Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-55)
PROFESSOR ALAN
THORPE
19 OCTOBER 2005
Q40 Dr Iddon: What sort of money
is available for this IOF?
Professor Thorpe: I am not sure
I can give you that answer immediately.
Q41 Dr Iddon: In broad terms?
Professor Thorpe: It is relatively
modest. We are talking about hundreds of thousands a year rather
than millions. It is to allow access by UK researchers, to international
facilities and programmes and also, as I mentioned, the international
project offices.
Q42 Dr Iddon: So it is early days
by the sound of it.
Professor Thorpe: On that particular
component, but I think my slightly too long answer was to emphasise
that that is not the only international activity.
Q43 Dr Iddon: We wanted to explore
that.
Professor Thorpe: It is early
days, but it is an important component of our international activities
in the future.
Q44 Chairman: It seems to me that
there is a real contradiction between what you were saying in
Planet Earth, where you said that the Government, rightly,
expects to see real advances flowing into business and the public
good from its investment in science, and the answer you have just
given to Brian, which was that you want to redirect funds into
more blue skies research. What misses out if you are doing both
things in terms of a greater emphasis, ie responding to the public
good and at the same time you are looking at blue skies research?
Professor Thorpe: I would say
there is a slightly false dichotomy there. The blue skies research
is often producing outputs that can be used both by the economy
and by government.
Q45 Chairman: So there is no contradiction?
Professor Thorpe: I do not feel
there is a contradiction as long as we offer the opportunity for
blue skies researchers to see the opportunity of using their knowledge.
For example, we have a follow-on fund where researchers who have
very directly exploitable outcomes for business can apply for
some additional funding to make that connection and that has to
come out of the blue skies research. I do not see it as a direct
contradiction.
Q46 Chairman: So those who accuse
you of that are wrong, are they?
Professor Thorpe: Yes.
Q47 Anne Snelgrove: I would like
to preface my questions by saying how much I enjoyed the visit
to the research councils earlier this month and to thank your
staff and the other staff of the research councils for making
me so welcome but also for giving me such a lot of information
in a very short space of time. Part of our discussions afterwards
was about the issue of science and society and the general public's
understanding of science. You said earlier that science in society
is an important part of what you do in NERC. I just wondered what
you think the challenges are when engaging with the public about
science. Do you think there is a crisis in public confidence in
science in this country?
Professor Thorpe: It is not my
impression that there is a crisis, no. In terms of public perception
of scientists, it depends which polls you look at, but I think
you can find polls that show that scientists are well regarded
in terms of their professional input, etcetera. Also, if you look
at polls about issues that worry the public, environmental issues
are close to the top of the agenda. From NERC's point of view
the engagement with the public often is greatly welcomed by the
public because their environmental issues are very much to the
fore. I think the dialogue is very much welcomed and I think we
are pushing at an open door. It is a matter of finding the right
mechanisms to engage with the public. We are thinking about it
right from the school level, from such times often in schools
when the schoolchildren will again show that they are concerned
about environmental issues. They do not necessarily appear in
the standard curriculum. We are running a scheme with other research
councils called "Researchers in Residence" and that
is where PhD students that are in environmental science go into
schools for a week or so and show the schoolchildren the research
that they are doing and they can come back into the laboratory.
There are lots of mechanisms starting there and engaging through
to debate, to publications and to the media. I think we have to
explore all these opportunities because it is not a single facetted
issue. In my view the fact that we are beginning to make this
change towards the schools side of things is an important aspect.
Q48 Anne Snelgrove: I just want to
press you further about the challenges because we were having
a discussion before the meeting started today about the way the
media covers some science issues. I picked up one of the free
sheets today and it says "The final report? MMR jab is safe".
I think there were huge debates in the House before I joined about
this and a debate in the media. That strikes me as being an issue
where public understanding was not in line with what the science
understanding was about the MMR vaccine.
Professor Thorpe: You are hinting
at the most critical part of this, which is to communicate a level
of uncertainty in science. This is a challenge to all scientists,
the public and policy makers. Certainly in my interactions with
the media one is often being asked to be definite and even if
you describe that, as I did earlier, weather systems in the future
are the most uncertain parts of climate prediction, nevertheless
you talk to a journalist and often the headline will be "Professor
Thorpe says that weather systems will increase in the future".
I think that the agenda of risk, uncertainty and communication
is at the core of that kind of headline and is at the core of
where the Natural Environment Research Council is. Let us take
as an example the weather forecast. Again, there is an opportunity
where those forecasts of the future are really probabilistic,
eg how certain are we that it will rain tomorrow or what have
you. It is not going to be 100% That education of risk and uncertainty
aspects of science is close to the heart of scientists but that
communication is really difficult.
Q49 Anne Snelgrove: One of the things
I understand you have been doing to communicate with the public
is on-line debates. How successful do you think those have been
at engaging people who do not necessarily have a brilliant background?
