APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Institution of Professionals, Managers
and Specialists (IPMS) is a trade union representing 75,000 scientific,
technical and specialist staff in the Civil Service, Research
Councils, other public sector bodies and an increasing number
of private sector companies. IPMS members are involved in a very
wide range of science, engineering and technology functions, from
long term environmental research to defence engineering and from
very large space projects to forensic DNA testing. We commented
in detail to the Minister for Science, William Waldegrave, both
orally and in writing before publication of the 1993 White Paper
and have submitted views subsequently in response both to government
consultation papers and Select Committee inquiries on issues of
wide relevance to the future of science, engineering and technology.
These include submissions on the Prior Options Reviews1 and the
more recent Baker study2; the Foresight programme3 and the Forward
Look; the scientific advisory system4; aspects of energy policy5;
and on proposals to privatise the Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency6. It is not our intention to reiterate earlier submissions
in response to the Select Committee's current inquiry, though
many of the themes remain pertinent and we should be glad to provide
any further information and background documents that may be helpful.
2. In addressing the specific issues identified
by the Select Committee, our views are as follows:
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE OBJECTIVES
SET OUT
IN THE
1993 WHITE PAPER
"REALISING OUR
POTENTIAL" HAVE
BEEN DELIVERED
Annual publication of the Forward Look
3. The Forward Look is an extremely useful reference
source, though its overall value has been reduced by discontinuity
in the series. The 1999 Forward Look was the first to be published
since 1996. However, "Science, Engineering and Technology
Statistics", an essential accompaniment to the Forward
Look was not published last year. Thus it has become more difficult
to undertake satisfactory longer term analysis, for example of
trends in SET expenditure, and to build a clear understanding
of the broader picture. For instance, the analyses of business
expenditure on R&D, international comparisons and information
on employment in R&D are all included in "Science,
Engineering and Technology Statistics". The provision
of good quality, continuous data is essential for interpreting
the impact of policy and expenditure decisions. IPMS therefore
strongly agrees with the Select Committee's conclusion in their
report on "Government Expenditure on Research and Development:
The Forward Look" that annual publication should be resumed.
This should include annual publication of the "Science,
Engineering and Technology Statistics". We also agree
that data on expenditure should be matched more closely to policy
objectives and the achievement of departmental science strategies.
Creation of Foresight
4. IPMS has broadly welcomed the way in
which the Foresight process has evolved. For example, our response
to the Office of Science and Technology's 1998 consultation on
the Foresight programme welcomed the emphasis on the social dimensions
of change as well as market trends. However, although the Foresight
process has generally been regarded as successful in fostering
networking, there are still doubts about its effectiveness in
follow through and monitoring. The Foresight Steering Group itself
identified several areas where government and its agencies need
to take a lead. For example, it recommended developing long term
sources of funding to take forward projects and using government
procurement to stimulate technology. The need for resources to
maintain the Foresight process must be addressed, particularly
if a wider range of interests is to be encouraged to participate.
For example, many SMEs do not have the human or financial resources
to participate. State funding may make the difference between
participating in the process or not.
5. In terms of the sector panels, we believe
that it is particularly important to capture the views of SMEs,
working scientists and others at the cutting edge, whether research
providers or those involved in marketing or defining the "customer"
demand. It is also important, particularly in the quality of life
aspects of research, to involve a wider range of interests such
as consumers and environmental groups, trade unions and the public
at large. It is an important omission that, although the TUC General
Secretary sits on the Foresight Steering Group, there is no trade
union representation on the sector panels. This is the level at
which experts and practitioners in the relevant fields can make
a substantive contribution. Those who also work actively within
their union would bring the added benefits of social partnership;
a dimension the Government is keen to encourage in other aspects
of public life. The membership of all the sector panels should
be refreshed to ensure complete gender balance.
