APPENDIX 66
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IPMS welcomes the White Paper and the general
boost it gives to science in the UK. However, it pays too little
attention to the role of science in government and the support
of policy, especially on quality of life issues such as health,
security and the environment.
SCIENCE FUNDING
Departmental funding outside the "science
budget", which is the major funding source for public policy
related science has declined over many years in both amount and
proportion of departmental budgets. The 2000 budget has halted
the decline, at least for civil departments, but a sustained increased
will be needed to repair the damage done over the last decade
and if the new Government S&T strategies are to be effective.
Although the Science Budget is generous for
2000-2004 overall it is below inflation in the first year. Funding
for PPARC and NERC will actually decrease during 2001-2 which
will exacerbate existing threats of redundancy and undermine the
skills base which the rest of the White Paper is keen to protect.
IMPORTANCE OF
SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE
We welcome the White Paper recognition of the
vital importance of people and the wide role which government
has in ensuring a sufficient supply of high quality staff and
of the importance of "demand pull" or the "intelligent
customer" for science in both public and private sectors.
The measures on the "supply" side
are in general welcome, but the action signalled in the White
Paper will not fully meet the identified need.
PAY AND
CAREERS
The White Paper recognises that poor pay and
careers, especially the widespread use of fixed-term contracts
for scientists in PSREs and universities, are a major disincentive
to choosing science as a career. Pay and careers must be improved
and the forthcoming consultation on the EC Directive on Fixed
Term Contracts used to maximum effect to improve the lot of those
on FTCs.
Further efforts to improve the opportunities
for both women and ethnic minorities are needed. Science must
fully reflect the diversity of our society, as should the proposed
science "ambassadors".
GOVERNMENT SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES
IPMS welcomes the proposal for government departments
to develop S&T strategies based on the recommendations of
the Council for Science & Technology. The implementation of
the CST report should be an important catalyst in ensuring that
the science strategies developed in departments focus on the policy-making,
regulatory and "quality of life" functions which in
most cases are their primary missions.
If the DTI is to fulfil its vital role in supporting
innovation, both in government and outside, it must have a chief
scientist to exercise a leadership role and increase the S&T
staffing within DTI.
In the drive to "commercialise" public
research outputs, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that roles
and lines of accountability for "quality of life" issues
and for "independent scientific advice" are clearly
and transparently distinguished from those for industrial sponsorship.
The emphasis on government departments providing
S&T strategies makes it even more important that the "Forward
Look" should be published annually alongside "SET Statistics"
and that the statistics themselves should be more meaningful for
monitoring and review purposes.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
IPMS fully supports the drive to maximise the
effective dissemination and application of research results whether
this be for public or commercial purposes. We welcome the White
Paper's recognition of the need to protect PSREs and universities'
objectives of "advancing knowledge and underpinning public
policy". We agree wholeheartedly with the unequivocal statement
in the White Paper that "IP policy must not undermine these
aims and openness is paramount for research that supports public
policy".
Where conflicts between the goals of advancing
knowledge in pursuit of government policy and exploitation activity
cannot be resolved, priority must be given to the primary goal
of knowledge transfer and not to commercialisation.
Adopting a narrow financial approach may lead
to under-valuation of research for the public good that does not
have immediate commercial potential. This could have serious long-term
implications for public science. Research providers should not
be penalised for lack of commercial exploitation. There must be
clear objectives for monitoring commercial exploitation; agreed
indices; and a shared understanding of how the results of monitoring
will be used.
There is a danger that the complex rules being
proposed in the IPR Consultation Paper will involve a significant
extra commitment of resources and even may impede the normal channels
of diffusion and application or results. There should be regular
monitoring of the new arrangements to ensure that the costs do
not outweigh the benefits.
IPMS welcomes the intention that the IPR Guidelines
should apply to all public sector purchasers of research and research
providers. The management of intellectual property should be covered
by a UK-wide framework.
TRANSPARENCY &
DIALOGUE
IPMS has long advocated the need for greater
transparency and dialogue in building confidence in science and
innovation and generally welcomes the White Paper paragraphs on
these issues.
A policy of openness will require additional
resources and support in depth for scientific advisory committees.
It is vital that all experts advising government
declare their interests and that all advice is open and subject
to scrutiny by others. This should extend beyond financial considerations,
bearing in mind that in the public sector scientific advice fulfils
a variety of functions, not all of which have a clear commercial
value.
The principles developed in "Guidelines
2000" and the forthcoming Code for Scientific Advisory Committees
should be applied to all scientific advice, both at national,
EU and international level.
If transparency and dialogue are to be effective,
attention needs to be paid to the training, security, and rewards
of the scientists who take part. It is also important to consider
how best to organise the process to ensure that they do not result
in reluctance to participate and that the ground rules and criteria
being used in any particular context are agreed and clearly spelt
out.
INTRODUCTION
1. IPMS welcomes this opportunity to supplement
their evidence to the Committee on "Realising our Potential"
which also enclosed the IPMS response to the DTI Consultation
on Science and Innovation Strategy in January 2000, by commenting
on the Science White Paper and the "Science Budget".
We have organised our points in the order they appear in the White
Paper, with supplementary notes on the Science Budget not covered
in the White Paper.
2. In general we welcome the White Paper.
Our main reservation is that it is overwhelmingly concerned with
innovation in relation to industry and with the direct relationship
between universities and industry. The third major player, government,
and with it the public sector research establishments (PSREs),
are seen primarily as midwife to the relationships between the
other two. The amount of attention given to the role of science
in government and the role of "evidence based" policy
and promoting quality of life, is comparatively small. The fact
that Chapter 4 on the key issue of public trust and confidence
building is labelled "Confident Consumers" (our emphasis),
is indicative of that approach.
