Select Committee on Science and Technology Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Chemical Industries Association

  We have chosen to submit comments based on the following broad themes which the consultation paper encompasses:

    1.  Science and Innovation White Paper, Excellence and Opportunity, July 2000.

    2.  Science Budget 2001-2 to 2003-4.

  Our comments are set out below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  CIA applauds the Science and Innovation White Paper and Science Budget for the period 2001-2 to 2003-4 since they send a very clear signal that the Government recognises and appreciates the key role of science and engineering in the UK.

  If the plans and expenditure proposals contained within these documents are carried out as outlines, then the science base in the UK should be strengthened enormously, reversing the decline over the past decade.

  CIA believes that special emphasis still needs to be placed by Government on science teaching, especially in primary schools; the issue of student quality, quantity and debt management; HEFCE's Research Assessment Exercise; innovation and marketing; Intellectual Property Rights and the public acceptance of science-areas which are all vital in supporting and promoting science in society in this country.

  Science education must begin at primary school level in order that sciences role in, and importance to, society is firmly embedded in the minds of children at an early age.

  The lack of suitably qualified primary school science teachers, poor school facilities and the curtailment of the teaching of science in schools due to the impinging effects of Health and Safety legislation, present real barriers to exciting the interest of children in the study of science, especially chemistry.

  Student quality, quantity, and the increasing financial burden on students are important issues for the Government to tackle in order to ensure that the chemicals industry has a steady stream of high quality science and engineering graduates.

  The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) needs to be radically altered to reward academe for their strengths in teaching, research and/or technology transfer.

  Greater emphasis urgently needs to be placed on business-driven innovation so that inventions developed in the UK are fully exploited by industry in this country.

  The Government's desire to transfer ownership if IPR, generated as a result of publicly funded research, to academe needs to be properly evaluated, especially if industry is involved. We believe that industry should have the right to all IPR which arises as a result of any collaborative venture with academe. Industry should be the preferred entity for marketing the innovation, and generating wealth as a result of any new knowledge.

  The Government and industry must work together on improving the public's acceptance of science.

  The Government and industry must continue to fund curiosity-driven research, and not focus solely on application driven research.

  The Government must recognise that there is a significant and existing science and technology base which is strategically important to the UK and underpins some of the current "sexy" areas such as nanotechnology.

  The vast number of Government funded innovation support schemes should be reduced to a select few. This will be of tremendous assistance to both industry and academe in reducing the time and money spent in their search for grants.

  The Government should not overlook the importance of the chemical sector to the UK economy since it often develops and supplies the basic raw materials, some of which are extremely innovative and complex, for use by other "high-technology" industries such as pharmaceuticals and telecommunications.

1.  SCIENCE AND INNOVATION WHITE PAPER, EXCELLENCE AND OPPORTUNITY, JULY 2000

  CIA applauds the Science and Innovation White Paper, published in July 2000, since it represents a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to science and innovation in the United Kingdom.

  The White Paper provides a clear synopsis of Government's strategies for:

    —  promoting scientific excellence through an investment of £1 billion (£775 million from Government and £250 million from the Wellcome Trust) in the Science Research Infrastructure Fund, an additional allocation of £250 million in key research areas: genomics, e-science and basic technology, an increase in basic support for postgraduate students to £9,000 per annum, and by allowing overseas students to obtain a work permit with relative ease so that they may remain in the UK and contribute to its science base;

    —  increasing the profile of science and technology in schools by running a "science year" in 2001-02, and by creating a "science ambassadors" programme whereby former science students encourage the up-take of science and technology in their old schools;

    —  supporting innovation by creating a Higher Education Innovation Fund (incorporating the Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community Fund) worth £140 million, doubling of Faraday Partnerships from four to eight, allocating £15 million to a new Foresight Fund to exploit ideas from the Foresight programme, recognising the role and importance of intellectual property in facilitating innovation, and improving industry-academe collaborations by providing £50 million per annum to the Regional Innovation Fund, and support for 20 business fellows;

    —  recognising the importance of a public dialogue on the role and importance of science in society, especially the need for improving consumer confidence in science. The proposal to develop stronger guidelines for use of scientific advice by Government, and a code of practice for Government scientific advisors is to be welcomed.