Replacement of the Advisory Council on Science
and Technology by the Council for Science and Technology
6. The Council for Science and Technology
(CST) has been fairly quiet in comparison with the Advisory Council
on Science and Technology (ACOST), though its 1999 "Review
of S&T Activity Across Government" is very useful. It
is to be hoped that the recommendations in that report will be
taken up by government. In particular, the recommendations on
science strategy are highly relevant to the current considerations
about a new science White Paper.
Interchange of ideas between the science base
and industry
7. The Government has made clear its view
that "spinning-off" successful commercial ventures should
be a key objective of public sector research activity. IPMS agrees
that a knowledge transfer culture needs to be embedded in PSREs,
though we also believe that an approach based solely on the commercial
value of research activities cannot hope to do justice to the
"public good" value of science or to reward fairly the
scientists that work in this area. Furthermore, there is a risk
that undue emphasis on innovation and spin-out will be at the
expense of longer term basic research. This is already evident,
for example, in the Ministry of Defence. The 1999 Forward Look
showed that although MOD's overall expenditure of SET will increase
by 3.2 per cent over the next three years, there will actually
be a cut of 13.2 per cent in research spending. The danger here
is that although there may be clear short term benefits from the
focus on development activities, the underlying knowledge pool
of the organisation will be reduced and that capability will not
be sustained over the longer term. It is also worth noting that
opportunities for technology transfer often arise as unintended
consequences of basic research. Unless the research base is maintained
and strengthened, future development activities will depend increasingly
on buying in research outputs from elsewhere.
8. Moreover, experience has shown that moves
to contractorisation and privatisation of research have tended
to reduce interchange of ideas and to lead to less, not more,
flexible relationships between the science base and industry.
There are added difficulties in relation to the privatisation
of defence research, as detailed in the DERA Trade Unions Response
to the MoD consultation document "A Public Private Partnership
for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency". Representation
of scientists in government must be increased, in policy-making
roles as well as the delivery of science, to provide continuity
of expertise and intelligent decision-making and to act as a flexible
resource in times of crisis. The 1993 White Paper said that "Government
recognises that science and technology are integral to the missions
of many departments, and that changes should strengthen the effective
provision of scientific expertise and advice". In fact the
post-White Paper policy of privatisation of PSREs has severely
weakened that provision and unfortunately, the general prescription
in the Baker report that public sector research establishments
should be put at greater arms length from government departments
is likely to continue that process.
9. Consideration also needs to be given
to the level of funding and the way in which it is allocated.
Despite recent welcome increases in government funding, more money
is still needed for scientific research and innovation particularly
at departmental level, as highlighted in the Select Committee's
own report on "Government Expenditure on Research and Development:
The Forward Look". The funding modes used by Research Councils
foster a highly competitive system in which academic reputation
is both the key to the door and the main outcome. Whilst publication
of scientific papers is a good outcome for the staff involved,
a system geared mainly to judgements of academic excellence makes
it very difficult to build in applied aspects of research at an
early stage. Crucially, at the time of conception of new programmes
of work the ideas, however exciting, can be of little direct relevance
to industry. The inclusion of user community members on steering
committees and review panels is useful, but not as effective as
full consultation with industry groups to define the scope and
aims of work in the subject area. The challenge will be to maintain
scientific rigour, while accepting that users will want to "call
the tune", especially when they are making a financial contribution.
10. A recent IPMS membership survey of members
employed in research and development clearly showed the stresses
and strains that can result from reliance on external funding.
Respondents were asked a series of questions designed to gauge
the impact of increasing contractorisation and commercialisation
of public sector research work. For example, they were asked whether
they had ever been asked to tailor their research conclusions
or resulting advice. 70 per cent had not, but of the remaining
30 per cent:
— 17 per cent had been asked to tailor
their work to suit the customer's preferred outcome;
— 10 per cent had been asked to do
so in order to obtain further contracts; and
— 3 per cent had been asked in order
to discourage publication.
