APPENDIX 14
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Academy
of Engineering
The Royal Academy of Engineering comprises the
United Kingdom's most eminent engineers of all disciplines. The
Academy's objectives may be summarised as the pursuit, encouragement
and maintenance of excellence in the whole field of engineering
to promote the advancement of the science, art and practice of
engineering for the benefit of the public. The Academy aims to
take advantage of the wealth of engineering knowledge and experience
that its Fellows possess. The interdisciplinary character of The
Academy's membership provides a unique breadth of expertise with
which to further all forms of engineering.
By promoting a multi-disciplinary approach,
The Academy is able to overcome traditional barriers and to demonstrate
the interdependence of different areas of expertise in the efficient
use of modern technology and engineering. Emphasis is also placed
on the importance of well-informed communication between engineers,
Government, research establishments, industry, public services
and academia.
The evidence which follows represents a collation
of personal views from Fellows of The Royal Academy of Engineering.
It cannot reflect the views of all contributing Fellows nor those
of The Academy as a whole.
1. GENERAL COMMENTS
1.1 A difficulty experienced in attempting
to assess the impact of the 1993 White Paper, "Realising
Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology",
is that no objectives were identified and no targets set against
which measurements could be made. Nevertheless, the overall response
from Fellows when asked about the impact of the 1993 White Paper
is that there has been some change but not much is evident, since
it takes a long time to achieve a change in culture and style
of research and development. The 1993 Paper was viewed as an important
and timely document which forced the nation to consider the balance
and direction of its research and training initiatives. Fellows
have commented that the nation's potential in science, technology
and engineering is probably less now that it was in 1993.
1.2 In re-reading the 1993 White Paper the
demotion of science and engineering since then is most striking.
In 1993, Science was represented at Cabinet level. Now, OST is
subsumed into the DTI and led by a junior minister. The wished
for co-ordination across government departments has not happened.
There is still no clear voice in government for Science and Engineering.
1.3 Despite substantial new funding in the
1997 Comprehensive Spending Review, the UK is way behind many
of its competitors in terms of government spend on Science as
a proportion of GDP. Government support to the Science and Engineering
base from MoD and DTI has declined steadily over the intervening
years. The UK is believed to be unique among the technologically
advanced nations in reducing the proportion of defence budgets
applied to Research and Technology.
1.4 Changes in the status of the Government
Research Establishments, from DRA to DERA and now to DERA PPP
have done nothing to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of government
funded research. Each change has engendered a degree of distrust
between the Research Agency and Industry which has taken time
to resolve, resulting in delays and inefficiencies in collaborative
programmes. One area where some progress has been made is the
setting up of DARPs (Defence and Aerospace Research Partnerships)
where Academia, Industry and Government Research Agencies can
come together to carry out collaborative programmes. But, even
here, access to EPSRC funding has been disappointingly slow.
2. THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE OBJECTIVES
SET OUT
IN THE
1993 WHITE PAPER,
REALISING OUR
POTENTIAL, HAVE
BEEN DELIVERED?
2.1 The annual publication of Forward Look
to provide a clear and up-to-date statement of the Government's
Strategy for science, engineering and technology (replacing the
more limited annual review);
The Forward Look is recognised as having become
more focused and concise, targeted at a wider readership. Whilst
it analyses expenditure and indicates priorities, it does not
give a statement of the Government's strategy—unless the
expenditure plans and collection of individual departmental statements
are viewed as such. An identified deficiency with the Forward
Look is that it tends to focus on obvious application areas whereas
it should consider also those areas where science could contribute
but where mechanisms are inadequate or non-existent eg social
security.
2.2 The creation of Technology Foresight
(now Foresight), designed to "achieve a key culture change;
better communication, interaction and mutual understanding between
the scientific community, industry and government departments";
There are mixed views on the achievements of
the first round of Technology Foresight with much variability
between the Panels. Initial participants have obtained a better
view of the range of different aspects of the technology supply
chain and benefited from the network of contacts. Continued efforts
are needed to optimise the opportunities for industry/academic
interactions. However, the effects of the Foresight programme
are second order when compared with the combined effects of global
competition and the massive private research, development and
product innovation of the leading global companies.
The loss of the Technology focus to Foresight
is widely regretted.
2.3 The abolition of the Advisory Council
on Science and Technology its replacement with the Council for
Science and Technology "to help ensure that the Government
benefits from outside independent and expert advice when deciding
on its own research spending priorities";
The new Council for Science and Technology appears
to be both invisible and ineffective. This is not a good advertisement
for openness and accountability in government.
