APPENDIX
THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY'S SIXTH
REPORT: ARE WE REALISING OUR POTENTIAL?
Introduction
The Government welcomes the Committee's report Are
We Realising Our Potential? The Government has noted the Committee's
observations and recommendations which will make a helpful contribution
to the Government's ongoing work on science and innovation.
The Government is firmly committed to maintaining
and building on the excellence of the science base and to deriving
maximum value from it. As the Committee has noted, the Government
has introduced new initiatives over the past year, which were
announced through Spending Review 2000 and the two White Papers
Excellence and Opportunity - a science and innovation policy
for the 21st century[2]
and Opportunity for all in a world of change.[3]
As the Government's memoranda to this inquiry have shown, these
initiatives are underpinned by substantial amounts of new money
and this underlines the Government's commitment to science. These
increases in spending have been welcomed by the scientific community
and the Committee.
The future of the science base depends not only on
direct investment but also on stimulating an interest in science
among young people. There is a need to ensure that young people
are equipped with the knowledge and skills to become confident
and informed users of science, and that they have a secure grounding
from which they can go on to pursue scientific careers. The Government
also recognises the importance of departmental research. Many
of the initiatives announced in Excellence and Opportunity
- such as the development of departmental science and innovation
strategies and the implementation of stronger guidelines from
the Chief Scientific Adviser[4]
- are intended to ensure that research plays a full and effective
part in Government policy making.
The Government is pleased to have this opportunity
to present some of its achievements in these areas in response
to concerns that the Committee has raised, and also to describe
measures that have been introduced to support science education.
Nonetheless, the Government is aware that there is no room for
complacency and that there is still much to be done if the full
potential of science and technology is to be realised and to ensure
that the UK thrives in the global knowledge economy of this new
century.
That said, as stated in Excellence and Opportunity,
policy and management for many aspects of science and innovation
have been devolved to the new administrations in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland. While the remainder of this paper focuses
largely on reserved activities, "the Government and the devolved
administrations are committed to working together to translate
the fruits of scientific research and invention into products
and services that improve the economic and social well-being of
all the people of Britain. They also recognise the need to work
together to ensure that there is a strong UK Science Base supported
by high quality science education, and that the public is well
informed about scientific issues". The Scottish Executive
has published the first comprehensive science strategy for Scotland
and copies have been made available to the Committee. In Northern
Ireland the Programme for Government includes a commitment to
the publication of a regional Research, Development and Innovation
Strategy by March 2002. Work is currently underway in
developing the Strategy.
The Government looks forward to continuing a constructive
dialogue with the Committee and offers the following responses
to the Committee's recommendations.
1. We recommend that Forward Look be published
annually, and that it be published together with the statistical
supplement. It is widely used by the science, engineering and
technology community. (Paragraph 15)
2. We recommend that the next issue of Forward
Look provide a clear statement of Government's overall strategy
for science and technology and show explicitly how expenditure
figures match policy objectives. We look forward to publication
of the departmental strategies and trust that these will contain
meaningful measures of Departments' science, engineering and technology
performance. (Paragraph 16)
The Government has previously set out its rationale
for publishing Forward Look in the year following a Spending
Review, in the context of the Committee's inquiry into 'The Government's
Expenditure on Research and Development - The Forward Look'. In
a memorandum and two subsequent Government Responses, to the Committee's
Fifth and Seventh Reports, the Government explained that:
'the purpose of Forward
Look is to present industrial and research communities with
a clear and up-to-date statement of the Government's strategy
for science, engineering and technology, and a statement of the
Government's expenditure in this area. In the Government's view,
it makes sense to publish Forward Look in the year following
a Spending Review, so that it can set out departmental spending
plans over the period of the Review'.
