House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report

2 Committee activities and objectives

Box 2: Impact and results of the Committee's work

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill includes provisions to reduce light pollution, as recommended in our Report on Light Pollution and Astronomy.
The Department of Health will await the outcome of our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law before it undertakes any revision of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
The Department for International Development has recruited a Chief Scientific Adviser, in line with recommendations made in our Report on The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy. The Secretary of State credited the Committee with the appointment in oral evidence in July. We have had several letters of support following the publication of our Report, including one from the Joint Coordinator of the UN international task force on science, technology and innovation.
The Committee held a successful press conference at the British Library to launch its Report on Scientific Publications: Free for all?. Following the publication of the Report, the Chairman and members of the Committee have spoken at several conferences, and the Committee has received nearly 50 letters and emails in support of its findings.
We provided an opinion on the European Commission Communication, Towards a European Strategy for nanotechnology, to the European Scrutiny Committee.
A Committee member participated in a European Standing Committee debate on the proposed new EU chemicals legislation on 16 June.
Four of our Reports were debated in Westminster Hall: Light Pollution and Astronomy; The Scientific Response to Terrorism; Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology; and Within REACH: The EU's new chemicals strategy.
The Government has announced new legislation to protect people connected with scientific research on animals from the actions of animal rights protesters. This follows repeated questions on the subject to Lord Sainsbury during "Science Question Time".
The Government has introduced measures to help ensure that regional provision of science subjects in universities is secured. This follows questions about departmental closures raised as part of our examination of the Research Assessment Exercise, and with the Science Minister.

Objective A: To examine and comment on science and technology policy

Task 1: To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission and other outputs from the Office of Science and Technology

4. In 2004 science assumed an important place on the political agenda with the Government's publication of a Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004—2014.[3] Jointly compiled by HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), this document established a basis from which the Government will set out to make "Britain the most attractive location in the world for science an innovation", and announced an additional £1 billion funding for science over the Spending Review 2004 period.[4] On 1 November we held an evidence session on the investment framework with Ministers from each of the three departments that contributed towards it. Our conclusions on the implications for UK science of this document will form a major part of our OST Scrutiny Report 2004. This Report will also examine the DTI's Five Year Programme, published in November 2004.[5]

5. Science policy outputs are not confined to the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and its parent department, DTI. Policy proposals from across Government can have an impact on science and technology in the UK. For example, the Home Secretary announced in July 2003 that he would accept the recommendation of the McFarland report to develop the Forensic Science Service as a Public Private Partnership. On 21 July 2004, we announced that we would conduct an inquiry into the likely consequences of this decision and the wider issues affecting forensic science in the UK at present, including the quality of forensic science education and training and the use of forensic science in court. The Committee starting taking oral evidence in December, and will hold several further oral evidence sessions in the new year. We hope to produce a Report in spring 2005.

6. We have also examined science-related policy at a European level. On 29 October 2003 the European Commission published proposals for new legislation on the regulation of chemicals. On the same day we announced an inquiry to consider the implications of the proposals. They proved to be controversial and attracted attention from industry, academia, environmentalists and animal rights groups. We took evidence in Westminster and Brussels as part of our inquiry. Our Report, Within REACH: The EU's new chemicals strategy, published in May 2004, concluded that the UK Government had played an important role in developing the new European legislation; that its stance was, for the most part, sensible; and that it had made a welcome attempt to ensure that the UK debate on the proposals was constructive.[6] One of the Committee members participated in a European Standing Committee debate when the proposals were considered on 16 June 2004. We also ensured that there was a debate on our Report in Westminster Hall, on 9 September 2004.

7. As our inquiry into scientific publications was drawing to a close, the European Commission announced on 15 June 2004 that it would be conducting a study into the economic and technical evolution of scientific, technical and medical publishing markets in Europe.[7] We have made the European Commission aware of our Report, Scientific Publications: Free for all?, and intend to feed our findings into the new study.[8] We also provided an opinion on the European Commission Communication, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, to the European Scrutiny Committee, based on our Report, Too little too late: Government Investment in Nanotechnology.[9]

Task 2: To conduct inquiries as appropriate, identifying and examining areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and making proposals

8. Most of our major inquiries have examined areas of policy that we suspected were deficient. In some instances we found a complete lack of any discernible policy. In others, we identified areas of policy where we believed the emphasis to be wrong. In our inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy, for example, we found that the Department for International Development suffered from a fundamental lack of scientific culture, which hampered its attempts to reap the full benefits from the application of science and technology to development.