2.4 A shifting of emphasis for technology
transfer initiatives to place more importance on "the interchange
of ideas, skills, know-how and knowledge between the science and
engineering base and industry";
The 1993 White Paper has promoted a culture
change within the science community resulting in greater dialogue,
partnership and collaboration. A similar culture change within
industry would be welcomed. Research Council grant schemes designed
to increase collaboration with industry have strengthened and
new schemes have been introduced.
2.5 Programmes to improve access for small
and medium-sized enterprises to innovation support programmes;
The LINK initiative is viewed as an extremely
successful scheme, offering a mechanism for collaboration between
the public and private sectors in areas of strategic importance
to the national economy as identified by Foresight. The Teaching
Company Scheme has also proved to be a valuable initiative in
helping industry innovate through collaboration with research
and education. A concern which has been expressed is that SMEs
often have little spare manpower to investigate each scheme. They
have been presented with a confusing picture and hence the objective
of engaging them has not been met.
2.6 The reorganisation of the Research Councils
with modified structures and new mission statements which made
more explicit their commitments to wealth creation and the quality
of life.
It is believed that, in general, the reorganisation
of the Research Councils has been beneficial in improving focus
with more useful industry inputs. The contribution expected of
proposed research activity to wealth creation and quality of life
has to be stated but this has had the effect of increasing the
number of "safe" and "incremental" project
proposals. A balance is required between wealth creation, skill
development and knowledge creation to ensure that the science
and engineering base is not eroded in the long term. Two notes
of caution have been raised: one concerns the increasing bureaucracy
of research funding which is driving researchers away from academia
and into industry; the second is that research strategy is a matter
of taste and of trust and that professionals in the particular
subject should be involved in the grant-awarding process.
2.7 The creation of the post of the Director-General
of the Research Councils and the absorption of the functions of
the Advisory Board for the Research Councils into the Office of
Science and Technology;
The creation of the post of the Director-General
of the Research Councils (DGRC) has increased both collaboration
and competition between the Research Councils. The impact of the
post can, in part, be measured by the successful outcome of the
1997 Comprehensive Spending Review. The post should be allowed
to develop to provide further information before judging the effects
of the change. There is a concern that the creation of the post
of DGRC has downgraded the positions of Heads of Research Councils
with a potential lowering of standards amongst future applicants
for these posts as they are now seen as essentially responsible
to the DGRC.
A commitment in the 1993 White Paper was to
maintain and strengthen the Rothschild customer-contractor principle
in relation to departmental applied research and development.
Where departments have withdrawn funding from the Science Base
the potential results for Research Council Institutes are redundancies,
site closures and even loss of a national research capability,
with the Science Budget picking up the cost. Another consequence
of the privatisation of research establishments is that the staff
are no longer civil servants and the flow of scientists between
government departments and research establishments has diminished,
to the detriment of the departments' development as intelligent
customers.
2.8 The launch of a new campaign to spread
understanding of science among school children and the public;
The spreading of the understanding of science
and engineering amongst the public or schools has been mostly
ineffective. The number and quality of young people embarking
on science or engineering courses at university level remains
a major bottleneck for the UK. Today, fewer school children than
ten years ago wish to consider careers in either science or technology.
There is a need to rethink how we enter into dialogue with young
people—possibly through focusing on teacher training rather
than on schools. It is hoped that the Lord Sainsbury initiated
review of the role of the Engineering Council will yield positive
results.
It has been suggested that to attract people
to careers in engineering there needs to be much greater exposure
and teaching of "How Things Work". This should be at
both Primary and Secondary education level but should be taught
not as a scientific, numerate subject, but using language, drawing
and visualisation. This would have the additional benefit of creating
a more technologically literate society. The academic purity of
studying underlying principles before applications is deterring
young people from following technological careers. Many of the
pioneers of the 18th and 19th century technological developments
were practical people, not theoreticians.
3. 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?
3.1 The objectives and themes of the 1993
White Paper are generally considered to remain appropriate but
with a need for a shift in focus. More must be done in those areas
where progress has been slow eg the promotion of science and engineering
to the young. The availability of skilled people is becoming a
limiting factor more so than in 1993, exacerbated by an even greater
shortfall in good schoolteachers, with a longer-term problem foreseen.