11. The role of the science base in underpinning
developments across a wider range of scientific disciplines has
not been fully appreciated, either politically or in funding terms.
For example, the National Space Strategy recognises that "the
facilities and infrastructure managed by public sector organisations
constitute a valuable resource in the development of future commercial
and operational systems outside their core policy sectors".
Recent practical applications of space science including satellite
communications, mobile phone applications, and improved weather
and climate forecasting, are of major commercial value. The Government
needs a strategy on "big science", of which space science
is an integral part, including the role of international collaboration.
IPMS is concerned, in particular, to retain in the UK engineering
base skills located substantially in the Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) and the Council for the Central
Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC). The technical infrastructure
and staff skills must be sustained for the benefit of the economy
as a whole.
Reorganisation of Research Councils
12. Research Councils have been subject
to a process of almost continuous review since the 1993 White
Paper, which itself generated some major changes in organisation.
One example is the formation of CCLRC, whose Daresbury Laboratory
(DL) and Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) were formerly part
of the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC). On dissolution
of that body, they were transferred first to the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and then, on 1 April
1995, to the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils. This
reorganisation generated a series of problems, some of which are
still continuing. For example, CCLRC funding is drawn primarily
from the other Research Councils. Universities are the main competitors
for this funding and because they are also able to obtain finance
from the relevant Higher Education Funding Council, appear to
offer a cheaper service than CCLRC. As a result some CCLRC projects
are under threat. One recent casualty has been the Particle Physics
Theory Division, much of whose work has been transferred to a
university. On the organisational front, the loss of the SERC
central office in Swindon has resulted in many HQ functions being
located at RAL, with the result that many DL staff perceive their
site as an establishment of RAL rather than of CCLRC. This was
evident during the recent campaign over the siting of the new
synchrotron source. The decision to site it at RAL confirmed the
worst fears of many at DL.
13. Despite the fact that there is no need
for further change Research Council institutes now face the prospect
of another round of Prior Options Reviews. Added to this, although
some areas fared well as a result of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending
Review, there have been continuing pressures on research budgets
and the continuing necessity to spend significant amounts of time
bidding for external funding. A number of research institutes
have had to cope with staff redundancies and more are in prospect,
including the large scale job losses at CCLRC's Daresbury laboratory.
It is in this context, which understandably has generated considerable
cynicism about new initiatives, that new mission statements have
been introduced. Having said this, there is no doubt that greater
attention is now being given to opportunities for commercial spin-off
and exploitation of intellectual property rights. Some progress
is being made on how these issues should be managed, and IPMS
continues to contribute to initiatives developed by the Office
of Science and Technology (OST) in response to the Baker study.
However, there is no doubt that more work needs to be done, for
example in relation to action to be taken to resolve conflicts
of interest and in provision of best practice guidance. Indications
from latest consultations are that these issues are now being
addressed.
Creation of the post of Director-General of Research
Councils and of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) to
absorb Advisory Board for Research Councils functions
14. The initial formation of the OST was
a welcome development. However there is still a need for the co-ordination
of science across government to be strengthened. In practice the
OST and Chief Scientific Adviser tend to be involved primarily
with the Science Budget and the Research Councils, leaving very
little resource for issues facing other departments and the Government
as a whole. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) should
appoint its own Chief Scientist rather than relying on the fact
that the Chief Scientific Adviser is located within the department.
This would not only help the OST concentrate on cross governmental
issues, it would also be a vital step in building up scientific
expertise in the DTI itself. This has been greatly depleted both
by privatisation of all its major scientific public sector research
establishments (PSREs) and by the radical reduction of scientific
staff and their status in the core department. The Director-General
of Research Councils (DGRC) needs to be able to draw more easily
and directly on independent expertise, as envisaged in the 1993
White Paper. Consideration should again be given to establishing
a standing group, including economic, industrial and management
expertise as well as scientific know-how. At the same time, OST
should consider increasing the number of secondees with university,
industry and research council experience into its own senior positions.