EXCELLENCE IN
SCIENCE
World class infrastructure
3. We welcome the White Paper's recognition
of the need for a strategy for national and international large
infrastructure projects and the greater degree of certainty that
a rolling ten year plan will provide(2.17)(1). As far as CCLRC(2.18)
is concerned this is currently the subject of a quinquennial review.
Stage 1 of the review has been completed and we know that a change
in ownership structure is contemplated. IPMS agrees that the structure
established under the 1993 White Paper Through which CCLRC is
funded by the users, is not a viable mode of funding for such
large scale and vital facilities and said so at the time. IPMS
has not been allowed to see the proposals for change in ownership
structure emerging from stage 1 of the Review until ministers
have taken a decision. Given the complexities of the situation,
especially in the light of the "Diamond" Synchtotron
decision we believe we should have been able to have meaningful
consultations on stage 1 proposals rather than face a fait
accompli on which we will only be consulted on the implementation.
We hope such an important set of facilities will be retained within
the public sector.
Funding excellent research
4. The White Paper recognises that the Government
has to be a key investor in basic science and outlines various
expenditures, most deriving from the 2000 spending review, which
are very welcome. In particular we welcome the £100 million
in the Science Research Investment Fund for Research Council Institutes'
infrastructure over three years. For the OST "Science Budget"
this is another welcome boost coming on top of the previous CSR.
However, the Treasury and other departments are still failing
to address the rest of the departmental budgets which are crucial
to government policy, statutory and regulatory support, as well
as to the direct support of industrial innovation. For example
Table 5 in Annex A shows that the proportion of the departmental
budget spent on science engineering and technology (SET), already
small, has declined by approximately one third since 1988 to a
figure of 2.4 per cent in MAFF and 5.6 per cent in DTI.
5. The Baker Report said that commercial
activities of PSREs should not be used as a substitute for public
funding and a similar promise was made by Stephen Timms, Financial
Secretary to the Treasury in replying to our response to the Baker
Study which had been sent to him
"I recognise that the core mission of PSREs
is to undertake R&D for the Government. Increasing the commercialisation
of PSRE research is an important step toward boosting innovation
and productivity in the UK. But it is certainly not intended to
be a means of substituting core funding. Indeed it is an important
responsibility of government departments to provide adequate funding
to support the research which underpins their policy objectives.
I also recognise the importance of retaining
the vital role of PSREs in providing the Government with independent
advice on key issues such as public health, safety and security.
It is paramount that commercialisation does not undermine this
role, and this point will be well taken in developing the Government
response to the Baker Report."
6. The figures in SET Statistics 2000
show the decline in departmental expenditure over the last ten
years. (See Annex A for a more detailed analysis of the statistics
on departmental funding.) It also shows (Table 3 in Annex A) that
there will be a real increase in expenditure next year but that
for defence this will not be sustained for the following year.
(This coincides with the likely launch of privatised DERA). Although
it is pleasing that the decline has stopped, at least for civil
departments, funding will need to be increased further and sustained
at a higher level if the damage done over the last decade is to
be repaired and the new Government S&T strategies (see later)
are to be effective.
7. In paragraph 1.22 the White Paper fudges
the position of the UK in the International R&D funding league
table. In fact it has declined from being near the top to being
near the bottom of the international league table on most R&D
funding measures. But it does recognise that the position of the
UK is not good by comparison with its major competitors (see Table
8 in Annex A). It is therefore very welcome to see that the Government
is not complacent on the issue. The recent investment in the science
infrastructure already provides an excellent start in addressing
the backlog but will need to be sustained at a high level if the
UK is to remain internationally competitive. Research across G7
countries shows a statistically significant correlation between
government investment in R&D and business investment in R&D
where both are adjusted for the size of the workforce. So investment
in both need to move together.
Funding Priorities
8. IPMS welcomes the thematic approach to
priorities and in particular the recognition that "basic
technology" is a key dimension of the Science Base. Highly
skilled technical support, such as that found in research councils
CCLRC and PPARC, is crucial. Along with this must go the recognition
of the need for long-term and high quality staffing of technical
support. In this regard we would draw attention again to the study
by Dr Stephen Lipworth of the Royal Society on Technical and
research support in the modern laboratory published in September
1998. The report said there was a real danger that any further
decrease in numbers of core technical and research support staff,
and the substitution of staff on short-term contracts will lead
to a reduction in the quality of UK scientific research. It said
that to achieve the objective of establishing and maintaining
a "core" group with relevant expertise requires a career
structure and training for all levels of technical and research
support staff. The supply of such staff is also endangered by
developments in PPARC where the cost of joining ESO is likely
to result in cuts in ground based astronomy and its highly qualified
technical staff in the UK and elsewhere.
9. We are concerned that although the "Science
Budget" is generous for 2001-2004 overall it is below inflation
in the first year. In the year 2001-02 the increases for research
councils BBSRC, NERC, EPSRC and PPARC are below inflation. Indeed
funding for PPARC and NERC will actually decrease during 2001-02
which is likely to exacerbate existing threats of redundancy.
(See Annex A Table 2 for details.)
People
10. We are pleased to see the recognition
of the key importance of people in the White Paper. It says
"...the real core of the science base is
people—teachers, students, researchers. 2. Government has
a key role in creating Britain's basic scientific capability.
