House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report

Introduction

1. At the beginning of the Parliament we undertook, as one of our core tasks, "To scrutinise major appointments made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry" within our remit.[1] This is in line with a recommendation from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons "to consider, and if appropriate report on, major appointments by a Secretary of State or other senior ministers".[2] We envisaged that this would take the form of a single evidence session with new incumbents a few months after taking up the post. The sessions are intended to be analogous to the Congressional confirmation hearings in the United States, although we have no power to ratify or veto any appointment. Our purpose is to satisfy Parliament that the post has been filled with someone of sufficient calibre, establish the views and principles that he or she brings to the job, to alert them to our interests and concerns and to heighten awareness of our role in scrutinising each individual's performance and that of their divisions or organisations.

2. So far we have held three such sessions. The first two were on 22 and 29 January 2003, with Professor Ian Diamond, Chief Executive of the Economic and Social Research Council, and Mr David Hughes, Director General of Innovation at the Department of Trade and Industry, respectively. In these cases we published the transcripts without comment.[3] On 8 December 2003, we held an evidence session with Professor Colin Blakemore, who became Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC) on 1 October 2003. In this case some of the issues raised during the session warranted commentary and we are publishing this Report as a result. We did not issue a call for evidence in advance of the evidence session. However, we did request a personal statement from Professor Blakemore on his thoughts on a range of issues, to use as a basis for oral questioning. This has been published with this Report, alongside the transcript of the session.

3. In March 2003 we published a Report on The Work of the Medical Research Council, which included serious criticisms of the MRC's administration and policies.[4] Some of these are listed in Table 1. This Report is not intended as a follow-up, although our questioning of Professor Blakemore was inevitably coloured by concerns we have had over the MRC's conduct.

Table 1: Main criticisms made by the Committee of the Medical Research Council.

Poor financial planning had led to extreme fluctuations in the funds available for new grants. The MRC's explanations for the situation were inconsistent.

The MRC's cooperative group grant scheme, introduced at the expense of individual project grants, forced "marriages of convenience", limited access to funds for young researchers and was unsustainable with the current level of funding.

The MRC's communication with its community was poor.

The UK Biobank is a study involving 500,000 people attempting to link lifestyle, genetics and disease. It is jointly funded by the MRC, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. The Committee concluded that it was an exciting initiative but it had concerns over the peer review process and the public consultation undertaken by the MRC.

Openness and communication

4. Some criticisms in our Report on the MRC related to the organisation's communication, both with the medical science community and ourselves. Professor Blakemore acknowledged this: "the MRC was not as transparent and open an organisation as it should have been; perhaps its tendency, even when discovering its own problems, was to cover them up and pretend they would go away. The MRC will be a different organisation in future in that respect".[5] He has a notable record as a communicator and we welcome this recognition of the MRC's problems and his commitment to change.

5. Since taking office, Professor Blakemore has been undertaking a series of roadshows in universities around the country.[6] This is a welcome exercise and an idea that other Research Council Chief Executives should consider. We were pleased to hear him indicate that this was not a one-off exercise.[7] We were also heartened to hear him reveal the positive reaction to change among MRC staff. There was a danger that change could have been seen as an implied criticism of their previous conduct and so resisted.[8]

6. Professor Blakemore has expressed regret that many scientists have felt unable to comment in public on the MRC's policies and administration.[9] It has been a concern of many who have communicated with us that this would compromise their chances of securing research grants. It would be a corruption of the peer review process if criticism prevented the funding of world-class science and we therefore welcome his comments. We shall watch with interest his progress in creating an environment in which the MRC's policies can be debated and challenged in public. A particular concern of ours relates to researchers employed in MRC institutes and centres. During our inquiry, a distinguished director of an MRC unit wrote to our Chairman with grave concerns about the Research Council's administration. He informed us that the terms of his contract prevented him from commenting in public on MRC policies. If it is the case that MRC researchers are contractually unable to comment on aspects of MRC policy in public, we urge Professor Blakemore to signal publicly that any such breaches of contract will not result in disciplinary procedures and to remove the offending clause from future contracts.

Animal experimentation

7. Professor Blakemore is a vigorous defender of the use of animals in research despite being targeted by violent groups. He has been active in the Boyd Group, established to provide a forum for individuals and groups with an interest in animal experimentation.[10] Professor Blakemore's high profile in this area may have implications for the MRC. The MRC has been active in making the case for animal experimentation and in 1999 commissioned MORI to conduct an in depth survey of public attitudes to use of animals in medicine and science. This found that 84% accept experiments if the right conditions apply, such as that suffering is minimised, or the research is medical research, or addresses life-threatening disease.[11] Professor Blakemore's appointment will undoubtedly heighten the profile of the MRC's attempts to articulate the value of animals in research and could encourage other researchers to be more active in taking part in public debate. More damaging would be a greater focus by animal rights groups on the MRC and its research facilities, which could hamper its work. We look forward to an invigorated public debate on animal experimentation. Opinion polls suggest that the public takes a pragmatic view but the nervousness of the scientific community about engaging in debate has allowed pressure groups to dictate the public agenda.[12]

