Battling through autism confusion

research rated 3a and 3b. A statement released by the council said, “The overall improvement in research ratings, combined with the limited amount of funds, means that there will inevitably be some reduction in levels of funding for departments rated below 5*.” Newby has estimated that an extra £200 million a year would have to be found if departments were to be funded on the same basis as before. Total funding for research for the academic year 2002–2003 has been provisionally set at £910 million. Many universities boosted their rating by omitting up to 20 per cent of staff from the exercise, which has led critics to question the value of the results. And even top universities face an uncertain future. Sir Alec Broers, vice chancellor of Cambridge University has warned that the university, like many others, is going into the red this year, and the problem would be made more difficult if the ratings are not fully rewarded. The Association of University Teachers is pressing the funding council to protect jobs when deciding how to allocate the cash. Sally Hunt, assistant general secretary of the AUT, wrote to Newby expressing her concerns. Many AUT members now fear that their work will go unrewarded because of the need to fund the outcome of the 2001 RAE even more selectively, she says. “This will have a catastrophic impact on staff morale and motivation at a time when our institutions are already under intolerable pressure to dance to a variety of government tunes that are not entirely harmonious.” The funding councils will review the RAE this year to check whether it is still fit for the purpose for which it was designed. “I am sure there will be another RAE,” says Newby. “I think it is inevitable that you reward research on a selective basis. Whether it is an RAE in the current form, I have my doubts.” R42 Current Biology Vol 12 No 2