely separate:

44.1% 15

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

0.0% 0

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

41.2% 14

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

0.0% 0

I don't know:

14.7% 5

25.b. At Postgraduate level?

The two disciplines are completely separate:

11.8% 4

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

2.9% 1

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

58.8% 20

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

0.0% 0

I don't know:

26.5% 9

25.c. At Postdoctorate/Academic level?

The two disciplines are completely separate:

11.8% 4

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

8.8% 3

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

50.0% 17

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

0.0% 0

I don't know:

29.4% 10 26. Comparing the UK University landscape to the international landscape, would you perceive the integration of the two disciplines to be:

More integrated:

8.8% 3

85

About the same:

32.4% 11

Less integrated:

35.3% 12

I don't know:

23.5% 8 27. "Departmental structure in universities creates barriers to stronger integration of the two disciplines" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

17.6% 6

Disagree:

23.5% 8

Neither agree or disagree:

38.2% 13

Agree:

17.6% 6

Agree strongly:

2.9% 1 28. "The level of funding for university-based research at this interface (EPSRC, TSB, EU, industry etc) is appropriate" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

8.8% 3

Disagree:

41.2% 14

Neither agree or disagree:

35.3% 12

Agree:

14.7% 5

Agree strongly:

0.0% 0 29. "There is currently insuffient connectivity between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering as demonstrated by lack of projects conducted where the research spans this interface" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

2.9% 1

Disagree:

14.7% 5

Neither agree or disagree:

32.4% 11

Agree:

44.1% 15

Agree strongly:

5.9% 2 30. "There is currently insufficient connectivity between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering as demonstrated by the lack of projects involving teams of experts drawn from each discipline" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

2.9% 1

Disagree:

17.6% 6

86

Neither agree or disagree:

32.4% 11

Agree:

41.2% 14

Agree strongly:

5.9% 2 31. Do you have any other comments on the current health of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

results 62965 3167746 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

32. We may wish to approach you by telephone to expand on some of the answers provided. Please indicate whether you would be happy for us to do so:

Yes:

64.7% 22

No:

35.3% 12

87

E. EPSRC Review of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface - Stakeholder Survey Results includes additional survey results (free-text responses)

Survey Overview Number of respondents: 226 Expected number of respondents: 1000 Response rate: 22.6% Launch date: 21 Aug 2010 Close date: 19 Oct 2010

Section 1: About Yourself

1. Broadly speaking, do you consider yourself to be a Chemist, Chemical Engineer or from another discipline?

Chemist:

61.5% 139

Chemical Engineer:

16.4% 37

Both (Chemist & Chemical Engineer):

15.0% 34

Other (please specify):

7.1% 16

results 62951 3166412 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

2. Where are you based?

Academia:

46.9% 106

Industry:

46.9% 106

Other (please specify):

6.2% 14

results 62951 3166413 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

2.a. If in academia, please specify:

Postgraduate student:

9.4% 10

Postdoctoral researcher:

6.6% 7

Academic:

84.0% 89

2.b. If in industry, please indicate which sector:

Pharmaceuticals:

12.3% 13

Food & Beverage:

0.0% 0

88

Personal Goods:

3.8% 4

Chemicals:

25.5% 27

Energy:

24.5% 26

Other (please specify):

34.0% 36

results 62951 3166415 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

3. What do you perceive the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface to be?

results 62951 3166416 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

4. In your opinion, how important is the interface between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering?

Very Important:

69.5% 157

Moderately Important:

15.9% 36

No more important than any other interface:

8.8% 20

Not very important:

0.9% 2

It depends on the particular topic:

4.9% 11

4.a. Please expand your answer

results 62951 3166418 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

5. To what extent are you today actively involved in research at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

All of my involvement in research is at this

interface:

13.7% 31

The majority of my involvement in

research is at this interface:

25.7% 58

Some of my involvement in

research is at this

44.7% 101

89

interface:

None of my involvement in

research is at this interface:

15.9% 36

6. Are your activities at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface performed within an multidisciplinary environment of chemists and chemical engineers?