Campaign to improve public understanding of science
15. It appears that public confidence in
scientific experts is continuing to decline at a time when the
need for high quality scientific advice for decisions in a wide
range of policy areas of increasing complexity and uncertainty
has never been greater. It is against this background, that IPMS
welcomed the decision by the Chief Scientific Adviser to publish
guidelines on the use of scientific advice in policy making. The
draft "Guidelines 2000 on Scientific Advice and Policy Making"
are a useful further step forward although we are concerned that:
— The role of the OST in co-ordinating
and monitoring cross-departmental issues should be strengthened;
and
— Monitoring reports should be included
in the annual Forward Look; and
— Ministers should be made aware of
shortages of resources for research that inhibit full adherence
to the guidelines.
16. There is little point in engaging in
public consultation unless the results of consultation processes
are taken into account in decision making. Scientific assessment
must inform policy decisions, but not pre-empt them. However at
present much public opinion tends to be led by immediate concerns,
and often those that are brought to attention by media reporting
or by groups with a vested interest. It is to be expected that
the commercial sector will respond to these opinions, as it has
done in the case of GM foods, as there is likely to be a direct
financial impact on their activities. However, publicly funded
science has a wider and longer term role, providing both basic
research for which there may be no prospect of commercial return
as well as essential health and safety monitoring and data collection,
for example in relation to climate change.
17. Restriction of day to day research decisions
in this arena would not generally be a productive course though
where there is a strong public interest, for instance relating
to the ethics of a particular course of action, a lay input to
decision making would probably boost public confidence. It would
also place more firmly the responsibility for scientific development
into the wider domain, thus making it less easy to use scientists
as scapegoats. There needs also to be better communication of
the priorities set in order to promote understanding of timescales
and key milestones. Public sector science priorities will inevitably
also reflect government objectives and budgetary restraints. So,
whilst public opinion should be given due consideration in setting
the public science agenda, there are other factors that need to
be taken into account in determining priorities. Policy decisions
must be practical and take account of wider circumstances.
18. The recent House of Lords report on
"Science and Society", to which IPMS submitted evidence,
gives a useful exposition of the key challenges and possible ways
forward. As indicated below, there needs to be a willingness to
try new approaches and to build on existing successful initiatives,
both at national and local level. For example, following its successful
conference on plant biotechnology the Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has organised a number of public
discussion meetings. The fact that researchers funded by BBSRC
are required to devote time to promoting public understanding
of science gives a useful signal that activity in this area is
regarded as important. The development of the World Wide Web provides
significant new potential for initiatives to improve public understanding
and awareness of science.
Application of science, engineering and technology
to wealth creation and quality of life
19. As already indicated, IPMS supports
initiatives to improve technology transfer, though we firmly believe
that this cannot be the only driver for science strategy. It was
both very disappointing and damaging that after the publication
of the 1993 White Paper the then Government sought to pursue this
objective primarily through an explicitly pro-privatisation agenda.
Although the environment has changed for the better in many ways,
the indications are that the diverse nature, functions and operational
status of public sector research establishments are still not
fully appreciated. Hence, for example, the failure of the Baker
report to substantiate the recommendation that departmental PSREs
should be moved to greater arms length from sponsoring departments.
WHETHER THE
OBJECTIVES AND
THEMES OF
THE 1993 WHITE
PAPER REMAIN
APPROPRIATE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A
STRATEGY FOR
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY
AND, IF
NOT, WHAT
OTHER THEMES
AND OBJECTIVES
WOULD BE
MORE BENEFICIAL:
20. Key themes of the 1993 White Paper are
still relevant and useful. Improved communications between research
providers and users is of key importance in ensuring that the
science base is exploited to the benefit of the UK economy. However,
not all objectives have been delivered and some need to be viewed
in a new context. Key themes for the 21st century include:
Funding
21. An increase in the level of funding
is required to ensure the key role of science in underpinning
a successful knowledge-based economy. The injection of funds in
the Comprehensive Spending Review was very welcome, though its
emphasis was very much on addressing deficiencies in existing
science infrastructure rather than on funding research programmes.