Government is the lead investor in basic scientific research.
Through education policy Government and the devolved administrations
have a critical influence on the teaching of science. As an employer
of thousands of scientists in public research laboratories Government
influences the rewards available for science. Government needs
to be an intelligent investor in science, determined to promote
excellence and diversity and provide opportunities for everyone".
(para 2.2)
However, we are disappointed that very little
mention of these issues are made in the key principles in Chapter
1. The action signalled in the White Paper does not match the
analysis of the importance of the issue nor does it fully meet
the identified need.
11. We are pleased to see that the White
Paper does not take such a rosy view of the supply of S&T
staff as the original consultation paper did. It recognises there
are problems of supply and makes some suggestions as to how these
should be tackled. But the "demand" side—the "intelligent
investor" in science also needs to be addressed as well as
the "supply side", a point which the White Paper recognises,
for example, in paragraph 3.12 on "stimulating demand from
business". As the above quote shows, the Government has a
key role. For this to be performed effectively not only requires
a specialist S&T "customer" capability within government,
it also requires a much greater general awareness of S&T issues
among "generalist" decision makers in many departments
and a much better career path for S&T specialists to be promoted
and recruited into these more "generalist" positions.
Similar pathways are required in the private sector (paragraphs
27 and 28).
12. On the "supply side" IPMS
welcomes the steps set out in the White Paper (2.8-14) to encourage
more students to take up science as a career. We would like to
see government and research council establishments playing a full
part in these efforts as some already do and being provided with
the resources to carry it out effectively. We also hope that government
and research council staff will be able to act as science "ambassadors".
Such "ambassadors" should also be fully reflective of
the school population in terms of both gender and ethnicity. As
the White Paper acknowledges there are still major problems in
attracting women to science, particularly outside the life sciences,
and there are also problems, although not covered by the White
Paper, of low take up of science subjects by British Afro-Caribbeans
which need to be addressed(2).
Academic Rewards
13. Just as important, however, is the issue
of rewards. As the White Paper says "people who want to do
science also need to be able to afford to do it". Poor pay
and career prospects are an important disincentive to people to
choose science subjects at university and to choose "core"
science jobs once qualified.
14. The White Paper begins to address this
in the university context with its proposals to increase the basic
PhD stipend to £9,000 p.a. by 2004 and to launch a fund to
assist in the recruitment of up to 50 leading researchers to compete
in the world market for the best academics. But it says nothing
specific about academic salaries (which have fallen 36 per cent
since 1981) or other areas in the public services. For example,
there are severe recruitment and retention difficulties among
S&T staff in the civil service and research councils. Examples
include BBSRC which has major problems in recruiting post-doctoral
project leader scientists and where many scientific and support
staff are leaving for better paid jobs in the private sector.
Research councils and many government departments have difficulties
in recruiting and retaining IT specialists. NERC has introduced
special fellowships for research on the environment in order to
address a shortage of environmental scientists with mathematical,
computational and statistical skills. Nor is the private sector
immune from these pressures as chapter 3 of the White Paper (3.15-16)
shows.
Fixed Term Contracts
15. The White Paper recognises that fixed
term contracts are a major disincentive too. While we welcome
measures outlined in the White Paper (2.35) they do not go far
enough. We know that Lord Sainsbury does not support the use of
FTCs as a normal mode of employment and welcome his statement
in the debate in the House of Lords on the White Paper that "As
regards short-term contracts, we are keen to reduce their number.
There is an initiative to introduce more long-term contracts in
universities".
16. We would urge the Government to reflect
this policy in their implementation of the EU Directive due to
be implemented by July 2001 on which DTI is currently formulating
its consultation paper. Our information from preliminary discussions
is that the Government is considering excluding pay and conditions
all together from the scope of the directive. We and other trade
unions who have significant numbers of FTCs in science will be
resisting such a move which would nullify any significant impact
the directive might have.
17. We would also like to see redundancy
"waiver" clauses outlawed. In the meantime, the Bett
Committee (Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions)
recommended that those on fixed term contracts of more than a
year should be eligible for redundancy pay and the universities
are being encouraged to adopt this. We would encourage research
councils and government departments to do the same for their staff
and to adopt the measures in paragraph 2.34 where they are not
already doing so. Positive incentives similar to those which the
White Paper proposes for universities would help to expedite the
adoption of best practise.
Improving opportunities for women
18. The continued under-representation of
women in S&T, particularly at more senior grades, is a longstanding
problem and already well documented in 1994 in the Report "The
Rising Tide"(3) produced following a government working
group on which IPMS was represented. As shown in research by Fielding
and Glover(4), women in S&T are likely to face gendered job
ladders, lack of access to training, disregard by employers for
equal opportunities, hostile workplace culture, and requirements
for geographical mobility. The issue of work/life balance is a
key issue and the "long hours" culture present in many
jobs, particularly those at senior level, has its parallel in
the "24 hours commitment" which is seen as the keystone
of a committed scientist and relegates those who work part-time
or want a reasonable work/life balance, whether they are male
or female, to second class status. Women also tend to be over
represented among FTCs which provide their own barriers to advancement
such as the requirement in many areas that only permanent staff
can bid for research contracts.
19. These points are confirmed by the recently
published report Who Applies for Research Funding?, commissioned
by the six research councils together with the Wellcome Trust.