The Government stands by its view that there will
be little justification for publishing a full Forward Look
in the intervening years. Any adjustments in departmental spending
will be updated in the Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics
(SET Statistics) publication and departments themselves
are increasingly making such information available, especially
on the Internet. SET Statistics is published annually by
the Office of Science and Technology (OST). It brings together
in one place data from a range of sources relating principally
to expenditure on science, engineering and technology. At present,
SET Statistics is published as a Command Paper and is also
placed on the OST website at www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats . The
Government would like to move, from this year, to publishing SET
Statistics in electronic form only. The Government believes
that electronic-only publishing will have significant advantages
for users. In particular, it will allow for the document to be
updated more frequently and with greater ease. At present, updating
is constrained by the annual Command Paper publication timetable
despite the fact that source data which feed SET Statistics
become available at different times during the year. The Government
believes that, by their very nature, the great majority of SET
Statistics users are technically literate and are very likely
to have Internet access and that, as a result, the costs of publishing
the document on paper are probably no longer justified. It considers
that adequate alternative arrangements can be made to cater for
users who require paper copies.
Whilst wanting to maintain the link between Forward
Look and the Spending Review cycle, the Government is committed
to communicating plans and progress with respect to science and
technology issues. The departmental science and innovation strategies
being developed in accordance with the recommendations in the
CST's report of S&T activity across Government[5]
are a good example. These will be very closely linked to departmental
objectives and should promote a much longer term and forward looking
approach to the research underpinning policy making. An important
element of the strategies is a description of the process for
programme evaluation to assess the quality, relevance and progress
of science related activities.
As well as providing the theme for the 2001 issue
of Forward Look, it is intended that the departmental strategies
will be published and updated on their websites. This exercise
marks the first point at which all departments with an interest
in science and technology will have produced a public statement
of their strategies. Collectively, the strategies should provide
a clear picture of the Government's approach to the use of science
and technology. Their publication will enable the wider scrutiny
of funding of science related activities in the context of departmental
policy objectives and overall expenditure. The Government is also
looking at the feasibility and desirability of linking science
and technology domains on departmental websites through a central
"science in Government" portal.
3. Government must actively promote Foresight
to a broad range of industrial sectors, and in particular to SMEs.
The learned societies, trade associations and the regional development
agencies would provide useful focal points for this activity.
(Paragraph 23)
The Government shares the view that Foresight should
be promoted to as many stakeholders as possible to take forward
the detailed recommendations and actions arising from the work
of the Foresight Panels and Task Forces. Each of the Panels has
engaged with key bodies in its sector, before and after the formal
consultation process. Likewise, it is part of the job of the 12
Foresight Regional Co-ordinators to embed Foresight in the Regional
Innovation and Economic Strategies. In addition, a number of Foresight
Training Centres are about to be launched. These will train facilitators
who will in turn provide both companies and Foresight co-ordinators
in business support organisations, including Business Links and
sectoral and trade bodies, with training in Foresight methodologies.
4. We recommend that Government make further use
of Foresight in developing a coherent science, engineering and
technology policy within and between Departments. (Paragraph 24)
The Foresight Directorate is at the heart of the
Office of Science and Technology and is already part of the Government's
trans-departmental SET policy-making machinery. During the next
phase of the current round of Foresight (from now until 2004)
the Panels and the Directorate will seek to implement the recommendations
and actions resulting from the 2000 consultation process. This
will ensure that the key messages that arise from Foresight will
be targeted to reach the key players in Government and other central
stakeholders.
5. On balance, Foresight has fallen short of its
aims. It has the potential to be a valuable exercise but to date
it has been disappointing. The quality of the second round reports
is said to be variable. We look forward to the outcome of the
review of Foresight being undertaken by the Minister for Science.
In our view, Foresight needs to be refocused and revitalised.
(Paragraph 25)
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for
the Foresight review. The purpose of the review is to help focus
Foresight for the rest of the current round and to make recommendations
for the future of the programme. In particular it is considering
whether:
- the aims and objectives are properly focused;
- the objectives have been met so far in the present
round; and
- the programme is properly structured and resourced.
The review will be a two-stage process. The first
stage, which ran until the end of May, is to seek general views
on the programme and the second is to consult on changes coming
from that process.
Nevertheless, irrespective of the quality of the
second round reports, many successful new networks have been established
and this in itself is a valuable outcome.
6. The creation of the post of the Director General
of the Research Councils appears to have been very successful.