  Although the Government's White Paper is thorough and wide-ranging, it is not revolutionary. It does, however, represent a positive step change for the United Kingdom by providing a firm foundation for investment in, and exploitation of, science in this country.

  CIA believes that special emphasis still needs to be placed on science teaching, especially in primary schools; the issue of student quality, quantity and debt management; HEFCE's Research Assessment Exercise; innovation and marketing; Intellectual Property Rights and the public acceptance of science—areas which are all vital in supporting and promoting science in society in this country.

  Our specific comments on each of these topics are briefly outlined below:

Science teaching in primary schools

  The lack of suitably qualified primary school science teachers, as exemplified by the Council for Science and Technology's project on science teachers undertaken last year, poor school facilities, and the curtailment of the teaching of practical science in schools due to the impinging effects of Health and Safety legislation, are of worry to CIA. They present real barriers to exciting the interest of children in the study of science, chemistry in particular, at primary school level.

  We feel that it is vital to teach, and to extol, natural sciences at this level in order to ensure that science's role in, and importance to, society is firmly embedded in the minds of children at an early age.

  Scientifically qualified and confident primary school teachers play an instrumental role in this regard, and greater effort needs to be placed by the Government on the recruitment, retention and motivation of individuals who wish to pursue a career in teaching science in primary schools.

  The poor state of science facilities and equipment in schools can also curtail the undertaking of scientific experiments at primary [and secondary] school level. This problem is further compounded by excessive application of Health and Safety legislation which can act as a deterrent to schools.

  It is worth stressing that science is an intensely practial subject, and it is this aspect which is immensely appealing to young people. The lack of proper school facilities and science equipment must be reversed if we are to encourage school children's interest in science.

  The Government's desire to increase the profile of science and technology in schools by running a "science year" in 2001-02 is most welcome. However, we feel that a long-term national strategy needs to be formulated in this regard. The principal aim of which will be to develop an effective synergy between the wide number of organisations in the UK that are actively involved in promoting science to young children.

Students—quality, quantity and debt management

  We feel that the student quality and quantity, together with the increasing amounts of financial burden which they now face, needs to be urgently reviewed and resolved by Government.

  Many CIA member companies increasingly report variable standards of student quality depending on the Higher Education Institution they attend. This is especially the case in natural sciences and engineering graduates in their level of scientific knowledge, practical ability and interpersonal skills. We believe that the decline in student quality over the last decade may be attributable to poor standards in teaching and training at some universities, and also within schools.

  Secondly, CIA is worried by the general decrease in student numbers undertaking natural sciences and engineering, due to the perceived lack of reward and future/long-term career prospects. Training in subjects such as business administration, economics, information technology, or law is deemed to offer a much better long-term career with enhanced employability prospects compared to a career in the sciences.

  Thirdly, student debt, accumulated during undergraduate years at university, now plays an important role in preventing some students from undertaking a PhD programme (especially in chemical engineering) or even completing their undergraduate course. A large proportion of undergraduate students are more concerned about clearing their student loans rather than pursuing a further qualification which will burden them with even more debts.

  Whilst we welcome the Government's proposal to increase the basic support for post-graduate research students to £9,000 per annum by 2003-2004, we would like to see some more detail as to how this increase will affect industry and the students it sponsors as businesses do not have a bottomless pit of money.

  Overall, the future success of the chemicals industry—a knowledge-driven and knowledge-intensive sector—depends upon a steady stream of high quality science and engineering graduates from universities. We hope that the Government will urgently address the sad demise of student quality, quantity, and increasing levels of debts in the UK.

HEFCE's Research Assessment Exercise

  CIA believes that HEFCE's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) should be radically altered to reward academe for their strengths in teaching, research and/or technology transfer. The RAE should not judge Higher Education Institutions primarily on research outputs such as publication rate since this represents just one of a range of assessment measures/metrics.

  Instead a formal bidding system and the use of a strategic plan should form the basis of any RAE since the bidding system and the use of plans would allow an institution to describe its focus and future plans clearly (either in teaching/training, research and/or technology transfer) together with a critical assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.