9. Our Report on Scientific Publications: Free for all? addressed issues that fall within the remit of a number of departments, including DTI, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.[10] One of the publishing models that we examined, the "author-pays" model, would necessitate a major change in the way that funds for research were allocated by DTI and DfES were it to predominate. We found that the Government was completely unprepared for such a change. Indeed, in oral evidence Government officials showed themselves to be only barely aware of the issues surrounding the way that scientific research papers are published. We are pleased to note, however, that our inquiry has improved the situation. The Director General of the Research Councils told us that "the ball is actually rolling. We have had numerous discussions. And, as I say, being quite frank, I think the interest of this Committee has stimulated that considerably".[11] We hope that the Government will use the opportunity of our second Report on scientific publications to formulate a response that addresses the policy deficiency that we have identified.[12]

10. Alongside our major inquiries, the Committee has conducted two brief inquiries in response to emerging areas of policy. On Christmas day 2003, the Beagle 2 lander, a British-led component of a European mission to Mars, was due to touch down on the planet and start searching for life there. It failed to make contact with earth after its scheduled landing time, and was subsequently declared lost. In February 2004 the UK Government and the European Space Agency (ESA) established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the circumstances and possible reasons that led to the failure of the mission. The Committee announced its inquiry into Beagle 2 on 26 May 2004, immediately after the partial publication of the UK/ESA report - the full report has never been released. In our Report, we praised the Government for its enthusiasm in taking on this high risk venture but found that it had been unable to respond effectively to the project's relatively sudden emergence to find guaranteed financial backing. We also commented that a lack of cooperation between the UK Beagle 2 consortium and ESA had contributed to the problems with the project.[13]

11. Since 2002, the Medical Research Council (MRC) has been reviewing the position of one of its funded research institutes, the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill. In April 2003, MRC published its Forward Investment Strategy, which concluded that a smaller investment in a clinical multi-disciplinary environment for the Institute would be likely to deliver a similar volume of science and greater value for money in the longer-term. As a consequence, MRC endorsed a proposal to relocate NIMR, initially to Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge, subject to consultation. However, following the consultation, a further review was undertaken, which proposed a move to one of two possible university hospital sites in London. The possible move has proved to be extremely controversial, with many researchers at NIMR openly opposing the MRC plans. We announced our inquiry into the way that the move has been handled on 21 October 2004, following a visit to the Institute two days previously.[14] We took evidence from representatives of both NIMR and MRC on 1 and 21 December and, in 2005, on 10 January. The Committee aims to report its findings before MRC makes its final decision on the proposed move in February 2005.

12. Our regular "Science Question Time" sessions with Lord Sainsbury have also given us the opportunity to examine areas of emerging policy (see paragraph 32). In particular we have asked the Minister repeatedly about what action the Government intends to take to protect people connected with scientific research on animals from the actions of animal rights protesters.[15] We are pleased to note that the pressure that we have applied on this issue has borne fruit in the guise of new legislation introduced in December 2004 specifically designed to address the concerns that we raised.[16]

Task 3: To scrutinise legislation and proposed legislation on science and technology matters

13. Our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law revisits the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, particularly in the light of the development of new technologies for research and treatment and recent changes in ethical and social attitudes.[17] In order to set the 1990 Act in a European context we visited Sweden and Italy in November this year. During the visit we learnt about legislation that is perceived to be respectively more liberal and more conservative than our own, and explored the impact that the two approaches have had on clinicians, practitioners and the public. We understand that the Department of Health will await the outcome of our inquiry before it undertakes a revision of the 1990 Act, and that it will take into account our recommendations when carrying out this work. In our Annual Report 2003 we observed that it was regretful that the Government did not publish the Human Tissue Bill in draft form prior to its introduction in Parliament in order to allow time for pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that any new legislation arising from a revision of the 1990 Act will be published first in draft form in order to allow Parliament to carry out this important role.