Yes:

79.6% 180

No:

20.4% 46

Section 2: Current Health of Interface - University based research

7. "There is currently insufficient connectivity between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering as demonstrated by the lack of projects involving teams of experts drawn from each discipline" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

3.1% 7

Disagree:

13.3% 30

Neither agree or disagree:

24.3% 55

Agree:

46.0% 104

Agree strongly:

13.3% 30 8. "There is currently insufficient connectivity between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering as demonstrated by lack of projects conducted where the research spans this interface" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

2.2% 5

Disagree:

15.0% 34

Neither agree or disagree:

27.9% 63

Agree:

44.7% 101

Agree strongly:

10.2% 23 9. Are you aware of the following funding sources supporting research at this interface? If yes, please specifiy the scheme or mechanism.

9.a. Other UK Research Councils

Yes:

22.1% 50

No:

77.9% 176

90

9.a.i. Other UK Research Councils -- Please specify

results 62951 3166426 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

9.b. TSB

Yes:

24.3% 55

No:

75.7% 171

9.b.i. TSB -- Please specify

results 62951 3166429 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

9.c. EU Funding

Yes:

38.9% 88

No:

61.1% 138

9.c.i. EU Funding -- Please specify

results 62951 3166432 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

9.d. Charities

Yes:

9.7% 22

No:

90.3% 204

9.d.i. Charities -- Please specify

results 62951 3166435 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

9.e. Other

Yes:

18.6% 42

No:

81.4% 184

9.e.i. Other -- Please specify

results 62951 3166438 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

10. "The level of funding for university-based research at this interface (EPSRC, TSB, EU, industry

91

etc) is appropriate" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

9.7% 22

Disagree:

35.4% 80

Neither agree or disagree:

44.2% 100

Agree:

7.1% 16

Agree strongly:

3.5% 8

Section 3: Current Health of Interface - People

11. "University curricula and research training are producing chemists and chemical engineers with the skills to work at the interface" - Do you agree?

11.a. At Undergraduate level?

Disagree strongly:

13.7% 31

Disagree:

50.0% 113

Neither agree or disagree:

22.6% 51

Agree:

12.4% 28

Agree strongly:

1.3% 3

11.b. At Postgraduate level?

Disagree strongly:

5.8% 13

Disagree:

35.0% 79

Neither agree or disagree:

31.0% 70

Agree:

26.1% 59

Agree strongly:

2.2% 5

11.c. At Postdoctorate level?

Disagree strongly:

5.8% 13

Disagree:

23.9% 54

Neither agree or disagree:

42.9% 97

Agree:

24.3% 55

Strongly agree:

3.1% 7 12. "The number of university trained chemists and chemical engineers with the skills to work at the

92

interface is sufficient" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

13.7% 31

Disagree:

46.5% 105

Neither agree or disagree:

26.1% 59

Agree:

10.6% 24

Agree strongly:

3.1% 7 13. "There are now more job opportunities within academia for researchers skilled to work at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface than in 2000" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

5.8% 13

Disagree:

16.4% 37

Neither agree or disagree:

55.8% 126

Agree:

20.8% 47

Agree strongly:

1.3% 3 14. "There are now more job opportunities within industry for researchers skilled to work at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface than in 2000" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

3.5% 8

Disagree:

19.0% 43

Neither agree or disagree:

39.8% 90

Agree:

29.6% 67

Agree strongly:

8.0% 18 15. At the postgraduate level, are any of the following approaches particularly effective at encouraging research across the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface?

Cohort-based training e.g. Centres for

Doctoral Training, Industrial Doctorate

Centres:

n/a 80

Project students as part of multidisciplinary

research grants:

n/a 147

Collaborative studentships e.g. Industrial CASE:

n/a 143

93

Other (please specify):

n/a 38

results 62951 3166447 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

15.a. Do you think it is a strategic priority for universities to support multidisciplinary postgraduate training?