Furthermore, more recent evidence shows that there is still a
pressing need for higher investment. A study published in May
2000 by the Science Policy Research Unit found "compelling
evidence of an investment gap between the UK and leading OECD
countries in their support for publicly funded research".
Another May 2000 report, by Manchester University's Policy Research
in Engineering, Science and Technology concluded that the Joint
Infrastructure Fund (JIF) is falling far short of what is needed
to address universities' most urgent requirements for laboratory
equipment. The February 2000 report of the CST on "Technology
Matters" also expressed concern about inadequate government
and industry investment in R&D and the need for clear career
paths and prospects to boost the supply of adequately qualified
science, engineering and technology staff.
22. Within the research council sector,
a report from a joint EPSRC/PPARC panel has raised concern that
lack of funds threatens both the provision of essential equipment
and the supply of talented new physicists. According to the panel
"Research infrastructure (both equipment and human resources)
has been in decline for many years and may be reaching a critical
point". At the same time long term review of its own science
by PPARC concluded that because of intense pressure on budgets
some first rank science will not get funded. There may be scope
for joint development of such facilities by Research Councils
and university departments if an appropriate funding mechanism
could be identified. Allowing Research Councils to be involved
in joint bids for a future round of the Joint Infrastructure Fund
(JIF) may be one way forward.
23. Attention must also be given to the
purpose and destination of SET expenditure and to the interrelationships
between organisations commissioning research and their contractors.
Experience in recent years in which cuts in departmental expenditure
have resulted in withdrawal of support from contractors and unplanned
shuffling of research programmes to meet short term political
priorities is highly damaging. Research cannot be turned on and
off like a tap and requires long term commitment of funds. The
British Geological Survey, for instance, has recently presented
evidence of the detrimental effects on key areas of research of
the focused demands of commercial contracts combined with a long,
gradual squeeze on science budget funding. Areas affected include
monitoring of radon gas emissions and research into radioactive
waste disposal, for which funding was withdrawn on termination
of the Sellafield public inquiry. The Select Committee's own report
on "Government Expenditure on Research & Development:
The Forward Look" recognises that MAFF's short term approach
to funding is harming the science base in the UK. This is not
to argue that research programmes should not adapt to changing
circumstances, but this should be on a planned and consultative
basis. To achieve this, there needs to be a better balance between
core and contract funding and a redirection of government policy
to bring core funding close to at least 60 per cent of the total.
This is essential to maintain the quality of the science base
and to ensure that the best scientists are able to develop their
own ideas.
Staff
24. In parallel to moving towards a more
stable regime, the short term approach to employing and developing
staff needs to be changed. The need for urgent action is evident
from the responses to IPMS' R&D survey. In this context it
is also worth considering how their experiences and attitudes
have changed over the past decade. Compared with a similar IPMS
survey in 1991, a greater proportion of respondents are dissatisfied
with their training and career development as well as with opportunities
to publish research and influence the nature of their work. 30
per cent are looking for employment outside science, engineering
and technology—double the proportion in 1991—and one
half would not advise their children to follow a career in this
field, up from 31 per cent in 1991. A much higher proportion of
women than men want to move out of SET (47 per cent of women,
28 per cent of men), which emphasises the huge task that still
needs to be done to improve women's employment prospects in this
area. These are not just idle whinges from employees wanting better
pay: they represent very real concerns about the future of a vital
sector of the economy.
25. Work done by the Science Alliance (a
campaigning group of trade unions in science—IPMS, MSF,
AUT and NATFHE) shows that although the UK is at the top of the
international league in producing science graduates per thousand
in the labour force, it is bottom of the league in the percentage
of 35-54 year old workers employed as professionals in physical
and engineering science, life science and associated sectors.