We regret, however, that the DGRC has become less visible of late:
the post would benefit from a higher profile. (Paragraph 27)
7. We see no need at present for an "Expert
Advisory Group" to advise the DGRC. (Paragraph 28)
8. The re-organisation of the Research Councils
has proved a success. (Paragraph 30)
9. We recommend that the Director General of the
Research Councils monitor closely interdisciplinary areas which
cross council boundaries. The Research Councils should exchange
best practice, looking where appropriate to remove unnecessary
variations in working methods. (Paragraph 31)
10. The Research Councils seem to have got the
balance about right, treating wealth creation and quality of life
as secondary criteria to scientific excellence. (Paragraph 32)
11. We welcome the proposed change to the status
of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils,
to bring it under the joint ownership of the grant awarding Research
Councils. (Paragraph 33)
12. We look forward with interest to the outcome
of the quinquennial review of the Research Councils. (Paragraph
34)
The Government is pleased to note that the Committee
has recognised that the changes to the overall organisation of
the Research Councils and the creation of the role of the Director
General of the Research Councils (DGRC) have been successful.
As stated in the report, the DGRC is taking a close
interest in cross council collaboration and meets monthly with
the Chief Executives of the Research Councils (CERCs) as part
of this process. The recent science budget settlement, under Spending
Review 2000, included the creation of three cross council programmes:
e-science, basic technology and post-genomics. These programmes
have been established with cross council co-ordination and management
structures, and CERCs will be monitoring the success of these
arrangements in order to identify best practice.
The quinquennial review of the Research Councils
is addressing the opportunities for enhancing co-ordination between
councils, and their collective interaction with DGRC, as a means
to further improve their effectiveness in identifying and supporting
national science priorities, especially those of an interdisciplinary
nature.
13. We consider that further efforts should be
made to disseminate the Council for Science and Technology's work
more widely. (Paragraph 37)
14. The Government should give more prominence
to the activities of the Council for Science and Technology and
respond to its recommendations. (Paragraph 38)
The Government values the work and advice of the
Council, which is promulgated widely within and outside Departments.
It also gives due recognition and prominence to the Council's
distinctive and influential contribution to science, technology
and innovation policies, as shown clearly over the past 12 months
by the two White Papers, entitled Excellence and Opportunity
and Opportunity for in all a world of change.
The Government is therefore pleased to take this
further opportunity to acknowledge the Council's progress and
performance following its re-establishment in 1998. The Council's
standing and profile will continue to strengthen as its role and
work develops, and its interactions with external organisations
become more extensive.
As the Committee has noted, the Council's work and
advice is published openly on its web site in considerable detail.
Additionally, printed copies of its substantive reports are distributed
to all interested parties within and outside Government. Furthermore,
the Government normally issues a press release when such reports
are published.
The Government's regular practice is to respond to
each of these reports and to publish the responses on the Council's
web site. Normally, the timing for these responses is discussed
and agreed with the Council so that it can take into account relevant
policy developments. The Council is also provided with the opportunity
to consider and discuss the responses, and to determine any further
follow up actions that its independent members might wish to take
for monitoring or other purposes.
Regarding the Council's wide-ranging report of March
2000 on Technology Matters, the Government provided its
response for members' consideration at their meeting on 5 March
2001. This timing had been agreed previously by members so that
they could take account of the Skills, Enterprise and Innovation
White Paper, Opportunity for all in a world of change, which
was published a few weeks before. This response, along
with the Council's Annual Report for the year ending March 2001,
has now been published on its web site.
15. Universities have improved their technology
transfer capabilities and links with industry. (Paragraph 42)
16. We recommend that the Government encourage
greater collaboration and joint working to develop best practice
on technology transfer across universities and to enhance the
commercial exploitation of research. (Paragraph 42)
Different Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have
different contributions to make, some as world class centres of
research excellence and players in global markets, others primarily
as collaborators with local businesses and communities and with
regional actors. They must choose the role which best suits their
strengths, with public funding encouraging such choice by providing
incentives for institutions to become more entrepreneurial, to
build closer links with business and the community and to have
proper arrangements for exploiting the results of their work.
As the Committee has suggested, there are some notable
university based centres of expertise in knowledge transfer and
evidence of increased links with business and developing capability.
