APPENDIX 64
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Institute of Biology
SUMMARY
1. This response's principal contents include:
(i) the White Paper is greatly welcomed,
and it addresses a number of key concerns
(ii) however, the White Paper does not go
far enough to resolve a number of problem areas. These include
the: pan-Departmental co-ordination and support (especially departmental
investment) for UK science; and scientists' career structure (especially
with regard to the dominance of short-term contracts)
(iii) that the failure to meaningfully address
these concerns will result in the continued erosion of UK science
and impede the UK from becoming a leading high-tech/high-income
nation
(iv) this failure will severely hinder (and
probably prevent) the UK from becoming more sustainable (both
more self-reliant in terms of resource use (both natural and human))
and in terms of environmental quality.
GENERAL
The Institute welcomes the Science White Paper
and looks forward to continued real-term investment in the Science
Base, the proposed cross-departmental approach and its biological
priorities.
2. The Institute welcomes the Excellence
and Opportunity Science White Paper (2000) and its proposed
initiatives. In particular, the reassurance as to the Government's
appreciation of curiosity-driven (blue skies or fundamental) research
(White Paper, paragraph 28). As such, we look forward to its continued
increased real-term investment in the Science Base as a proportion
of UK Gross National Product (GNP).
The Institute also welcomes the cross-departmental
approach that is said to "underpin" the White Paper
(White Paper, paragraph 31), the concern for the high proportion
of researchers on short-term contracts (White Paper, paragraph
34), and the biological emphasis on funding priorities (White
Paper, paragraphs 26 and 27).
Prior to the White Paper the Institute identified
several policy concerns for the OST
3. Prior to the White Paper the Institute
responded to the Office of Science and Technology's (OST) pre-White
Paper consultation on Science and Innovation Strategy. In its
response the Institute cited the following policy concerns:
(i) the need for a co-ordinated strategy
across all of government, its departments and agencies;
(ii) the need for dedicated and well-trained
scientists in providing excellence in science research;
(iii) the need to reverse the current discouragement
for scientists engaging in scholarship activities;
(iv) barriers to inter- and multi-disciplinary
research (but not to force partnerships that may be less than
useful);
(v) the need to provide the tools for, and
the reward of, excellence;
(vi) to reverse the decline in total governmental
investment in science to its real-term mid-1980s level;
(vii) to note that some research is not suited
to the three-year standard funding model;
(viii) free impartial advice and source of
initial resources from a single source for start-up and/or spin
out companies;
(ix) concerns over A-level science uptake;
(x) major concerns over the proportion of
short-term contracts in research;
(xi) concerns over the current research assessments,
for example not including industrially commissioned or orientated
research and its output;
(xii) reforming the scientific advisory system
and the need to make it easier for bench scientists to contribute
their advice;
(xiii) the need to properly value advice
from royal chartered bodies.
NB. The above strategies are in order of the
OST's consultation questions and not Institute priority.
That many of the above concerns are shared by
the White Paper is welcome, but action beyond the White Paper's
proposals is required
4. The Excellence and Opportunity
White Paper (2000) does address many of the above priorities,
and this is greatly welcomed. However, in virtually all areas
the White Paper does not go nearly far enough to meaningfully
address the issues it raises.
Three fundamental priorities especially need to
be addressed with urgency
5. Though all of the above concerns need
far more attention given them, the following need special mention
as requiring substantial attention:
(i) the balance of short-term contracts to
fixed tenure (which for scientists with several years of proven
track record generates an additional administrative burden. Also,
in terms of costs to the UK, not inconsiderable personnel overheads
associated with generating new contracts, advertising, interviews
etc.) We note that this concern remains unresolved despite being
highlighted by the previous 1993 White Paper, Realising Our
Potential and being mentioned in a number of select committee
reports
(ii) the need for proper strategic and budget
control across departments so as to be able to implement a meaningful
UK strategy for science
(iii) the need to return to the real-term,
mid-1980s level of government investment in science and to maintain
this as a proportion of the UK economy. Nowhere has the year-on-year
decline in investment been so noticeable as with MAFF. This is
all the more surprising given the often-stated political imperative
to base policy on sound science. Yet despite issues such as salmonella,
bovine TB, BSE, and GM crops/food, MAFF has devoted reduced resources
in real-terms to research virtually every year since the mid-1980s.
Several consequences can be expected from failing
to address these three priorities
6. If the issues in the above paragraph
(6) are not fully and adequately faced, then we confidently predict
that the UK can expect to see the following:
(i) the continuing decline in terms of the
proportion of science A-level pupils continuing to study
"core" science to BSc level—as science becomes
less attractive as a career option. (While biology itself is currently
doing well in these terms (compared to physics and chemistry),
policy decisions need to be made as to the UK requirements for
the balance between science and non-science bachelors' output,
irrespective of whether a career in research is then followed);
(ii) the continuing decline in the best science
graduates embarking on a career in science (for instance as revealed
by the Save British Science survey of university departments);
(iii) the continuing decline in the proportion
of top scientists (for instance as represented by the proportion
of Fellows of the Royal Society) working within the UK;
(iv) continuing impedance to address policy
concerns with a core scientific dimension to them (for instance
as revealed by the recent Phillips Report);
(v) continuing pressure on the research councils
to include policy-driven concerns (such as from Foresight) at
the expense of blue skies or fundamental research. (Policy driven
research needs to be led by government departments within an agreed
strategy);
(vi) continued problems in transferring knowledge
to the industrial-commercial sectors (as this should be supported
largely by appropriate departments and not the Science Base; industry
and commerce will only support close-to-market applied research);
(vii) the failure for the UK to become a
leading high-tech, high-income nation in the 21st century;
(viii) the failure for the UK to become more
sustainable (both more self-reliant in terms of resource use (both
natural and human) and in terms of environmental quality). Indeed
without the proper investment in, and strategy for, UK science
will continue to become less economically and environmentally
sustainable.
The UK bioscience community is actively identifying
its priorities for UK science
7. Because we believe the concerns of the
UK bioscience community must be taken seriously, the Institute
of Biology has been surveying the views of its 76 affiliated societies.
It has compiled these and, following a feedback ratification period
with these societies, will be publishing a bioscience priority
list for UK science policy in the Spring of 2001. It will be sharing
these conclusions with those with a central role in UK science
policy as well as its cousins, royal chartered bodies that relate
to physics and chemistry within the Science Council.
12 January 2001
|