  The RAE should also reward true interdisciplinarity, and not just single subject research collaborations.

  Although HEFCE has undertaken a fundamental review of the RAE post 2001, we feel that it has not substantially altered the status quo. In fact, the RAE needs to reflect and act on our views which are also supported by other eminent bodies like the CBI. This would ensure that the UK retains a high quality and strategically focused science base which continues to be attractive to industry, especially the chemicals sector. A copy of CIA's submission to the HEFCE on their consultation on the RAE post 2001 is attached for information.

Innovation and Marketing

  The Science White Paper recognises the importance of innovation to the knowledge-driven UK economy. However, CIA strongly feels that it uses the term innovation very loosely, both to mean "creativity" and its more correct definition of "bringing technology to the market place".

  Innovation is driven by three facets, namely, ideas, technology and business. As a nation, we are extremely creative, especially in the generation of ideas and technology-a glowing tribute of our strong and dynamic science base which we hope will always be maintained and strengthened.

  We believe that our culture is very much technology push rather than market pull, and greater emphasis urgently needs to be placed on business-driven innovation, in particular, the integration of marketing strategies with research and development activities, as observed in countries such as Japan and the United States of America.

  We are therefore disappointed to learn that the White Paper fails to make any direct mention of the marketing of innovation although it does mention markets and their creation in the context of innovation.

  CIA believes that a real culture change is required in the UK if it is to capitalise on its innovative prowess. This in turn will help to prevent British inventions from being exploited overseas, thereby negating wealth creation here. One possible solution to initiate the culture change is to develop a new breed of scientist and engineer who not only understands technology but also marketing.

  The Research Councils should also place more resources into understanding the cultural issues of technology push vs market pull. We believe that a series of recommendations need to be developed on how the UK can change its culture, and how we influence Government, society and the captains of industry, to make the change happen.

  We also feel that one of the "innovation gaps" lies in the demonstration of research ideas through to pilot industrial scale. Some years ago, the DTI phased out the funding of demonstration projects, and we would now like these to be re-evaluated since they proved immensely useful in promoting developmental activities in the UK. Any supportive Government measures on this account will be most welcomed by CIA.

  On another important note, the White Paper tends to focus a great deal on knowledge intensive/high technology sectors such as pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, information technology. This is at the expense of more "traditional" knowledge-based industries such as chemicals. We strongly feel that the Government should not ignore the role and importance of the chemical sector, which is research-intensive, innovative and often develops complex materials for use by the so-called "high-technology" industries.

Intellectual Property Rights

  Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) will increasingly play a distinctive and pivotal role in the knowledge-driven economy which will underpin innovation, and drive enterprise in the United Kingdom.

  Whilst CIA supports the Government's belief that effective IPR management should be a fundamental goal of universities and research bodies in the public sector, we feel that the impact, transfer and ownership of IPR generated as a result of government funded research to academe needs to be properly evaluated. This is especially the case if industry is involved in the project in order to avoid potential industry-academe conflicts. This development will hinder Government's desire to foster close and mutually beneficial industry-academe partnerships.

  The Government's proposal on IPR ownership is probably based on the positive impact in America on technology transfer from academe to industry due to the 1980 US Bayh-Dole Act. Many industrial organisations, who wish to collaborate with US universities, find IPR a principal issue of contention in facilitating their relationship. The prime reason for this is that US institutions wish to retain and control intellectual capital. In contrast, UK universities are much more easier to collaborate with, and negotiate on, IPR. We want this status quo to continue.

  We believe that industry should have the right to all IPR generated as a result of any collaborative venture with academe, and certainly if the research work has been supported by industry and Government. Industry should be the preferred entity for marketing the innovation, and generating wealth as a result of any new knowledge.

  On another IPR issue, we hope that Government will support initiatives such as the European Commission's proposal for a regulation on the Community Patent. This regulation, if enacted, will foster innovation in Europe. Both industry and academe will benefit from a substantial reduction in prosecution, translation and maintenance costs associated with generating IPR which are currently very high. We feel that a strong but cost effective IPR regime is certainly warranted within Europe.