Professor Thorpe: My impression
is that they have been good. We have had a number of these on-line
debates using a particular group called "Spiked" and
we have had them on climate change and health and a whole range
of environmental issues and with the MRC as well. I think they
are a component of this and clearly as the use of the internet
and chat rooms, etcetera are extending then that would be an increasingly
important mechanism. I was just looking at one yesterday and if
you look at the number of people who are engaged, that can be
disappointingly small. I definitely think it is going to be an
increasing mechanism of communication. I am pleased that we have
been in on that at the beginning and I want to see it increase.
Q50 Mr Flello: Obviously NERC is
a member of the Research Councils UK. What do you think about
the role of the RCUK?
Professor Thorpe: It is extremely
important. I personally valued it in my first six months in post.
We have an executive group that meets monthly which is composed
of the chief executives of the research councils and that is an
important way of obviously sharing good practice and supporting
other chief executives in their activities but also in identifying
areas where we can take forward harmonisation of our processes,
for example a joint electronics submission system, those kinds
of areas where there is commonality of what we can do and be more
effective by doing it. That is a very important forum for the
chief executives to meet. We also have a joint strategy group
where we meet with Keith O'Nions, the Director-General of Research
Councils, to look at the more strategic input to spending reviews
and other bigger picture across research council funding issues.
I am sure that if it did not exist there would need to be the
aspects that I have mentioned. I personally have found it extremely
helpful.
Q51 Mr Flello: Clearly you think
that there is enhanced co-ordination. Can you give me some examples
of the practice of enhanced co-ordination throughout the UK?
Professor Thorpe: I gave you one,
which was joint electronic submission and we are looking at the
next generation "back office", which is to co-ordinate
our IT and administrative systems across research councils. Obviously
the majority of them but not all are in Swindon. We are looking
at the area of HR because the research councils as a whole employ
a significant number of people, NERC employs 2,600 people and
other research councils employ people. So we are looking at a
range of areas. A number of them are still under discussion and
we have not yet implemented our plans, but they are beginning
to get close to implementation.
Q52 Mr Flello: What is the relationship
between the Director-General of research councils and the research
councils themselves? Is it a clear relationship?
Professor Thorpe: It is a clear
relationship, yes. I will perhaps tease out where that relationship
expresses itself. Obviously I meet with Keith O`Nions regularly.
In direct reporting terms, I report to him and also to the Chairman
of my Council and that is the established way for heads of the
non-departmental public bodies. That interaction is clear because
of the overall argument to government, for example, in the spending
review where the science budget as a whole will be discussed and
argued for. The individual research councils have an input to
Keith O'Nions. Keith O'Nions then reflects that interaction in
the overall OST and DTI input to government in the spending review
and makes the best case for the science budget as a whole. We
are doing a considerable amount of work, for example, on a set
of case studies to show what use the science budget has been put
to in terms of the knowledge that has been generated, this is
across the research councils, so that government can see what
benefit research has produced.
Q53 Mr Newmark: I want to talk about
the full economic costs. My understanding is that in January 2005
it was estimated that the research councils paid an average of
63% of the full economic cost of research but that from September
2005, in accordance with "The 10-year Science and Innovation
Framework", research councils are expected to pay 80% of
the full economic cost. What has been the impact of the changes
in funding with regard to full economic costing, specifically
the number of applications?
Professor Thorpe: It is definitely
too early to say. We have just had the first set of applications
after the change and I would not want to judge the statistics
on the basis of one round. From NERC's point of view the numbers
are, if anything, slightly down but not massively changed. There
may be all sorts of reasons for that. People are getting used
to the new system because it is a radical change to the process
of application. So I think we will have to review this once we
have had at least a few grant rounds. NERC at the moment has two
rounds per year, so we need to have gone through a few of those
cycles to be able to answer your question directly about the impact
on the numbers of proposals.
Q54 Mr Newmark: Do you believe that
NERC will be able to maintain its current portfolio of research
while paying an increased proportion of the full economic cost
of its research?
Professor Thorpe: We did an extensive
amount of research and analysis and modelling prior to this being
introduced with the touchstone being that we intended to keep
the same research volume funded but base it at 80% of the full
economic cost. We received funding from the science budget in
the Spending Review 2004 that corresponded to that calculation.
So my hope and anticipation is definitely that we can pay that
but we will have to wait and see.
Q55 Mr Newmark: My final question
then is could full economic costing adversely affect areas such
as blue skies research, which I know we touched on earlier, where
such costs are perhaps more difficult to quantify in advance?
Professor Thorpe: The full economic
costing mechanism is very much integrated with and geared up to
the blue skies mechanism. I think there is a rather clear accounting
mechanism for universities to capture their costs and for that
to be expressed in various categories on the application. Again,
there is no contradiction with blue skies funding. The system
is designed specifically to translate from a 46% overhead on staff
costs to full economic costs for research grants, so it is designed
to work smoothly in that particular funding mechanism.
Mr Newmark: Thank you.
Chairman: Professor Alan Thorpe, thank
you very much indeed for spending this hour with us. We wish you
well in your post and we look forward to having more conversations
with you in the future. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