This shows that women are less likely to be eligible to apply
for grants (except from the ESRC). Reasons why women apply for
fewer grants include:
— staff at senior levels applied for
more grants, but women hold just one fifth of senior posts
— full-time academics are more likely
than part-timers to apply for grants and women are more than twice
as likely as men to work part-time
— those with tenure apply for more
grants—more women than men have fixed-term contracts
— women are less likely than men to
be involved in high-profile research or to have a high publication
record
— women receive less institutional
support
— career breaks have a considerable
impact on grant applications
— fewer women with dependent children
apply for grants than men in the same situation.
The report recommends a review of funding policies
by the research councils and the trust, and urges universities
to rethink their employment practices.(5)
20. The "Rising Tide" made
many recommendations and established a Unit for Women in SET in
the OST. Some progress has been made and several new initiatives
started as the White Paper recognises, but as the research quoted
above shows there is still much more to be done.
21. We welcome the new target of 40 per
cent membership of SET related public bodies to be women by the
year 2005 (2.38). Similar targets need to be established for senior
positions in all organisations in both the public and private
sectors. In the Civil Service a new impetus to the effort to achieve
equality is being given by the "modernising government"
programme and the fact that "a dramatic improvement in diversity"
is one of the six key themes. The report to the Prime Minister
by the Head of the Civil Service set out the following targets
for the senior civil service objectives and targets with associated
action plans in grades below that level are to be set by departments,
with permanent secretaries accountable for delivery on diversity.
| per cent | 1998 (actual)
| 2000 (actual) |
2004-05 (Target) |
| Women | 17.8
| 22.1 | 35.0
|
| Ethnic Minorities | 1.6
| 2.0 | 3.5
|
| People with Disability | 1.5
| 1.7 | 3.0
|
22. These targets refer to civil service staff as a whole,
of whom SET staff are only a small minority. It is important that
SET staff are fully integrated into the action programmes and
that the statistics are made available to ensure that is the case.
SET staff in general and women and ethnic minorities in particular
should be fully represented in the drive to secure a service more
open to people and ideas and which "brings in and brings
on talent". IPMS has made detailed comments to OST on how
these objectives would be achieved as part of their departments'
S&T strategies.6
Attracting scientists and engineers to the UK
23. We have several comments on the proposals to enable
overseas students to apply for work permits in the UK without
having to return home first. (2.39). These are that:
— this should not be a substitute for solving the
problem lying behind the reluctance of UK students to take up
scientific careers;
— the issue of university fees is a further inhibiting
factor for UK students (outside Scotland), particularly for lower
income groups, and should be tackled as a priority. Even more
worrying is the possibility that universities may charge students
higher fees where graduates are expected to earn higher salaries
such as engineering and technology. This could further exacerbate
the problem of supply;
— there are also problems for British citizens previously
resident abroad who can only claim UK rather that overseas fee
rates if they have been resident for three years for non-study
purposes; and
— there is a moral problem of potentially depriving
poorer countries of qualified staff, especially if their government
has provided the fees.
24. We understand from press reports7 that the White
Paper proposal has been implemented and that the Government is
examining whether the entire immigration system should be ovrhauled
to help address the skill shortage in a more strategic way. While
IPMS would support a more liberal approach to cross border mobility
in general, we would urge that the whole range of issues oulined
above should be reviewed in order to avoid new anomalies and to
ensure that efforts to increase the supply of SET staff within
the UK are not neglected.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INNOVATION
Foresight
25. We welcome the £15 million Foresight Fund (3.3)
designed to aid technology transfer. This is particularly important
in areas such as agriculture where small units predominate. However
we are still concerned that employees are not sufficiently well
represented on Foresight panels. For example the Food Chain and
Crops for Industry Foresight Panel, during the presentation of
its report on 6 December 2000 at the DTI, made a particular point
about its lack of information on how to address the improvement
of skill levels in the food chain and to make it a more attractive
career. There were no trade unions or any other people who might
put an employee point of view on the panel or any of its task
forces to help address such questions, although nominations had
been put forward. One of the recommendations of the Panel is that
the DfEE should consider how to establish a Food Chain Skills
Forum for targeted action to improve skills in the food chain.
We would suggest that maybe union representatives might be included
on this occasion; and included when the panels and task forces
are next refreshed.
Universities in the knowledge driven economy
26. Our main concern as far as universities are concerned
is that, as in the case of PSREs, the emphasis on commercial exploitation
should not distort the core mission of universities in relation
to basic research and teaching and that their "independence"
and ability to disseminate knowledge freely in universities do
not become too greatly inhibited. While the percentage of private
industry expenditure taking place is currently only 7.2 per cent
of the total on R&D, that figure already outstrips the USA
where it is 5.8 per cent and although that might be a cause for
congratulation as far as the White Paper is concerned, the balance
needs careful monitoring.
Stimulating demand from business
27. The main challenge is to encourage businesses to
recognise the value of R&D to their competitiveness and the
White Paper identifies this is vital.
"12. As well as universities reaching out and transferring
their knowledge to business, we need more companies to use science
and technology to create competitive advantage. Our record on
this is still very weak. Too many of our companies still lack
awareness of the need for change, or the ability to do so. In
many industries we invest less in research and development than
our competitors, and our companies are less ready to change and
innovate than others. This is particularly true of large firms."
28. If the intelligent investor in R&D is to develop
within companies, however, it is important to nurse internal SET
talent. Outsourcing their R&D, as many companies do, will
not help to fill that need.
Regional clusters and innovation
29. IPMS support the concept of clusters and the promotion
of regional development and the importance of providing a "critical
mass" of scientific activity regionally and locally and to
build up links between universities, PSREs, RTOs and local business.