3.2 A reservation expressed about the 1993
themes concerns the failure to address the globalisation of industry
and research. The previous model was based on UK-industry and
UK-academia working together but each is becoming increasingly
difficult to define as global alliances are established.
3.3 It has been pointed out that the changes
in the 1993 paper were about the funding of R&D or improvement
in the use of those funds A S&T strategy should be more than
R&D funding eg guidelines on the use of scientific advice
have little to do with funding as such but are an integral part
of any S&T strategy. S&T does not equal R&D.
4. WHETHER ATTEMPTS
TO DELIVER
THE 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?
4.1 The extent of any culture change is
very varied across the differing sectors of society but attitudes
towards the importance of science, engineering and technology
within a wealth creating economy remain unchanged. The benefits
of the progress of technology are not recognised whilst the media
pressurises the public with stories of health scares without quantification
of risk, leaving scientists forced into a position of having to
prove "negatives".
4.2 Communication with the young and schools
has been ineffective. It is recognised to be a highly complex
issue but there is a lack of understanding of the challenge and
the resultant effects of change.
4.3 The Foresight activities have improved
communications in certain areas through the creation of networks.
However, the most effective changes to culture have arisen through
market forces—expanding markets, global competition. Government
policy has to be configured to work with these forces and help
produce effective results. Tax incentives would appear to be necessary
to encourage change in major areas of UK industry.
5. 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" AND
INDICATED ITS
PLANS TO
ACHIEVE THIS
BY:
— sustaining the excellence of the
science and technology base;
— encouraging private investment in
innovation;
— streamlining knowledge transfer schemes
and focusing them on clear goals;
— fostering regional networks;
— improving the flow of skilled scientists
and engineers to industry;
— improving the ability of the science
base to play a role in the knowledge economy;
— taking advantage of the globalisation
of research; and
— improving public confidence by creating
greater transparency in the regulation of science.
DO YOU
AGREE THAT
THESE ARE
APPROPRIATE AIMS
FOR A
NATIONAL STRATEGY
FOR SCIENCE?
5.1 The aims listed, although mainly the
means by which a strategy for S&T can better be delivered,
are believed to be appropriate but consideration should be given
to their prioritisation. The flow of trained people is especially
important but this depends on the willingness of industry to employ
them on attractive terms. Lack of recognition of the need to offer
good rewards in the parochial UK labour market will result in
the loss of expertise to the global research market.
5.2 To ensure the supply of trained people
in engineering and technology the academic base has to be sustained
with people of the right calibre. The strategy must include schools
as long term sustainability demands effective teaching of science,
engineering and technology if the other stated objectives are
to be achieved. The limited funding of universities and the low
pay to university scientists will not achieve the aim of sustaining
excellence. In the short term it will result in the flow of skilled
scientists and engineers to industry but, already, even the major
universities are experiencing a decline in the number of applicants
of expected standing for academic posts. It is being said that
"students are often brighter than the staff", giving
rise to serious concern for the education of future engineers.
5.3 The "reducing half-life of knowledge"
has been identified as a concern since it requires people to prepare
for more frequent "re-skilling". Those at a more mature
age with a passion for science, engineering and technology will
have to be retained by "re-skilling" when their particular
skills set becomes redundant.
5.4 Government initiatives to stimulate
entrepreneurial growth, whilst applauded, suffer from difficult
and complex regulations. This is thought to betray a begrudging
Treasury influence more concerned with closing loopholes rather
than a spirit of encouraging innovative companies.
6. WHAT DO
YOU BELIEVE
SHOULD BE
THE MAIN
FEATURES OF
A MODERN
STRATEGY FOR
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY
AND WHY?
6.1 The main features of a modern strategy
for science, engineering and technology must encompass the promotion
of excellence whilst maintaining and expanding the education and
training base. Without a supply of trained people of adequate
quality, global companies will relocate elsewhere but, whereas
a focus on wealth creation and social welfare is understandable,
it must not be at the cost of stifling "blue skies"
activities: research driven by the perceived needs of "customers"
stifles ground breaking innovation. There must be a strategy to
encourage a flow of people trained to think, operate and contribute
to a highly complex technical world: the output from government
funding of the university system. Professionals practising in
the fields of science, engineering and technology must acquire
the skills necessary to communicate effectively with the general
public through the media. This in turn will help attract able
youngsters and encourage a better understanding in society.
12 June 2000
| 
