Reporter 22/3/00: Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the Cambridge-MIT Institute: Notice

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the Cambridge-MIT Institute: Notice

20 March 2000

The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 14 March 2000 (see p. 589) on the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the Cambridge-MIT Institute (p. 491). They have noted the expressions of support for the proposal in the remarks of six of the seven speakers and have agreed the following response to the issues raised by the speakers.

1. The Council agree with Professor Johnson that an essential point about the proposal is that it is not exclusive and that it will not preclude collaborations with other universities. They too consider that the proposal gives a unique opportunity to the University and that the response should to be to devise imaginative collaborations for research and teaching, within the requirements of the Institute, and of the University and MIT, for the benefit of our staff and students and of the United Kingdom. Discussions with the Office of Science and Technology (OST) about the formal proposal are progressing on the assumption that the offer of public funding will be made in time for the five-year programme to begin in July 2000. There is therefore unlikely to be a prolonged period of uncertainty about the Institute. The first phase of its work will be to facilitate widespread discussions between the academic staff of the two universities. These discussions will cover all aspects of the programmes of the Institute including the opportunities that exist to build upon the extensive collaborations which the University already has with MIT and which Professor Johnson, and others, value very highly.

2. The Council welcome the decision of the Faculty Board of History, conveyed in the remarks of their Secretary, Dr Reynolds, to explore possible contacts and collaboration with MIT. They agree that the two main historical areas identified by the Faculty Board are appropriate for their participation in the Cambridge-MIT initiative. They share Dr Reynolds's hope that, given that MIT ranges more widely than its title and reputation suggest, others in the humanities and social sciences will take a similar view to the Faculty Board of History.

3. Professor Ffowcs Williams's remarks recognized the place of this University in stimulating economic growth and reported his personal experience that MIT was a 'wonderfully stimulating environment' to be in. The Council agree with him that universities stimulate economic growth best by extending knowledge through research and by disseminating knowledge through publication and teaching. Both of these activities are central to the goals of the Institute. They understand his concern that the work of the Institute should be left to those who know what to do. They share his view that it is the academic staff of Cambridge and MIT that will make the Institute successful. Nevertheless, that success will depend upon the Institute being established in a way that meets two sets of concerns. Firstly, the legitimate concerns of government that significant sums of public money will be of additional economic benefit to the UK. Secondly, the concerns of Professor Ffowcs Williams, and others, that there could be inappropriate bureaucratic constraints and an anxiety for success which would actually impede it. The Council agree with him that the role of the Institute's directors should be more encouraging and enabling than directing. The absence of substantial information, to which Professor Ffowcs Williams makes reference, should not, in the Council's view, be raising doubts about the wisdom of the proposal. The details of the Institute's programme of work cannot be developed until those, in Professor Ffowcs Williams's words, 'who know what to do' have a structure agreed with the OST in which to start planning the activities.

4. The Council agree with Mr Raban that the CMI initiative offers the possibility for a number of students to benefit from a unique exposure to another culture and another education system. The extensive contacts which the Careers Service has with employers is one of the bases of the proposal document's assurances to the OST about the measurable outputs of the benefit to the UK which CMI will deliver. The Council agree with Mr Raban that the benefits of CMI's entrepreneurship programme should be extended to a wide Cambridge audience, to include students of any discipline, and not just scientists or engineers.

5. Professor Glover in his remarks recognizes that there are difficulties to be faced in realizing the opportunities afforded by this initiative and concludes that the benefits will be worth the effort. The Council agree with him that the total budget, when divided into the constituent parts of the programmes, is not large, and that apportioning the funds so that all the mainstream activities of the CMI are fully funded will be a challenge.

6. The Council recognize Mr Bailey's concern about the disparity in the Framework Agreement between the plans for developing existing graduate and undergraduate programmes. They accept that the argument, that benefits will accrue to graduate students from the Institute's research programmes and 'cultural exchange', is not a proper recognition of the important role that graduate students play in the work of the University. The Council applauds the recent performance of the Cambridge graduate students in two successive national finals of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) Biotechnology Young Entrepreneurs' Scheme and the substantial graduate involvement in the Cambridge University Entrepreneurs' Society, which included several of the winners in their latest competition. They will take the opportunity as the Framework Agreement is developed into a full proposal document to ensure access for graduate students to the programmes of the Cambridge-MIT Institute concerning the commercial exploitation and management of technology. They have referred to the General Board Mr Bailey's remarks concerning the possible establishment of Faculty-wide graduate schools to organize opportunities for graduates to develop transferable skills and to co-ordinate aspects of basic training.

7. The Council agree with Dr Evans that the experimental use of a USENET discussion group, which they announced in their Notice (p. 427), has not facilitated the discussion of the CMI proposal in the way that was hoped. The web-site has in their view been a success in enabling, as did the meeting for staff and students, a much wider participation in the discussion than is achieved at formal Discussions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment to the CMI proposal is an affirmation of belief in the important role that universities play through learning and research in producing benefit for the UK economy. The political agenda is closer in the CMI initiative than is normally the case with university funding because of the initiative's origins. Normally civil servants and funding councils and/or research councils make the case, on behalf of universities collectively, for the funding of a particular programme. In doing so they take in their stride the need to address the requirements of the Treasury funding model that there must be measurable benefits, clear targets, and transparency in accounting. The funding having been secured, individual universities then compete for the funds, when they need to establish that they will achieve value for money and deliver best practice. In the case of CMI, the discussions with OST include the need to address the requirements of the Treasury funding model.

8. The Council are clear that universities have, through individual scholars, had links with each other for many years and that it is appropriate to be considering more formal linkages between institutions. Dr Evans is, however, incorrect when she states that the plan is to merge with MIT and then with other leading universities. She is also incorrect when she states that CMI will be able to appoint to posts in the University of Cambridge and to tell our employees and students what to do. The funding will enable new staff to be hired by the University in exactly the same way as funding from research councils and educational charities does routinely.

9. The Council took the opportunity of the Joint Report to keep the University informed of consideration of 'distance and web-based learning technologies' and of a 'virtual university'. Nothing that they have said, or considered but not reported, conflicts with the statutory purposes of the University to foster education, learning, and research. Their consideration of these matters as part of their review of the University's mission is an appropriate reflection on the implications for the University of a rapidly changing external environment.

10. The £2.9m for the Cambridge Entrepreneurship Centre has been restored as part of the CMI funding. Dr Evans is therefore incorrect to conclude that the University has lost £2.9m overall.

11. The Council have agreed to submit a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 9, p. 582) for the approval of the recommendations in the Joint Report.

Table of Contents