Indeed the argument for building the new "Diamond Synchrotron"
at Daresbury rather than Oxfordshire was that, the scientific
argument for the two sites being equally balanced, the regional
scientific impact at Daresbury would be much greater.
30. However, we are concerned that the establishment
of a new Regional Innovative Fund will fragment funding further.
The greater the multiplicity of funding sources, the more complex
and resource intensive it becomes to administer and to access
them. Much R&D is national and increasingly global in its
implications rather than regional. We are therefore not sure that
funding should be provided for R&D on that basis, or at least
it should not be provided to the detriment of the overall level
of funding of the science and engineering base.
31. The problem of fragmentation of resources into small
packages to the detriment of more long term funding applies to
the whole range of innovation funding. We agree that the programmes
should be flexible and able to meet a variety of circumstances.
But the schemes should be clearly explained, advertised, and accessible,
preferably with a "one stop shop" approach, particularly
for SMEs. It is essential, however, that those giving guidance
are knowledgeable in depth about the schemes and the technology
or have easy access to those who are. For SMEs in particular the
delivery should be as simple and direct as possible.
Strategies of government departments
32. We are very disappointed at the almost exclusive
emphasis on commercial innovation in the short reference which
the White Paper makes to the need for and the role of government
science and technology strategies. In paragraph 1.12 of the White
Paper it says it is the Government aim "to allow scientific
know-how to flow beneficially through to society, into business
and jobs, and also into healthcare, public services and the environment".
(our emphasis). But there is little acknowledgement of the latter
in these paragraphs, nor is much attention paid to the importance
of innovation and its diffusion from R&D in those areas unless
they have a commercial application.
33. In fact the CST Report on "Scientific Activity
Across Government", to which the White Paper refers,
is primarily concerned with the decline in government capability
in SET, of which industry and innovation strategies are only a
small part. It says:
"7. In the course of our review it became clear that
overall the Government attaches considerable importance to the
way in which S&T are used by departments. We saw examples
of good practice in all the departments we visited, but we were
not convinced that any department was really staffed, organised,
or sufficiently aware to make the best possible use of science
and technology in delivering their short and medium term objectives
and targets, and in formulating their strategy for the longer
term. We are concerned that the resulting weakness in their ability
to understand, and to respond to, rapid change in the external
work create increasing risk that wrong decisions will be taken,
with potential for substantial damage and costs to Government
and Society".(8)
34. This is partly the result of the continuous cuts
in funding and staff over the last decade or so (see Annex A,
Table 9). But also it is the result of privatisation and fragmentation
which the CST Report acknowledges has cut off a major source of
SET staff for core departments' policy making and other functions.
35. The Government held over the publication of its implementation
plan for the CST Report's recommendations until the White Paper
was published. In the comments which IPMS has put to the OST on
how the recommendations should be implemented, we say that we
hope that the CST report and its implementation will act as an
important catalyst and counterweight in ensuring that the science
strategies developed in departments do focus on the policy-making,
regulatory and "quality of life" functions which in
most cases are their primary missions and do not get completely
hi-jacked by the commercial innovation emphasis in the White Paper.
Also the required resources will need to be put in place for the
science and technology strategies to be effective and to put right
the losses to capability resulting from the previous policies
of privatisation of PSREs and cuts in S&T funding. We agree
with the view of The Royal Society that "It will be difficult
to arrest and reverse this damaging drop in R&D expenditure
unless each government department accepts that its policy objective
depends upon a world class Science Base. Each government department
should then include support for a world class science base in
its Mission, and should invest accordingly"(9). Departments
are due to produce their strategies by the end of 2000 for implementation
in April 2001.
36. As far as the development of innovation and use of
SET in industrial sponsorship are concerned we have made the point
that at least one of the original chief scientist posts in the
DTI should be restored, enabling them to concentrate on the role
of SET in innovation and the major role which the DTI should play
in this. This would also release the Chief Scientific Adviser
in the OST/Cabinet Office to concentrate on general scientific
advice to government and the co-ordination of SET policy across
departments. The loss of SET numbers in core DTI and the privatisation
of its four major PSREs (NPL, LGC, NEL and, Warren Spring), leaving
small NWML (also recommended for privatisation on the latest quinquennial
review) in-house has left DTI poorly equipped to lead on the innovation
strategy as it should be doing.
37. The CST Report focuses on four government departments
with the largest S&T expenditure in addition to the DTI, namely
MOD, MAFF, DETR and DH and all of these either have (eg MOD and
MAFF), or could have, a major industrial sponsorship role. In
all these cases, however, there is a potential for conflict between
the department's primary mission and the role of industrial sponsorship
or "commercialisation". This has already caused major
problems of alleged conflict of interest in MAFF, for example
in relation to both BSE and GMOs and has the potential to do so
in DETR and DH. It is vital therefore that mechanisms are in place
to ensure that roles and lines of accountability for "quality
of life" issues and for "independent scientific advice"
are clearly distinguished from those for industrial sponsorship
and that there is transparency in the decision-making process
within and between departments and in government as a whole.
38. IPMS has highlighted this issue many times in evidence
to select committees and in submissions to the OST and elsewhere.
It also has held a conference on the issues of science advice
and integrity(10). We are very pleased to see that these issues
are now being tackled, and the prominence given to the issue in
chapter 4 of the White Paper. We do, however, still have major
concerns that the drive to "commercialise" PSREs and
promote industrial innovation by departments may compromise their
core missions if not carefully monitored and managed.