Yes:

77.5% 155

No:

22.5% 45

15.a.i. If yes, by what method? e.g. strategic DTA allocation, dual supervision

results 62951 3166449 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

16. At the postdoctoral level, are any of the following EPSRC mechanisms providing a particularly effective opportunity for researcher development at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

Postdoctoral mobility:

n/a 64

RAEng/EPRSC Fellowship:

n/a 70

Advanced Research Fellowship/Career

Acceleration Fellowship:

n/a 63

Platform Grants:

n/a 34

Longer, larger grants e.g. Programme

Grants, Critical Mass:

n/a 51

Science and Innovation Awards:

n/a 51

Other (please specify):

n/a 71

results 62951 3166450 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

17. Is it important for people at all stages of their career to be aware of the opportunities that arise from working across this interface?

Yes:

90.7% 205

No (please go to question 18):

3.5% 8

94

Not sure:

5.8% 13

17.a. If yes, please indicate which of the following you think are the most significant benefits that arise by exploiting those opportunities:

New focus for research activity:

n/a 136

More funding opportunities:

n/a 79

Enhanced profile in your

university/organisation:

n/a 56

New career development opportunities:

n/a 132

Enhanced opportunities to collaborate (with

academia or industry):

n/a 165

Enhanced research profile:

n/a 60

Other (please specify):

n/a 29

results 62951 3166452 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 4: Current Health of Discipline - Integration of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

18. Across the UK University landscape, to what extent do you perceive the two disciplines are integrated?

18.a. At Undergraduate level?

The two disciplines are completely separate:

47.3% 107

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

7.1% 16

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

19.9% 45

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

0.0% 0

I don't know:

25.7% 58

95

18.b. At Postgraduate level?

The two disciplines are completely separate:

19.9% 45

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

6.6% 15

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

37.6% 85

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

0.0% 0

I don't know:

35.8% 81

18.c. At Postdoctorate/Academic level?

The two disciplines are completely separate:

13.3% 30

The two disciplines are less integrated in 2010

than they were in 2000:

5.3% 12

The two disciplines are more integrated in

2010 than they were in 2000:

39.8% 90

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

1.3% 3

I don't know:

40.3% 91 19. Comparing the UK University landscape to the international landscape, would you perceive the integration of the two disciplines to be:

More integrated:

7.5% 17

About the same:

19.0% 43

Less integrated:

40.3% 91

I don't know:

33.2% 75 20. To what extent do you perceive the two disciplines are integrated within industry?

The two disciplines are completely seperate:

11.5% 26

The two disciplines are more integrated in 2010 than in 2003:

45.6% 103

96

The two disciplines are fully integrated:

13.7% 31

I don't know:

29.2% 66 21. "The needs of users of research (industry) exert sufficient influence on the level of research activity at this interface" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

7.5% 17

Disagree:

35.0% 79

Neither agree or disagree:

33.6% 76

Agree:

22.6% 51

Agree strongly:

1.3% 3 22. "My overall perception (in the UK) is that there is a healthy exchange and flow of ideas across the interface" - Do you agree?

22.a. Within Academia

Disagree strongly:

4.0% 9

Disagree:

37.6% 85

Neither agree or disagree:

21.7% 49

Agree:

18.6% 42

Agree strongly:

1.3% 3

I don't know:

16.8% 38

22.b. Within Industry

Disagree strongly:

3.1% 7

Disagree:

17.7% 40

Neither agree or disagree:

16.4% 37

Agree:

42.0% 95

Agree strongly:

7.5% 17

I don't know:

13.3% 30

22.c. Between Academia and Industry

Disagree strongly:

4.0% 9

Disagree:

35.0% 79

Neither agree or disagree:

27.4% 62

97

Agree:

23.9% 54

Agree strongly:

1.3% 3

I don't know:

8.4% 19 23. Do you have any other comments on the current health of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface?

results 62951 3166467 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Section 5: Barriers and Opportunities to working at the interface

24. What would you say are currently the most significant barriers to collaborating across the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering disciplines?