8. Animal research is a highly political issue. This has been demonstrated by the recent leaked memorandum concerning the honours system.[13] This indicated that Professor Blakemore had been passed over for an honour because of the public stand he has taken on animal experimentation. It is not our normal practice to comment on press reports but there are good reasons to believe that the leaked document is genuine. Lord Sainsbury, speaking on Radio 4's Today programme on 22 December 2002, said, "this does not represent in any way government policy—this is essentially a civil service process" and did not question the authenticity of the document.[14] It also formed the basis for an evidence session with Professor Blakemore held by the Public Administration Select Committee on 13 January as part of its inquiry into the Honours System. Professor Blakemore told the Committee that he had been reassured, although it is not clear by whom, that the views expressed in the leaked memorandum were those of a single person on the "science and technology committee" which provides input to the principal moderating committee.[15]

9. We await the Public Administration Select Committee's conclusions on the honours system with interest. However, we are more concerned with the effect that the release of this memorandum and the subsequent debate will have on the scientific community and the Government's attempts to encourage more researchers to explain in public the importance of research using animals. We recognise that animal experimenters have been honoured in the past. Brian Cass, Managing Director, Huntingdon Life Sciences received a CBE in the 2002 Queen's Birthday Honours for services to medical research, although Professor Blakemore believed that this was the result of the Prime Minister's direct intervention.[16] In addition, the Prime Minister told a meeting at the Royal Society on 23 May 2002 that, while he recognised the importance of such research, "We need … a robust, engaging dialogue with the public. We need to re-establish trust and confidence in the way that science can demonstrate new opportunities, and offer new solutions".[17] The Science and Innovation Minister, Lord Sainsbury, has made clear his support for Professor Blakemore, although branding it as a Civil Service process is not helpful.[18] Professor Blakemore has also indicated that he had received reassurances from Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser, on the matter.[19] Animal experimentation is highly regulated by Government and scientists conduct this research with the tacit approval of Parliament. A scientist who is bold enough to articulate publicly, and in Professor Blakemore's case so eloquently, why this should be the case should not be refused an honour for taking such a stance. The leaked memorandum undermines the Government's attempts to promote scientists' engagement in public debate. We welcome Lord Sainsbury's clear and unequivocal support for Professor Blakemore's position.

Response to our Report

10. Professor Blakemore has assured us that he wishes to build up a new and positive relationship with the Committee, which we welcome. We consider our role to scrutinise, on behalf of the House, Government spending for the benefit of UK science and aim to conduct this as objectively as possible. We therefore regret Professor Blakemore's comments on the Today programme on Radio 4 on 8 December 2003, just hours before he came to give evidence to us. Commenting on our critical Report of the MRC, Professor Blakemore told the interviewer that we had "suggested that [Biobank] was draining money away from basic research grants" despite the fact that the MRC "has not even started spending money on it".[20] This is curious for two reasons. First, our Report made no such accusation. We noted that the sums were too small to have made any great impression on the availability of funds for new grants.[21] Second, the suggestion that spending on Biobank had created financial limits for new research grants was contained in the written evidence supplied to us by the MRC.[22] A robust defence of his organisation is perfectly acceptable but this should be based on an accurate portrayal of our published conclusions. Professor Blakemore's comments were all the more disappointing since many of his comments made after taking office have indicated a more conciliatory stance than his predecessor. We understand Professor Blakemore's desire to defend the reputation of the MRC but he should not do this by misrepresenting our views and conclusions. He should focus his energies on reforming the culture within an organisation which seemed unwilling or unable to provide accurate information to Parliament.

11. Professor Blakemore is fortunate in that he carries much goodwill with him into his new position.[23]This provides him with tremendous opportunities for positive reform and we have confidence that he has the ability to deliver. His media skills will enable him to heighten the profile of the MRC and articulate the benefits of medical research. We too welcome his appointment and are pleased that he did not carry out his threat to resign following the controversy surrounding his exclusion from the 2003 New Year's Honours List. We look forward to a productive relationship in the future.

1 Second Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 200203, Annual Report 2002, HC 260, Annex A: List of Committee Objectives Back

2 First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2001-02, Select Committees, HC 224-i, para 34 Back

3 Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday 22 January 2003, ESRC Introductory Session, Professor Ian Diamond, Chief Executive, Economic and Social Research Council, HC 277-i; Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday 29 January 2003, DTI Introductory Session, Mr David Hughes, Director General, Innovation Group, and Dr Alistair Keddie, Director, Technical Innovation and Sustainable Development, Department of Trade and Industry, HC 278-i Back

4 Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2002-03, The Work of the Medical Research Council, HC 132; Department of Trade and Industry, Government Response to "The work of the Medical Research Council" Report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee (HC 132), June 2003, Cm 5834 Back

5 Q 9 Back

6 Ev 14 Back

7 Q31 Back

8 Q 4 Back

9 The Observer, 14 September 3003, Scientist who stood up to terrorism and mob hate faces his toughest test; Q 32-33 Back

10 Q 37 Back

11 MORI, Animals in Medicine and Science, General Public Research Conducted for Medical Research Council, June-September 1999 Back

12 Q 38 Back