Objective B: Government expenditure on science and technology

Task 4: To examine the expenditure plans and outturn of the Department of Trade and Industry, so far as it relates to science and technology, and of the Research Councils

14. We examine the relevant parts of estimates produced by the Department of Trade and Industry and seek written explanations of major changes as a matter of routine. In this task we are greatly assisted by the Scrutiny Unit. This year the Government has provided us with some additional material to consider in the form of its Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004—2014. In our evidence session with Ministers on 1 November we explored the impact that the Government's considerably increased investment in science and technology would have on research, science education and UK industry. We also held evidence sessions on the investment framework with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Science Minister. The results of these sessions and our analysis of the written evidence that we received in connection with them will be contained in our OST Scrutiny Report 2004.[18]

15. In 2003 we found evidence of poor financial management at the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council. We were pleased to note this year that the expenditure of the three Research Councils that we examined appeared to have been well managed.[19] Our scrutiny of the Research Councils is explored in more detail in paragraphs 20 to 24.

Task 5: To examine other Government Departments' expenditure on research and advice on science and technology

16. All Government departments use science and technology, either to inform or to implement their policies. Consequently, many of our inquiries examine the work of departments other than DTI. In 2004 we conducted a major inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy.[20] As part of this inquiry we travelled to Malawi, where we saw at first hand the extent to which science and technology are used to assist development. Our Report expressed concern that "the quality of policy making in [the Department for International Development] DFID may, on occasion, have been compromised by a lack of recognition of the value and role of research and evaluation".[21] Both during the inquiry and after the publication of the Report, it was widely acknowledged that the Committee had played an important role in increasing the emphasis placed on research and advice on science and technology within DFID both as it developed its research strategy, and more generally. The Secretary of State, when he appeared before us on 7 July 2004, stated that "the inquiry you have undertaken has had a profound impact, certainly on me and on the Department. […]As far as the relationship between select committees and government departments are concerned, I think this is how it should work, because if we do not inquire and listen to each other and reflect and respond, then the system does not work very effectively". He also credited the Committee with his decision to appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser at DFID, an appointment that we hope will strengthen the scientific culture within the department and have a positive effect on its work.[22]

17. Our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law includes an examination of the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), a non-departmental Government body under the aegis of the Department of Health. As part of the terms of reference for the inquiry we have undertaken, amongst other things, "to consider the composition, expertise and approach of the HFEA, its code of practice, licensing arrangements and the provision of information to patients, the profession and the public".[23] In oral evidence we have sought to establish how responsive the HFEA has been to the emergence of new technologies to assist human reproduction. We expect to produce a Report in spring 2005.

Task 6: To monitor European Union expenditure on scientific research

18. Throughout 2004 we have been pursuing the question of where the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER), an international nuclear fusion development project, should be located. The collaborators, the EU, the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea have not been able to come to an agreement on whether ITER should be awarded to France or Japan, the two short-listed sites. The UK backs the French bid. Our questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Science Minister have helped to ensure continued Government attention to this issue, and have contributed to the formulation of a UK position.[24] We have also asked questions about the possible formation of a European Research Council and its implications for the UK research funding system.[25] More broadly, our inquiries into EU chemicals legislation, Government support for Beagle 2, the use of science in UK international development policy and scientific publications have all looked at scientific research within the context of the EU and its funding mechanisms.

Objective C: Administration of the Office of Science and Technology and the Research Councils

Task 7: To examine the Office of Science and Technology's objectives and performance

19. OST is not a department in its own right, and thus has no headline Public Service Agreements, although one of DTI's targets relates specifically to the Science Base. There are other sources that can be used to assess the performance of the UK Science and Engineering Base. This year Evidence Ltd, an independent consultancy, published its second annual report on the performance of the UK within the international scientific community against a series of high-level metrics. We will comment on the UK's performance against these indicators in our OST Scrutiny Report 2004. The Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004—2014 stated OST's undertaking to develop a new performance management system that would be used to inform the resource allocations to the seven Research Councils. On 7 December we held a meeting with the Director General of the Research Councils during which he explained the rationale behind the new system. Informal contacts with the department such as these improve our understanding of the systems and mechanisms used by OST, and thus enhance the quality of our scrutiny.

Task 8: To monitor the work of the Research Councils

20. We set ourselves the target of holding separate scrutiny sessions with each of the seven Research Councils over the course of the Parliament. We published a Report on the seventh, the Economic and Social Research Council, in December 2004. This year we also published Reports on The Work of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and The Work of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.[26] In early 2005 we will hold an evidence session with Research Councils UK (RCUK) to assess its performance, particularly in light of the independent review of its work commissioned by OST and published in October 2004.[27] We look forward to scrutinising the Arts and Humanities Research Board when it becomes a Research Council.