39. The White Paper quotes the example of the Defence
Diversification Agency and its role in regional development. It
is not clear how well the DDA will be able to fulfil its equal
access for all regions remit; nor indeed what its remit will be
in general after privatisation. It is not yet known whether DDA
will stay with MOD or go with the privatised DERA. If the former,
it is not clear how it would develop its links with industry;
if the latter, what would be the incentive for a privatised DERA
to build up its competitors. Whatever the outcome, it is important
that it should be able to continue its "mission of providing
a world class innovation brokerage service benefiting small and
medium sized firms".
40. The White Paper mentions that under its Small Business
Research Initiatives (3.33) it will be opening up to SMEs' R&D
procurement programmes worth up to £1 billion with the target
of providing £50 million worth of research under these programmes
from small firms. Each participating department will aim to provide
at least 2.5 per cent of their relevant requirements from small
firms. It is not clear whether "new" money will be forthcoming
for this but it is important that it does not divert further money
from PSREs which are already under enormous funding pressure.
41. The emphasis on government departments providing
S&T strategies makes it even more important that the "Forward
Look" should be published annually alongside "SET Statistics"
and that the statistics themselves should be more meaningful for
monitoring and review purposes.
Intellectual property: changing the rules
42. The effective dissemination of research results for
application or exploitation, whether this be for public or commercial
purposes, is vital and IPMS fully supports the drive to ensure
that maximum use is made of research results. We welcome the White
Paper's recognition of the need to protect PSREs' and universities'
objectives of "advancing knowledge and underpinning public
policy". We agree wholeheartedly with the unequivocal statement
that:
"IP policy must not undermine these aims and issues like
whether to disclose any results before patenting require careful
consideration. Openness is paramount for research that supports
public policy" (3.35).
43. In many areas of government and university research
the scope for commercialisation of research output will by very
limited. As shown in our response to the Patent Office consultation
on "Intellectual Property in Government Research Contracts:
Guidelines for Public Sector Purchases of Research and research
Providers"(11), most departments' primary purpose is general
research and policy support. For example, over two thirds of SET
expenditure in MAFF and DETR and 100 per cent in the HSC is in
support of policy. (See Table 6 in Annex A).
44. That said, IPMS accepts that PSREs should have an
explicit mission to exploit IP generated in research where it
is appropriate for them to do so. We have been actively involved
in consultations on the Baker Report(12) which was published alongside
the White Paper and on the new Codes of Practice governing commercial
activity by scientific civil servants and will not repeat the
points we have made in detail here. But there are several points,
worth emphasising from our submissions in this context particularly
on IPR.
45. IPMS agrees that public sector purchasers should
have clear IP strategies and management plans. We welcome the
recognition, both in the Baker Report and the Science White Paper,
that additional resources will be needed to ensure that expert
advice is available to all research purchasers. It is very important
such advisory facilities are located within government and that
they are properly resourced. Part of the remit should be to encourage
the spread of good practice across the public sector. By contrast,
private sector advice is likely to be both more ad-hoc
and more expensive.
Balancing the needs of public purchasers' and "providers"
46. The guidelines note that the primary goal of research
in advancing knowledge in pursuit of government policy, regulatory
and other official objectives may conflict with exploitation activity.
We agree and accept the need where possible for such conflicts
to be resolved without damaging either goal. However, it may not
always be possible to have a conflict resolution that meets all
needs. The requirements for exploitation are very different to
those for providing policy or regulatory advice. There must be
a clear recognition that, in such cases, priority must be given
to the primary goal of knowledge transfer and not to commercialisation.
47. We agree the need for a culture shift towards a general
assumption that public providers such as PSREs should own their
IP. The guidelines suggest that this should be subject to the
public sector purchaser securing adequate freedom to use the results
for its purposes. This strikes a reasonable balance, though the
issue is wider than simply allowing purchasers to be able to use
a specific piece of IP. It is also important that they should
be able to retain "intelligent customer" capability
in-house for future work. The guidelines take a more flexible
approach than the Baker Report in recognising that there are causes
where this will be appropriate and this is to be welcomed.
48. However, the guidelines' proposal that public sector
purchaser should retain a strategic responsibility for monitoring
the extent of exploitation undertaken by research providers does
pose difficulties. Whilst recognising the need to assess how well
the new arrangements are working, there is a danger that this
provision will create a stick with which to beat research providers.
Indeed the guidelines suggest that failure to exploit might be
taken into account in the award of new contracts. There is a real
danger that adopting a narrow financial approach will quickly
lead to under-valuation of research for the public good that does
not have immediate commercial potential. This could have serious
long-term implications. Government is unlikely to prioritise its
own investment in such areas of research. It will be much easier
to justify funding for research where there is a clear route to
exploitation.
49. These outcomes will only be avoided if there are
clear objectives for monitoring, agreed measures, and a shared
understanding of how the results of monitoring will be used. In
the light of the recognition in the guidelines that exploitation
of research is a secondary goal and there is not always a commercial
market for the product of research, it would in any event be more
appropriate to focus on the effectiveness of technology transfer
rather than on the financial outcomes of exploitation. Research
providers must be judged by the science they produce, which is
their core function. Exploitation may in some cases be better
progressed through a different mechanism.