Government measures such as the Higher Education Reach to Business
and the Community Fund (HEROBC) have sought to help raise the
academic credibility of knowledge transfer activities.
The Government agrees that further institutional
and cultural change is necessary and that this will not happen
overnight. However, it believes that the establishment of a permanent
third stream of funding for HEIs to support their knowledge transfer
activities, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), will
be a significant incentive for step change. HEIF will incorporate
the existing HEROBC scheme and an additional £80 million
will bring the total funding available to £140 million over
the next three years. HEIF will continue to support the development
of HEIs' ability to interact with business and will also provide
a source of funding to support the setting up of further University
Innovation Centres along the lines of those announced in the recent
White Paper Opportunity for all in a world of change.
The Government has announced the call for proposals
for the second rounds of Science Enterprise Challenge and University
Challenge. These competitions are aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship
and commercialisation of research, and have successful track records.
The Science Enterprise Challenge has already led to the establishment
of twelve Science Enterprise Centres in UK universities, involving
collaboration among a total of 34 HEIs. The University Challenge
has resulted in the creation of 15 seed funds managed by universities
in the UK, with a total value of over £60 million, including
£25 million in Government funding. Some straightforward practical
measures are also being taken. For example, a web based brokering
service was launched on 23 May 2001 to help match universities
having technology available to exploit with entrepreneurs looking
for development opportunities. The University Technology Directory
can be accessed from the Association of University Research and
Industry Links (AURIL) website at www.auril.org.uk .
The Government notes the Committee's concern over
possible skills shortage. As announced in the Excellence and
Opportunity White Paper, the Government intends to work with
universities, public sector research establishments and other
interested bodies to review how best to stimulate the provision
of training for people working in this field. The Government also
notes the Committee's recommendation that there should be greater
encouragement of collaboration and joint working to develop best
practice on technology transfer across universities. This is envisaged
in the consultation document on the design and scope of HEIF.
17. In the longer term Government should look
to rationalise the plethora of technology transfer schemes aiming
to develop a simplified, flexible unbureaucratic approach. (Paragraph
43)
18. Ministers should resist the temptation to
launch new schemes when it would be better to strengthen existing
ones. (Paragraph 43)
23. In the longer term Government should look
to rationalise the network of innovation support schemes. (Paragraph
49)
The Government runs a number of long-standing schemes
to assist knowledge transfer between the research community and
business which meet a variety of needs. It is keeping the issue
of whether these can be simplified and improved under review.
In many cases, existing schemes have been strengthened, for example
LINK and Smart (Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology),
or are being streamlined, for example support for knowledge transfer
between HEIs and the community at large will be consolidated into
HEIF. The Government acknowledged in the recent white paper Opportunity
for all in a world of change the need to deliver support more
quickly and with less bureaucracy, taking full advantage of advances
in technology and to market support in a way which responds more
directly to business needs. The third round of Foresight LINK
Awards included a pilot process for speeding up decision making.
The results of an evaluation of this process will feed into a
strategic review of LINK expected to report in Spring 2002.
19. We recommend that the Government develop an
overarching strategy for technology transfer activities and publish
a framework to be actively promoted to all interested parties.
(Paragraph 44)
The strategic direction of knowledge transfer activities
is set out in the Government's science and innovation strategies.
The Government has also set up a knowledge transfer group, made
up of DTI and DfES officials and representatives of interested
parties such as the Research Councils, the Regional Development
Agencies and the CBI. This is considering knowledge transfer policy
and the development of a strategy to rationalise DTI activities
at the HEI-business interface.
20. We recommend that Government promote secondment
schemes more actively and consider expanding those already in
existence. (Paragraph 45)
The Government agrees that there is a need to highlight
the benefits of secondments between academia and business. The
recently launched Business Fellowships initiative was designed
with the aim of raising the profile of the people dimension of
knowledge transfer. It is also intended to build on universities'
existing HEROBC projects to raise the academic credibility of
collaboration with business. Similar activities will also be fundable
under HEIF.