This is despite wide acceptance of the close correlation between
the amount invested in R&D and long term growth and prosperity.
The emphasis on contract research within the public sector and,
associated with this, the employment of scientists on fixed term
contracts, has made it more difficult to build up a stock of knowledge
"capital" and less likely that researchers will reveal
for further development any research spin-off that is not strictly
within the terms of the contract. Instead of investing in this
capital, research institutes have been encouraged to use staff
as a flexible resource. The Dearing Report recognised the problems
caused by making appointments on short term contracts, noting
that ". . . the quality of research could be undermined if
these researchers do not have a more secure career". Some
progress has been made in the wake of the 1996 Concordat on career
management for contract research staff in universities but, as
shown by the second report of the Research Careers Initiative,
there is still much more to be done.
Science Strategy
26. Recent developments, for example in
the biotechnology and space sectors, have highlighted the need
for sectoral approaches as well as an overarching science strategy
and for better mechanisms to communicate national science priorities
to these groups.
The recent report into "International Perceptions
of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy" supported by the
Institute of Physics is instructive in this regard, in particular
the conclusion that although UK astronomy and physics are currently
holding their own at the cutting edge that scientific strength
rings hollow in some critical aspects. Similarly, the recent growth
in biotechnology companies in Germany is a sign that the UK's
current leading position may be under threat. IPMS is especially
concerned to retain in the UK engineering base skills which underpin
developments in a wider range of scientific disciplines, including
biotechnology. Although the Foresight programme does provide a
framework for considering these type of developments, it is also
clear that it does not always lead to decisive action or the support
that is needed from Government. For example, the considerable
overhead costs in setting up well-found laboratory facilities
capable of providing a focus for large collaborative projects
are difficult to meet from current budgets. Better account also
needs to be taken of multi-disciplinary projects, for which long
term planning and resource commitment is essential.
27. Science strategy also needs a stronger
regional dimension. It is important to provide a critical mass
of scientific activity regionally and locally and to build up
links between universities, PSREs, regional technology organisations
and local business. This was illustrated most starkly in relation
to the decision over the location of the new synchrotron source.
Although the DTI has announced a £25 million science fund
for the north west of England, this is very much by way of compensation
for not being chosen to host the new synchrotron and will not
be enough on its own to maintain the centre of excellence already
established at Daresbury. Furthermore there is a danger that this
kind of approach may simply fragment funding further. What is
actually needed is a strategic approach that builds in regional
considerations as part of the decision-making process. The present
concentration of scientific facilities and expertise around Cambridge
and around Oxford and the south east is not compatible with Government
policy on sustainable development.
28. Neither should the impact and implications
of devolution be ignored. The decision of the Scottish Executive
to establish a high level advisory body to steer science policy
in Scotland is a useful step forward, though is it clear that
there is still much work to be done to make sure that the work
of this body is integrated into key decision making processes.
The fact that a significant proportion of public sector science
in Scotland is not financed directly by the Scottish Executive
may make this task more difficult. IPMS is currently consulting
members in Scotland on the report of the Science Strategy Review
Group.
29. Achieving a "joined up" approach
to science policy also requires a broader perspective. Much R&D
is increasingly global in its implications. For example, it is
clear from on-going debates about climate change and about genetically
modified organisms that key aspects of science have a global impact.
These issues have moved rapidly higher up the political agenda
since 1993, and it is clear that future developments will be largely
determined in the international arena. This is true also of aspects
of energy policy, where key challenges are market liberalisation
and radioactive waste management. Infrastructure requirements
for "big science" are likely to be met only through
international collaboration. Whilst there are already established
fora for dealing with international and global issues, in future
these will need to be more flexible and responsive to emerging
developments and to proceed on the basis of wider consultation
and involvement.