  Finally, the recently announced "Intellectual Property Portal" is to be welcomed. We feel that the portal has the potential to be a powerful knowledge bank of, and tool for accessing, information on IPR for both users and creators provided that it is properly managed and developed by Government.

  Overall, IPR is an important strategic tool for the chemical industry. It can be described as a new currency since it is a tradeable commodity. The chemical sector's competitiveness and survivability depends upon it for its future success.

Public acceptance of science

  There has been a gradual but worrying erosion of confidence and trust in science, including its regulation, due to high profile issues such as BSE. CIA believes that improving public acceptance and confidence in science, and its industrial exploitation, is vital to progress and innovation in this country. A key to this is trust in, and impartiality of, scientific advice supported by an open assessment of the risks associated with science through a transparent and effective system of regulation by Government that does not stifle innovation.

  The Science and Innovation White Paper acknowledges the need to for greater openness and transparency within Government, especially in its use of scientific advice in policy making. We welcome this development, including the revised version of the 1997 guidelines on "The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making" by the Government Chief Scientific Advisor.

  The public understanding of science, including risks and benefits associated with it, also needs to be improved greatly. Science-based industries, such as the chemical sector, also have an important role to play in helping to improve the image of science. For example, the chemical industry has embarked on a number of voluntary initiatives such as Responsible Care and Confidence in Chemicals which aim to reduce risks and environmental impact of the use of chemicals.

  CIA is now increasing its support for the teaching of science in primary schools, in order to give children a feel for the excitement of science while they are still able to express wonderment and curiosity.

  A robust education system, supported by trained teachers at primary and secondary school level who teach science in a positive, enjoyable and open and pragmatic manner, is vital if Government is to make any impact on this issue. Our comments to you in your consultation on the impact of the 1993 White Paper, "Realising Our Potential", deals in greater detail on the campaign to spread understanding amongst school children and the public.

  Finally, we hope the Government will see industry as worthy partners in this endeavour.

2.  SCIENCE BUDGET 2001-02 TO 2003-04

  CIA welcomes the allocation of the science budget for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 as a result of the 2000 Spending Review. This has resulted in a positive financial outcome for the science and engineering base in the United Kingdom.

  Although the science budget follows the proposals outlined in the Science and Innovation White Paper quite closely, we would like to make the following additional comments.

    —  The Government must continue to fund curiosity-driven research, and not focus mainly on applied research. It is vital to recognise that there is a significant and existing science and technology base which is strategically important to the UK and underpins some of the current "sexy" areas such as green technology.

    —  Chemistry is one such underpinning science and it does, and will continue to, play a significant role in technology areas such as biotechnology, functional materials for the electronics industry and nanotechnology (including catalysis).

    —  The Government must be careful about funding "buzz-words" of the moment, only to drop them after two to three years if the science and technology does not mature as fast as they would like. However, CIA does recognise that continual investment is required in areas that are regarded as strategically important to the UK but the emphasis must be on core science and technology areas not specific projects.

    —  There are far too many initiatives and sources of grants which currently exist for funding science and technology projects. Although the Higher Education Innovation Fund incorporates the Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community Fund, the Science and Innovation White Paper does nothing to reduce the numerous different funding schemes.

  We believe the Government should rationalise the total number of funding streams by combining or terminating some of them but without reducing the overall funding levels. This will be of tremendous benefit and value to both industry and academe in reducing the time and money spent in their search for grants.

CLOSING REMARKS

  The 2000 Science and Innovation White Paper and Science Budget for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 represent important milestones in sending a very clear signal that the Government recognises, appreciates and supports the key role of science and engineering in the UK.

  If the plans and expenditure proposals contained within these documents are carried out as outlined, then the science base in the UK should be strengthened enormously reversing the decline over the past decade. CIA now eagerly awaits to see how the Government will translate their proposals into effective implementation plans.

  We hope that we have identified some of the issues which the consultation needs to take into consideration and address. Through its Science, Education and Technology Committee (SETCOM) the CIA and its member companies welcomes this opportunity to work closely with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee so that the SET base in the United Kingdom can be strengthened, for the benefit of Government, industry and academe.

February 2001


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 3 April 2001