The December 1998 Competitiveness White Paper, Our
Competitive Future - Building the Knowledge Driven Economy,
contained a commitment by DTI to double its expenditure on TCS
(previously known as the Teaching Company Scheme). As a result
it is expected that there will be close on 1,000 TCS Programmes
current by the end of 2001. The graduates who undertake the project
work in participating companies as TCS Associates are supported
both by the company and by academic staff. This requires the academic
partner in every TCS Programme to spend on average at least half
a day per week at the company supervising the Associate and their
project, thus providing the opportunity to transfer and implant
their own knowledge into the company. As of 31 March 2001, there
were 406 academic departments from 98 different HEIs participating
in TCS, of which 71 departments were participating in TCS for
the first time. Around 80% of TCS Programmes result in plans for
further collaboration between the company and academic partners.
21. Universities must protect their intellectual
property appropriately, in the long term interest of both the
university and the UK as a whole. The funding regime may need
to be changed to allow the universities to take a longer term
perspective. (Paragraph 46)
As it has noted before, the Government strongly agrees
that universities need to protect their intellectual property
appropriately. Universities need to be able to establish arrangements
which give all parties incentives to develop, protect and exploit
intellectual property in a way which serves the long term interests
of universities without them being deflected from their traditional
roles of research and teaching. This in turn depends on a clear
understanding within universities of intellectual property and
the issues it raises, and of the range of options for commercialising
the results of research. This is why the Government is working
with AURIL and Universities UK (UUK) to develop best practice
guidance which will heighten awareness of what makes for successful
commercialisation of intellectual property.
The Government is keen to help institutions in order
to ensure effective transfer of higher education knowledge and
expertise to achieve long-term economic and social benefits. That
is why the support available for knowledge transfer is also being
increased. As already stated in response to recommendations 15
and 16, £80 million is being provided by OST through the
HEIF in England over the next three years to help institutions
build capacity in this area. There are also further rounds of
University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge, and the
number of Faraday Partnerships is being increased.
22. The management of intellectual property is
critical if the UK is to be competitive in the global knowledge
driven economy. (Paragraph 47)
The Government agrees. It notes the Committee's welcome
for measures outlined in Excellence and Opportunity. The
aim is not only that universities and research establishments
should make full use of the intellectual property system, but
that their use of the system should be driven by the objective
of maximising successful commercialisation of the results of research.
That is the purpose of these measures and the AURIL guidelines
for universities mentioned above.
23. In the longer term Government should look
to rationalise the network of innovation support schemes. (Paragraph
49)
See above.
24. We recommend that the Government publish a
guide outlining the schemes available to SMEs and actively promote
these schemes, for example through the Regional Development Agencies
and trade associations. (Paragraph 49)
The Small Business Service will maintain up-to-date
information on Government schemes available to SMEs as part of
its Gateway service at www.businesslink.org.uk . This service
will be widely marketed to SMEs and their advisers. In addition,
SMEs are encouraged to speak to Business Link Advisers who can
help them find the most appropriate sources of help and advice
available in their locality.
25. We welcome the Government's introduction of
measures to support innovative small businesses. (Paragraph 50)
The support of innovative small businesses is, and
will continue to be, an important part of the work of the Small
Business Service, its network of local Business Link Operators
and the specialist sponsor directorates of DTI.
26. We welcome the fiscal measures introduced
in the Budget to encourage research and development and recommend
that uptake be carefully monitored. Government should also conduct
a proactive campaign to promote innovation among those parts of
industry which are not traditionally strong in R&D. (Paragraph
51)
The Government agrees that any research and development
(R&D) tax incentive for companies should be evaluated and
uptake carefully monitored. R&D tax credits for SMEs were
introduced in the Finance Act 2000, and figures for this scheme
will be available in 2002, when companies incurring R&D expenditure
have sent in their tax returns for the first year of operation
of the scheme. Consultation on tax credit for larger firms' R&D
was announced in Budget 2001, and the Government is considering
the results of the consultation exercise. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer has indicated that the Government's conclusions will
be made known in his Pre-Budget Report.