50. The Consultation Paper from the Patent Office demonstrates
that the process of devolving IP, while safeguarding the legitimate
needs of "purchaser" departments, is far more complex
than originally conceived by the Baker Report. For example it
requires complicated licence rights, and suggests "march
in" rights in the event of the failure by the provider to
exploit research. Meeting these conditions may well involve a
significant extra commitment of resources and it must be seriously
questioned whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. It may
be that a pragmatic case-by-case approach could better achieve
the objective of promoting dissemination without the need to create
a whole new legalistic system. Such an approach may work when
applied to the commercial sector but it is much more difficult
to define the "business needs" of government. The "business"
of government is fundamentally different from that of a private
company in at least two respects. Government must be able to respond
rapidly both to meet unforeseen circumstances and changing political
priorities. At the same time, it needs to take a long-term perspective
beyond normal commercial timescales.
51. Nonetheless, if a decision is taken to proceed with
this approach, there is no doubt that PSREs will require access
to advice within government in order to successfully navigate
the new requirements. Even so, the time and cost involved in obtaining
advice may influence the viability of smaller projects. Granting
perpetual licence rights may in some cases impede the process
of exploitation, so there will need to be an appeals mechanism
for research providers. Above all, any new arrangements along
these lines must be regularly monitored to ensure that the benefit
continues to outweigh the cost.
Openness and Publication Policy
52. The draft Guidelines state that underlying data and
methodology of research used to support policy-making and regulatory
decisions should be published. IPMS agrees that this should be
the case and supports the May Guidelines on Science Advice. A
strong lead is needed from senior levels within government to
ensure that openness becomes the norm. Furthermore, it is important
that information that is made available for public policy reasons
is both widely accessible and meaningful to lay people.
53. The draft Guidelines also require PSREs to establish
a publications policy and to consider results for patent protection
before publication. This will change the ways in which public
sector research providers currently work. For example, evidence
from the university is that priorities and practices of researchers
have changed and a whole new body of work has emerged simply to
secure patent applications. In addition, competition between researchers
has increased. Instead of seeking to be first to publish, publication
is now being restricted until IP has been secured. This has had
a consequential impact on the content of published papers with
a growing tendency to exclude conclusions and speculation about
future development as such material often become prior art for
subsequent patent claims. Similar pressures are already evident
in PSREs.
54. For example an IPMS survey of members engaged in
R&D undertaken in February 2000 showed that 30 per cent of
respondents had been asked to tailor their research conclusions
or resulting advice, 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 has been asked in order to discourage publication.
In addition a greater proportion of respondents found it difficult
to maintain independence from their sponsor than found it easy(13).
Serious questions must be asked as to whether such practices are
in the public interest. But pressures to engage in them may be
increased by adoption of the draft Guidelines. The recognition
in the Guidelines that it may be necessary to treat commercially
valuable results as confidential information shows that concerns
about increasing control of the research agenda by sponsors are
well founded. There is little doubt that in this context pressures
to generate additional research will become the priority and that
bland reassurances about the primacy of knowledge transfer will
carry little weight.
Scope
55. IPMS welcomes the intention that the IPR Guidelines
should apply to all public sector purchasers of research and research
providers. We are strongly of the view that management of intellectual
property should be covered by a UK-wide framework, though it will
also be necessary to take into account the implications of the
proposed common European Community patent (3.48). Care will also
be needed to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in
relation to exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPR)
by private sector companies. The investigation by the Audit Commission
of exploitation by PPL Therapeutics of gene transfer technology
originally developed by BBSRC's Roslin Institute illustrates the
potential pitfalls for the UK of an approach to exploitation that
is more open than elsewhere in Europe or the USA.
Staff incentive schemes and management of conflicts of interest
56. The new OST Guidance on this subject provides a useful
foundation, thought its operation will need to be monitored and
reviewed on a regular basis. As set out in our response in the
Baker Report, IPMS agrees that conflicts of interest must be managed
on the basis of robust and transparent procedures based on active
disclosure of interests, review of interests in terms of their
materiality; and mechanisms to handle conflicts when they arise.
We are aware that BBSRC has established a register of interests
in all its institutes and that there is a widely drawn requirement
on staff to provide details of any shareholdings in companies
engaged in relevant activities. There is an active process of
annual review and a procedure for joint review of potential conflicts
of interest. We welcome this broad approach, though we would emphasis
that conflicts should not be viewed solely in financial terms.
57. Steps should be taken, in consultation with trade
unions, to encourage the adoption of similar provisions in other
public bodies. These will need to be written in terms that are
appropriate to the circumstances of particular organisations.
The rules need to be made clear to all parties from the outset
and should exclude longer term reward for individuals who have
left the employment of the organisation before commercial returns
are realised. The rights of individuals not to waive their rights
to exploitation income should also be clearly stated. There will,
however, need to be sufficient flexibility to ensure that intellectual
input can be retained within the parent institute, and there should
be a right of return for staff encouraged or required to transfer
to spin-off companies.
CONFIDENT CONSUMERS
58. IPMS believes that the restoration of public confidence
in science and government's handling of scientific issues is vital
to securing public support for the required investment in R&D
and the "knowledge economy". IPMS has held conferences
and contributed to consultations on the issues, including the
latest one referred to in the White Paper on a Code of Practice
for Scientific Advisory Committees.14 IPMS has long advocated
the need for greater transparency and dialogue in building confidence
in science and innovation and generally welcomes the White Paper
paragraphs on these issues.
An Independent and Transparent Framework
59. The structures and resources will need to be extremely
robust especially since the areas currently likely to show greatest
benefit in both economic growth as well as quality of life such
as genomics also pose the major ethical and social dilemmas and
in some cases risk. They will also require prioritisation in the
face of limited resources for research exploitation which is a
democratic as well as a technical issue. Moreover the process
of creating an independent and transparent framework and the Government
ensuring that "risks" have been properly assessed and
controlled, and in communicating those risks clearly and simply,
and at the right time (4.16), can be very resource intensive.