Appreciation of the problems, concepts

and capabilities of each discipline:

n/a 151

Language and cultural barriers:

n/a 60

Lack of incentives and rewards (favouring of

traditional career paths):

n/a 96

Lack of funding opportunities:

n/a 93

Peer review:

n/a 57

Lack of support within academic institutions:

n/a 86

Lack of information about opportunities:

n/a 91

Lack of appropriately skilled research staff:

n/a 72

Other (please specify):

n/a 38

results 62951 3166468 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

25. "There are sufficient opportunities to build collaborations at this interface, eg special interest

98

groups, networks etc" - Do you agree?

25.a. Within academia

Disagree strongly:

3.2% 7

Disagree:

30.2% 67

Neither agree or disagree:

19.8% 44

Agree:

25.7% 57

Agree strongly:

5.0% 11

I don't know:

16.2% 36

25.b. Within industry

Disagree strongly:

2.3% 5

Disagree:

16.2% 36

Neither agree or disagree:

18.0% 40

Agree:

37.4% 83

Agree strongly:

8.6% 19

I don't know:

17.6% 39

25.c. Between academia and industry

Disagree strongly:

3.6% 8

Disagree:

31.7% 70

Neither agree or disagree:

18.1% 40

Agree:

33.9% 75

Agree strongly:

3.6% 8

I don't know:

9.0% 20 26. "There are sufficient opportunities to obtain funding at this interface (from any source EPSRC, EU, industry etc)" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

10.6% 24

Disagree:

33.2% 75

Neither agree or disagree:

42.9% 97

Agree:

11.5% 26

Agree strongly:

1.8% 4

99

27. Are you aware of the recent EPSRC Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Grand Challenge activities?

Yes:

37.2% 84

No:

62.8% 142

27.a. If Yes, what impact is this having in the community?

results 62951 3166478 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

28. "Departmental structure in universities creates barriers to stronger integration of the two disciplines" - Do you agree?

Disagree strongly:

2.7% 6

Disagree:

5.8% 13

Neither agree or disagree:

25.7% 58

Agree:

46.5% 105

Agree strongly:

19.5% 44 29. What are the prime future opportunities for researchers at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface in the UK?

results 62951 3166480 View All Responses- There are too many responses to

display on this page and so all the responses to this question are available on a separate page.

Stakeholder Survey: Additional Survey Results (free-text responses) The majority of usable free text responses could be grouped into the following broad categories, in order of frequency: Question 3. What do you perceive the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Interface to be? 1. The Application of Chemistry to Industry/Real life 2. Collaborations that span the two disciplines 3. Scale-up of chemical processes 4. Development of Process 5. Where chemists have knowledge of Chemical Engineering and vice versa 6. There is no interface, the disciplines are strongly interlinked 7. Too Broad to Define 8. There is no interface – the two disciplines are separate 9. No Knowledge of Interface Question 4. In your opinion, how important is the interface between Chemistry and Chemical Engineering? 4.a. Please expand your answer 1. The two disciplines are reliant on each other 2. Chemical Engineering is need to apply chemistry to real life situations

100

3. Important for Industry 4. All Interfaces are Important 5. General Statements About Importance 6. More understanding is needed between the two disciplines 7. Need Chemical Understanding in Order to do Chemical Engineering 8. It’s Importance Depends on the Work Being Done 9. Subject Specific Answers, for example 10. The Interface is Weak 11. The Core Disciplines Are More Important Question 9. Are you aware of the following funding sources supporting research at this interface? If yes, please specify the scheme or mechanism. 9.a. Other UK Research Councils 1. Not aware/Have No Knowledge 2. BBSRC 3. EPSRC 4. Cross Council Opportunities 5. Aware of General Mechanisms 6. Other Funding Bodies 7. Do Not Seek Funding 8. NERC 9. MRC 9.b.i. TSB -- Please specify 1. Not Aware of TSB Funding Opportunities 2. Aware of general mechanisms 3. No Specific Calls for this area 4. Subject Specific Call 5. Knowledge Transfer 6. Aware of TSB 7. Having Funding From TSB 8. Do Not Seek Funding 9.c.i. EU Funding -- Please specify 1. FP7 2. Not Aware of EU Funding Opportunities 3. Aware of general mechanisms 4. Aware of opportunities , but find it hard to apply 5. Marie Curie 6. Have EU Funding 7. Do Not Seek Funding 9.d.i. Charities -- Please specify 1. Not Aware Of Charity Funding Mechanisms 2. Royal Society 3. Wellcome Trust 4. Do Not Seek Funding 5. Leverhulme 6. Marie Curie 7. Aware of general Mechanisms 8. No enough funding 9.e.i. Other-- Please specify 1. Not Aware of Any Other Funding Sources 2. Industry