The Government also agrees that it should promote
innovation. This is done through direct measures to create incentives
for R&D, such as the R&D tax measures, which in turn will
be promoted through a pro-active campaign. In addition, the Government
provides support for a number of activities to encourage business
innovation, for example through collaborative R&D. The Government
also publishes annually the R&D Scoreboard, which highlights
to a wide range of FTSE industrial sectors the importance of R&D
and innovation as key drivers for business growth.
27. There needs to be better dialogue between
scientists and the public. (Paragraph 53)
The Government continues to work with others to help
facilitate this dialogue. Scientists need to feel equipped to
play their part. In this regard, and with the OST's encouragement,
the Research Councils are strengthening and broadening communication
training. Following its recent review of its research funding,
HEFCE is working to improve standards in the provision of research
training, including broader personal and transferable (including
communication) skills.
The Wellcome Trust report, The Role of Scientists
in Public Debate, which presents the results of a nation-wide
survey of scientists' views on communicating their work to the
public, provides useful pointers on how dialogue between scientists
and the public might be improved.
The Government recognises the importance of engaging
the public in debate on important scientific issues, particularly
those which impact on society or raise ethical questions. A number
of substantial measures aimed at achieving this and making public
dialogue a normal and integral part of the process by which scientists
provide advice to Government have been initiated.
Regular consultation and an open meeting policy are
important aspects of the remits of the Food Standards Agency,
the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission. This approach demonstrates ongoing commitment
of these three bodies to listening to the public and taking account
of their views.
In addition the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory
Committees, shortly to be published, will make clear that all
scientific committees should consult with stakeholders and the
public, particularly on issues which generate widespread public
concern or raise significant ethical questions. The Government
believes that this, together with other provisions in the Code
and Guidelines 2000, represent further significant steps.
28. We welcome the increasing use of the term
"Science and Society" or, even better, "Science
for Society", to describe activities to promote dialogue
and mutual understanding between the scientific community and
the public. (Paragraph 55)
The Government agrees. It is important that all members
of society are given the opportunity to take part in the debate
about the issues that modern science raises.
The Government recognises the need to better understand
the public's attitudes to science and how they wish to be engaged
on scientific issues. The OST/Wellcome Trust report Science
and the Public, published in October 2000, is important in
this regard. It includes results of a national survey into public
attitudes to science which suggest that the British public is
basically pro-science. The survey also provides useful pointers
on the public's preferred methods of engagement on scientific
issues. The science communication community is now considering
how best to make use of this information. For example, the Research
Councils and OST will be funding further research into how this,
and similar, information might best inform their own science communication
programmes. In OST's case, this will feed into the review of its
programme.
As stated in the Excellence and Opportunity
White Paper, it is important that there are plenty of opportunities
for the public to learn about and debate scientific developments.
The Government, working with, and through, others such as the
Research Councils, science centres, Science Year, the British
Association for the Advancement of Science (BA), the Committee
on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) and the Learned
Societies, will play its part in creating these opportunities.
Knowledge and understanding in the social
sciences is as important as in the natural sciences in order to
improve the level of quantitative and qualitative skills for analysis
of social and economic issues. The Economic and Social Research
Council has taken a number of steps to improve the standard
of social science teaching in Britain, and to enhance the
skills that are necessary for the rigorous analysis of public
policy.
29. We recommend that the Government work with
the scientific community to build a new strategy for promoting
science and technology, building upon the work already being done
but reaching out to a broader range of participants and a wider
audience. (Paragraph 56)
As stated above, the Government will continue to
work with the Research Councils, the BA, Learned Societies and
many others to bring coherence to the UK science communication
effort. It believes that the remodeled COPUS will play a key role
in developing the strategy recommended by the Committee. COPUS's
new Council will be broader and more representative of the science
communication community. The Government hopes that it will, among
other things, address overlaps and gaps in provision. The OST/Wellcome
Trust report, Science and the Public provides useful pointers
on this.
2 Excellence and Opportunity, a science and innovation
policy for the 21st century, (Cm 4814), July 2000. Back
3
Opportunity for all in a world of change,
(Cm 5052), February 2001. Back
4
Guidelines 2000: Scientific Advice and Policy Making, (URN
00/1026), July 2000. Back
5
Review of S&T Activity across Government. Report by
the Council for Science and Technology, July 1999. Back
| 