21. In 2004 we have seen an improvement in the performance of the Research Councils that we scrutinized relative to those that we examined in 2003. We believe that this is, at least in part, due to our rolling programme of scrutiny, which has given the Research Councils a strong incentive to ensure that they are working efficiently and to a high standard. One of our most valuable contributions has been the identification of best practice. In the Government's response to our Report on The Work of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council, RCUK undertook to examine all the recommendations made by the Committee in its Reports on the work of each of the Research Councils.[28] We understand that it will be compiling a document outlining the ways in which our recommendations have been used to date. This will not only assist the Research Councils in identifying and following best practice, but will also enable us to assess the effectiveness of our own work. Our relationship with RCUK has also improved substantially since we began our rolling programme of scrutiny. We hope that this will help to counter the atmosphere of mutual suspicion in which scrutiny sometimes takes place.

22. As well as the evidence sessions held with the individual Research Councils, we also held an introductory session with the then newly-appointed Director General of the Research Councils (DGRC), Professor Sir Keith O'Nions. In a subsequent Report we noted that Sir Keith's approach to the role differed significantly from that of his predecessors. He told us that he did not believe that he should become involved in the day-to-day running of the Research Councils and looking at cross-council issues.[29] We identified a need for further clarification of the DGRC's role in relation to RCUK, a conclusion that was subsequently endorsed by OST in its review of RCUK.[30] We look forward to pursuing this issue when we take evidence from RCUK in the new year.

23. The work carried out and funded by the Research Councils has a bearing on many of our major inquiries. This year we took evidence from them as part of our inquiries into scientific publications, the use of science in UK international development policy and Government support for Beagle 2. Our inquiry into the future of the National Institute of Medical Research at Mill Hill is looking closely at the work of MRC (see paragraph 11).

24. It has been the convention in the past for the Research Councils to have an input into the responses to our Reports produced by the Government. There are occasions, however, when Research Council policy, and views, differ from those of OST. In these cases, a joint response is unsatisfactory and, on occasion, self-contradictory. Particularly in view of the DGRC's insistence on the separation of the roles of OST and RCUK, we are very keen to see a separate response from the Research Councils where appropriate.

Task 9: To scrutinise major appointments made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

25. We have undertaken to question new appointees to important posts in the science world, and to publish short Reports on these evidence sessions where appropriate. Although we have no power to ratify or to veto appointments, such sessions provide us with the opportunity to satisfy Parliament that the post has been filled with someone of sufficient calibre; establish the views and principles that the new incumbent brings to the job; alert them to our interests and concerns; and heighten awareness of our role in scrutinising the work of organisations with an impact on science policy and of the individuals that work within them. In 2004 we held introductory sessions with the new Director General of Higher Education, Sir Alan Wilson, and the new DGRC, and published short Reports on both. In 2005 we plan to question the new Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department for International Development following our inquiry into that department's use of science in policy making and implementation.

Task 10: To examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives, following up earlier Reports by the Committee

26. Human genetics and embryology has been a longstanding interest of this and our predecessor Committees.[31] Our 2002 Report, Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology, expressed the view that the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act needed updating in the light of new scientific and technical developments that left it potentially open to legal challenge.[32] The Government rejected this view in its response to our Report.[33] A number of subsequent high profile legal challenges to the Act persuaded us to take a more detailed look at the 1990 Act, and the way in which it is responding to the challenges posed by new technologies. We announced our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law in October 2003. After an online consultation that continued until March 2004, we sent out a call for written evidence and, in June, started to take oral evidence. As is stated in paragraph 13 of this Report, we understand that the Department of Health will wait until we have completed our investigation before it considers any changes to the existing legislation.