101

3. EPSRC 4. Learned Societies 5. Do Not Seek Funding 6. UKWIR Question 15. At the postgraduate level, are any of the following approaches particularly effective at encouraging research across the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface? The “Other” answers given were: 1. Encouraging a greater understanding of industry 2. Secondments 3. Knowledge Transfer Initiatives 4. Initiatives to bring people together 15.a. Do you think it is a strategic priority for universities to support multidisciplinary postgraduate training? 15.a.i. If yes, by what method? e.g. strategic DTA allocation, dual supervision? 1. Dual Supervision 2. Strategic DTA Allocation 3. Multidisciplinary projects 4. Links with Industry 5. Dual Supervision with Industry 6. More Funding is needed 7. DTC’s 8. Teaching at the Interface 9. Organisational Changes 10. Cross-Departmental Activities 11. by the Most Appropriate Method Question 23. Do you have any other comments on the current health of the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface? 1. The Health of the Interface is Poor 2. The Interface Needs Improving 3. More Funding Is Needed to Improve the Interface 4. Teaching Needs to Be Improved 5. Further Integration/collaboration/contact between disciplines is needed 6. Too many barriers/silo thinking 7. More alignment between industry and academia is needed 8. Other interfaces are important + chem/chem eng not important for all 9. The Interface is Good/Healthy 10. More Action Needed 11. Interface is healthier in other countries 12. The Interface is Healthier in Industry 13. Lack of Interest in the Interface 14. Lack of Understanding between the disciplines Question 24. What would you say are currently the most significant barriers to collaborating across the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering disciplines? The “Other” answers given were: 1. Lack of integration at a high level 2. Lack of Understanding 3. Lack of Need 4. Lack of Appropriate Training 5. Peer Review Issues 6. Funding Issues

102

Question 27. Are you aware of the recent EPSRC Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Grand Challenge activities? If Yes, what impact is this having in the community? 1. No Interest/No Impact/Very little impact 2. Not Aware of Grand Challenges 3. Some Impact/Positive Impact 4. Too early to say 5. Doesn't agree with the GC mechanism 6. Will lead to more collaborations 7. Wrong areas? 8. More Funding is Needed 9. False Partnerships 10. Limited expertise involved in the Network 11. Peer Review Issues Question 29. What are the prime future opportunities for researchers at the Chemistry/Chemical Engineering interface in the UK? 1. Energy 2. Green Chemistry 3. Opportunities in Industry 4. Manufacturing 5. Innovation 6. Biological Opportunities 7. Limited Opportunites 8. Improving Teaching 9. Many Opportunities 10. Multidiscipline work/collaboration 11. Nanotechnology 12. Career Development 13. Scale-Up 14. Food 15. Materials 16. Depends on the Funding Opportunities 17. Grand Challenges 18. Catalysis

103

Annex 4: Head of Department Telephone Interview Proforma Head of Dept Phone Interviews – possible questions Following on from answers relating to their department…. Q1 We would be interested to follow-up on your answers about the level of activity at the chem/chem eng interface in your department.

• Do you feel that the level of activity at this interface in your department is sufficient? (Balance between this and other types of research etc)

• Do you feel that it is important to maintain activity at this interface in your dept? Q2 How important do you feel the amount of training undertaken at this interface is to the health of this interface a) within your department? b) in the UK? At which level? a) undergraduate b) postgraduate c) postdoctoral Q3 Do you have any further comments on the current health of the interface in the UK, in particular

• as compared to the international landscape? • the evolution over the last 10 years? • role of funders, industry and other stakeholders?

Q4 Any other comments that you would like to feed into the review?