30. If, as seems likely, the emphasis on
technology transfer and commercialisation is to be continued,
further work is needed to ensure effective management of intellectual
property, both for the scientists who generate it and to safeguard
investment from the public purse. As outlined in our response
to the Baker report, IPMS is keen to ensure that the desire to
exploit innovation does not lead to the loss of key personnel
from research institutes. We believe that the UK should learn
from experience overseas and that government should take a leading
role in promulgating best practice, including that already emerging
in its own research institutes. For example, BBSRC's Business
and Innovation Unit has developed expertise on intellectual property
and is able to advise its research community. Hence there has
been a marked increase in industrial consultancies, involvement
in LINK, intellectual property held and exploitation income generated
in BBSRC sponsored institutes over the last five years. The new
guidance produced by OST is a useful starting point, though it
will be important to monitor its impact in practice.
31. The Government will also need to take
on board the findings of the National Audit Office inquiry into
the exploitation of publicly funded research at the Roslin Institute.
Furthermore, British contributions to design and development of
international facilities raise questions about intellectual property
rights (IPR) which have yet to be addressed. There are, for example,
potential wider benefits from the work at CERN which have not
been exploited due to an absence of ground rules. This may become
a significant problem if the recommendations of the Baker Report
are to be implemented in the generation of spin-off benefits from
a space programme.
WHETHER ATTEMPTS
TO DELIVER
PROPOSALS OF
THE 1993 WHITE
PAPER HAVE
RESULTED IN
A CULTURE
CHANGE ACROSS,
OR IN
PARTS OF,
THE SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY BASE,
AND, IF
SO, WHAT
IS THE
NATURE OF
THIS CHANGE
AND HOW
HAS IT
BEEN DEMONSTRATED
32. There have been many changes across
large parts of the science community, though it is worth noting
that culture change tends to occur over a long period and is most
successfully embedded with the support of the community to which
it relates. The context as far as science, engineering and technology
is concerned, is one of continuing change. However, the changes
that have occurred have not always been along the lines of the
1993 White Paper and some unforeseen developments, such as the
BSE crisis, have undoubtedly caused major shocks to the system.
One of the key problems remains the propensity of politicians
and other opinion formers to treat scientists either as infallible
oracles or convenient scapegoats. Thus, despite a stated desire
and some initiatives to open up scientific decision-making to
wider public scrutiny, the perception still being fostered is
that government science operates on an exclusive basis, primarily
for the benefit of industry and Ministers.
33. Culture change in this setting of distrust
requires a more sophisticated and open approach to consultation
and information sharing. The Chief Scientific Adviser's forthcoming
new guidelines on the use of scientific advice in policy making
should help, as should some of the changes being made to established
advisory structures and new approaches to consultation. However,
it also needs to be borne in mind that the "blame" culture
conveniently adopted by some politicians can easily negate the
benefits of initiatives to foster openness. Furthermore, a culture
of continued cost cutting and of politically expedient shifts
in research priorities is hardly likely to engender a climate
in which scientists respond positively to new challenges. On a
purely pragmatic note, efforts to promote public understanding
of science require appropriate resourcing. Many public sector
scientists work to objectives that are tightly focused on contract
delivery. A more systematic and well resourced approach that is
not dependent on the goodwill of selected individuals needs to
be built into the core mission and objectives for all public sector
science.
34. IPMS' R&D survey provides a good
indication of where culture change has occurred since 1991, when
a similar survey was undertaken. As already indicated, respondents
had generally become more dissatisfied both with working in public
sector science and about their own career prospects. In relation
to the R&D undertaken, there is no doubt that pressures to
commercialise have made a difference in some areas though there
is uncertainty at this stage how the creation of spin-off companies
from public sector research establishments will affect public
sector science. One fifth of respondents expected a positive effect
compared with one third who expected negative consequences.
35. Potentially positive aspects were considered
to be:
— Opportunity to apply research results;
— Additional/alternative source of
income;
— Assist uptake of research and technology
transfer;
— Success may breed success and increase
investment in public sector research;
— Promote useful collaboration;
— Not bound by Treasury rules on financing;
— Tangible indicator of value of science.