27. In September 2004 we published a Report entitled Research Assessment Exercise: a re-assessment.[34] The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has long been an interest of the Committee, as the research funding decisions made under this system have a significant impact on the health of the UK science and engineering base. Our inquiry into the RAE this year followed an earlier Report on the subject, published in July 2002, and a review of the RAE conducted by Sir Gareth Roberts in 2003.[35] Our 2004 Report concluded that many of the revisions to the RAE that were made following the Roberts investigation were very positive. Nonetheless we were not convinced that the revised mechanisms would prevent the RAE from continuing to compromise the provision of science and engineering in the UK. Following the Government response to our Report, published in November 2004, we are still not persuaded that the Government is adequately addressing many of the concerns that we have expressed about the RAE.[36] We plan to continue to pursue this issue in questions to the Science Minister and in the context of other inquiries.

28. Our regular "Science Question Time" sessions with the Science Minister have provided us with the opportunity to pursue issues derived from previous inquiries. In 2004 we asked questions following up our inquiries into school science education; research careers; renewable energy; the work of the Research Councils; scientific publications; and the use of science in UK international development policy.[37]

Task 11: To hold Ministers to account

29. Our scrutiny of science policy across Government leads us to take evidence from Ministers in many different Government departments, depending on the inquiry. The Government's Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004—2014 was jointly produced by HM Treasury, DTI and DfES. Our session with a Ministerial representative from each of these departments on 1 November was, for us, a rare opportunity to question the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the economic rationale behind the Government's emphasis on science. In the past we have been frustrated because the questions we have put to Ministers on the broader issues of science policy have inevitably strayed beyond the remit of the Minister before us. It was, therefore, extremely useful for us to be able to question a panel of Ministers whose combined responsibilities covered all our areas of questioning.

30. In 2004 we took evidence from the Secretary of State for International Development as part of our inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy. As is outlined in paragraph 16 above, the inquiry had a profound impact on the approach to science taken by DFID and indirectly resulted in their appointment of a Chief Scientific Adviser. We also took evidence from the Minister of State for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality as part of our inquiry into EU chemicals legislation. We saw the Science Minister in conjunction with our inquiries into Beagle 2 and nanotechnology. In early 2005 we plan to take evidence from a Minister from the Department of Health as part of our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law, and from a Home Office Minister as part of our forensic science inquiry.

31. We aim to take evidence from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at least once each year. On 14 July this year we questioned her on, amongst other issues, the Government's targets for research and development; the management of the science base; regional concentration of research; the location of large facilities; and climate change and energy. The session will contribute to our OST Scrutiny Report 2004.

32. In last year's Annual Report we announced that we would be holding regular "Science Question Time" sessions with the current Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury. It has been a longstanding regret of ours that the Minister's membership of the House of Lords denies Members the opportunities enjoyed by members of other select committees to question Ministers during debates and departmental question times. We were therefore very pleased that the Science Minister agreed to our suggestion of regular brief sessions to discuss science policy issues. This year we held four such sessions on 9 February, 12 May, 14 July and 1 December. As well as raising issues of concern to the Committee, we solicited topics for questioning from the public and raised issues of national interest. The format has enabled us to be more reactive to topical issues than has been possible in the past. We have found the sessions to be extremely helpful, both in keeping us abreast of the latest developments, and informing our ongoing scrutiny of OST. We aim to continue holding these sessions at regular intervals in 2005.

Objective D: To assist the House in debate and decision

Task 12: To produce Reports informing the House on science and technology matters and of the science perspective on public policy issues, some of them being suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or in debating committees

33. We published 15 Reports in 2004: of these, four formed part of our ongoing scrutiny of OST and the Research Councils; three followed introductory sessions with recent appointees; and four were on major inquiries conducted during the year. Four of our Reports, together with the Government responses to them, were debated in Westminster Hall. On 12 February our Report on Light Pollution and Astronomy was debated.[38] Six current Committee members and one former member spoke during the debate, which was replied to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.[39] It was attended by many of those who submitted written and oral evidence to the original inquiry. The extent to which the Committee's Report and subsequent debate influenced Government policy is apparent in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, introduced in the House in December 2004, which includes a provision to make light pollution a statutory nuisance, as recommended in our Report.[40]

34. Six members of the Committee participated in a debate on The Scientific Response to Terrorism on 18 March, to which the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration from the Home Office replied.[41] On 24 June the Minister for Industry and the Regions from DTI replied to a debate in which five Committee members participated on Too little too late: Government Investment in Nanotechnology.[42] Our Report on Within REACH: The EU's new chemicals strategy was also debated, on 9 September. Four Committee members participated in the debate, which was replied to by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.[43]