60. Thus, for example, in addition to the need for basic
research (4.18), which is needed to cover both known and yet unknown
sources of risk, there is the need for greater scientific research
support in depth for scientific advisory committees so that they
can test the evidence more thoroughly themselves. Whereas at the
moment they are often highly dependent on evidence provided by
companies' own researchers when testing the safety of products.
61. It is vital that committee secretariats are scientifically
literate and that they are adequately resourced at all levels.
The duties of secretariats extend beyond processing papers for
committees. For example, they should be able to assess and advise
on papers provided for committees. Secretariats have a key role
in managing committee business, ensuring probity, and in providing
a link back to policy makers in government departments. A useful
framework is set out in the Medical Research Council's code of
ethics for management and administration of scientific committees.
The BSE Inquiry Report highlights the need for government departments
to retain "in-house" sufficient scientific expertise
to enable them to understand and review advice given by advisory
committees (paragraph 1279).
62. The way in which committees use research will be
critical in engendering confidence in their work. This may mean
that more explicit acknowledgement needs to be given to areas
of uncertainty and to communicating degrees of uncertainty in
committee findings. It is clear that committee members should
not use their position simply to "corner extra funding"
for their research group or laboratory. However, it should be
recognised that committee members may be drawn from centres of
excellence which may be very well placed to progress research
in specific fields. As is the case for appointment of committee
members, it would not be in the public interest to ignore the
best quality research providers. However, it will be necessary
to have a procedure for managing conflicts of interest in such
circumstances.
63. IPMS views on how conflicts of interest should be
managed are set out in detail in our response to the Baker report.
We believe that it is vital that all experts advising government
declare their interests and that all advice is open and subject
to scrutiny by others. This should extend beyond financial considerations,
bearing in mind that in the public sector scientific advice fulfils
a variety of functions not all of which have a clear commercial
value. In such circumstances, a more positive and proactive approach
to sharing of research should be promoted. Elsewhere, there is
much to be learned from procedures and practices adopted overseas,
for example in the USA. The principles developed in "Guidelines
2000" and the forthcoming Code for Scientific Advisory Committees
should be applied to all scientific advice both at national, EU
and international level, for example the Codex Alimentarius.
64. Greater transparency, inclusiveness and dialogue
as advocated in the White Paper also have important consequences
for scientific staff which go far beyond simply better communications,
important though these are. Scientists involved in research which
is of public interest or controversial, are being called upon
already to justify their views and account for their actions in
ways which are not always going to stick within the confines of
"a mission to explain". Also they are exposed to danger
from militant protesters in some areas.
65. As the BSE Inquiry has shown scientific professionals
and advisors are being expected to give advice to administrators
and politicians going well beyond their technical expertise alone.
Many IPMS members involved as witnesses in the BSE Inquiry are
extremely concerned at the procedures used in the inquiry such
as the instant transmission on the internet of witness statements
and its failure to take into account the broader political and
civil service context in which their individual roles were played
out. Recent press reports have also drawn attention to the fact
that scientists are now much less willing to serve on the scientific
advisory committees because of the high profile exposure and the
broader role which they now appear to be expected to fulfil.
66. If transparency and dialogue are to be effective,
therefore, attention needs to be paid to the training security,
and rewards of those who are expected to play the new roles. But
it is also important to consider how best to organise the process
to ensure that they do not result in reluctance to take part and
that the ground rules and criteria being used in any particular
context are agreed and clearly spelt out.
12 January 2001
NOTES AND
REFERENCES
1. These references refer to paragraphs in the White
Paper. Thus 2.17 means chapter 2 paragraph 17.
2. IPMS and the Science Alliance held a conference as
part of National Science Week on the issue of "Science
and Race" on 22 March 2000. The report is available from
IPMS;
3. The Rising Tide: A Report on Women in Science,
Engineering and Technology (HMSO, ISBN 0 11 4300968, 1994);
4. Gender and SET—Jane Fielding and Judith
Glover (Findings from ESRC research project, 1994-96, reported
to Science Alliance Seminar. "A Fair Deal for Women in SET
1998);
5. Quoted from a report in the Times Higher Education
Supplement 22/29 December 2000 p.3
6. IPMS comments on the Government's Implementation Plan
for the CST Recommendations in the Report. Scientific Activity
Across Government IPMS 4 December 2000.
7. Immigration rules eased to counter skill shortage
in Financial Times 18 December 2000.
8. Council for Science and Technology Review of S&T
Activity across Government: HMSO July 1999
9. The Royal Society Developing a National Strategy
for Science July 2000;
10. IPMS Conference on Scientists and Scientific Advice
on Government Policy Making in October 1999. The report Oracles
or Scapegoats is available from IPMS. IPMS with its colleague
unions in the Science Alliance also held a seminar on "Is
Whistleblowing in Science Really Necessary?" on 8 September
2000 as part of the BA Science Festival. A report of that event
is also available from IPMS.
11. IPMS Submission to Patent Office Consultation on
Intellectual Property in Government Research Contracts: Guidelines
for Public Sector Purchases of Research and Research Providers.
October 2000. Paragraph 1, p.3
12. Response by IPMS to "Creating Knowledge, Creating
Wealth: Report by John Baker into Realising the Economic Potential
of Public Sector Research Establishments". October 1999.
13. What Future R&D? IPMS Bulletin November
1999
14. IPMS response to OST consultation on a Code of Practice
for Scientific Advisory Committees November 2000.
| 