36. Potentially negative consequences identified
were:
— Impartiality called into question;
— Fragmentation of public sector science;
— Potential conflicts of interest for
scientists and research establishments;
— Cream off profitable areas of work
but less resources and time for basic and speculative research;
— Loss of in-house scientific expertise
from public sector and of scientists' time for core aspects of
job;
— Restrict collaboration across institutes.
37. A large majority of respondents believed
that the limited duration of project funding interferes both with
the quality of science and restricts opportunities for further
development of results. Four out of ten respondents believed that
privatisation had made a difference to tendering independent advice
in the public interest. Other respondents commented that they
had not been asked for advice since their organisations were privatised.
A number characterised their situation as "he who pays the
piper calls the tune" or "state the truth and lose your
funding". Respondents were asked about the "intelligent
customer" capability of their sponsor department or, in other
words, about the sponsor's ability to make well informed and timely
decisions about its research requirements and use of research
results. Typically this depends on having scientifically literate
advisers and decision-makers within core departments. In practice,
the legacy of privatisation and the rise of the contract culture
is that 41 per cent of respondents considered that the "intelligent
customer" capability of their sponsor department had become
worse over the last five years. At the same time, one in five
respondents reported that more than half their work is done on
a "commercial in confidence" basis.
THE GOVERNMENT'S
RECENT CONSULTATION
ON SCIENCE
AND INNOVATION
STRATEGY STATED
THAT "THE
AIM IS
TO USE
THE UK'S
EXCELLENCE IN
SCIENCE TO
ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENTS
IN OUR
NATIONAL INNOVATION
PERFORMANCE AND
SO TO
IMPROVE THE
COMPETITIVENESS OF
THE ECONOMY
AND THE
QUALITY OF
EVERYONE'S
LIFE". DO
YOU AGREE
THAT THESE
ARE THE
APPROPRIATE AIMS
FOR A
NATIONAL STRATEGY
FOR SCIENCE?
38. IPMS' response to the Government's consultation
paper is at Annex [3]1.
WHAT DO
YOU BELIEVE
SHOULD BE
THE MAIN
FEATURES OF
A MODERN
STRATEGY FOR
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY
AND WHY?
39. As stated above, IPMS believes that
the 1993 White Paper still provides a useful framework from which
to build though there are now also some new themes and objectives
that need to be taken into account. The Government's recent consultation
on "Science and Innovation Strategy" was a useful step
forward in this regard though, as indicated in our response to
it, we are keen that objectives should not be too narrowly focused.
We are very firmly of the view that, in addition to delivering
on specific goals, greater priority needs to be given to improving
the science infrastructure—in particular to properly value
the contribution made by scientists, engineers and technologists
and to enhance career prospects and status. Enhancing public understanding
of science is also crucial and this requires high level political
commitment and a willingness to try out new approaches and address
difficult issues in a more open and constructive manner.
8 June 2000
Notes:
1. Submission to the House of Commons Select
Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into "The Prior
Options Review"—October 1996
2. "Creating Knowledge, Creating Wealth—IPMS
Response to the Baker Study into the Economic Potential of PSREs"—October
1999
3. "Consultation on the Next Round
of the Foresight Programme"—July 1998
4. Submission to the House of Commons Select
Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into "The UK
Scientific Advisory System"—May 1998—and the
inquiry into the "Scientific Advisory System for Genetically
Modified Foods"—March 1999
5. Submission to the House of Commons Select
Committee on Trade and Industry inquiry into "Aspects of
Energy Policy"—January 1998
6. DERA Trade Unions Response to the MoD
Consultation Document on "A Public Private Partnership for
DERA"—June 1999
7. "What Future R&D?"—November
1999
8. Submission to the House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into "Science
and Society"—May 1999
3 Not printed. Back
| 
