Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND MS
SUE DUNCAN
15 FEBRUARY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Good morning, Sir David,
good morning, Ms Duncan. Welcome to you both and could I welcome
a packed gallery this morning to hear evidence from the Government
Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Government Social Researcher.
Now, would it be possible, Sir David, if you could start by, each
of you, just saying briefly what your roles are, so the Committee
is clear as to what they are.
Professor Sir David King: The
Chief Scientific Adviser's role is to advise the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet on all matters related to science, whether it
is science policy in terms of innovation and wealth-creation,
science policy in dealing with risks or science policy dealing
with opportunities. I also run the Office of Science and Technology
and the Office currently has a staff of around 150 people. One
section of the Office deals with the science and engineering budget,
which is currently around £3 billion, and that goes to the
research councils. The other section is the trans-departmental
science and technology section, which provides me with the back-up
in most of that function.
Ms Duncan: My role is rather more
modest. My principal role is to set standards for the Government
Social Research Service in areas of professional and ethical practice
and to provide the resources to do that, so we issue guidance
and provide training and that sort of thing. I have no role specifically
in advising ministers; that is done via departmental experts.
Q2 Chairman: So is Sir David your
direct line manager?
Ms Duncan: No, my direct line
manager is Professor Sir Nick Stern, who is the Chief Economist
within the Treasury. I am just in the process of transition of
moving from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury, so I report to
Nick Stern.
Q3 Chairman: So what is the relationship
between your two roles then?
Ms Duncan: I have close links
with OST and I have regular meetings with Sir David's staff—
Q4 Chairman: Weekly?
Ms Duncan: Monthly, probably about
that. I am also a member of the Chief Scientist's Advisory Committee,
so that is a very good place to link with the departmental chief
scientists and I feed into that for the social sciences.
Q5 Chairman: Is there an example
of where you have worked together on a policy area, crossing between
social science and technology policy?
Professor Sir David King: I have
been very keen, since taking this post, to take science out of
the box, in other words, to see that what we normally call `science'
is fully integrated with the entire knowledge base, so remove
the boundaries. I am working closely with social sciences, economists,
even arts and humanities where it seems appropriate, right across
the board. It is important, for example, to note that we now fund
the research councils all the way from arts and humanities to
particle physics, so integrating the knowledge base is really
what I am trying to do. Therefore, in terms of the Chief Scientific
Adviser's Committee that Sue has referred to, we do have science
advisers from all government departments who include several social
scientists, so we do try and co-ordinate the whole patch.
Q6 Chairman: One of the queries that
has been made to us, Sir David, is that, whilst you frequently
speak on matters of what I would call `hard science' or `environmental
science', we have never heard you speak much on social science
in terms of natural and social science. We wondered whether that
was because you saw that as a lesser part of your role or is that
an unfair criticism because you looked hurt then?
Professor Sir David King: Thank
you, I am glad my expression was so clear! Yes, I do feel hurt
by that! For example, you mentioned the environmental issues and
that is only one small part of the advice that I give, but nevertheless
the environmental advice is given with a very clear input from
social and economic experts. For example, I run the Government's
Foresight Programme and in each of the Foresight programmes, whether
it is on cyber-security, which we have done, or on flood and coastal
defence management, we have engaged social scientists, economists
and the biological and physical scientists whom you might more
clearly expect to see there.
Ms Duncan: Perhaps I could give
an example which draws on one of your case studies, identity cards,
where a lot of the research obviously falls on Sir David's side
of the house, but that work was supported by social research done
within the Home Office to look at the acceptability of introducing
that scheme and to gauge public attitudes.
Professor Sir David King: The
Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser himself, Paul Wiles, is a
social scientist and he is part of my inner group of chief scientific
advisers.
Q7 Chairman: So are you responsible
then for ensuring the quality of social science research and promoting
it across government? I am still trying to get a handle on what
your role is.
Ms Duncan: Unlike the natural
sciences, the central heads for social sciences are separate and
there is no equivalent chief social scientist, so I am the central
head of profession for social research. Karen Dunnell is the National
Statistician and head of profession for statisticians, and the
head of profession for the economists is Sir Nicholas Stern, so
there is no equivalent on the social science side for Sir David's
role. I work closely with my opposite numbers on the other social
science side and obviously—
Q8 Chairman: Do you think that is
a weakness in scientific advice to government, that there is not
the equivalent of Sir David in the social science area?
Ms Duncan: I am not sure.
Q9 Chairman: You can be honest.
Ms Duncan: Yes, absolutely. I
am not sure that it is a weakness. It would be if we did not work
closely together and I think in the last few years we have been
putting a lot more effort into co-ordinating across the social
sciences. I think that is crucial and it has actually shown itself
in the way that social science analysis and advice on policy is
actually becoming more co-ordinated, and all of us, as central
heads, have put a lot of work into that.
Professor Sir David King: I think
your questioning of that in a way ignores my previous answer,
if I may say, which is that the Chief Scientific Adviser incorporates
social sciences into the activities. For example, we are going
into government departments to review the quality of the evidence-based
policy advice system, and Sue has assisted me in that process
in going into government departments so that, when we look at
the evidence-based advice, we are looking right across the board
at the R&D base used in those departments, in the physical
sciences, biological sciences, medical sciences, social sciences
and economic sciences, so we are looking across the patch.
Q10 Chairman: Do you feel that the
quality of that link between social science research and policy
is weak?
Professor Sir David King: I think
we could always improve. I think that a very large part of the
function of my office is to see that we are continually challenging
the process to improve, so I do not believe that we have arrived
at a good position, but we are certainly turning things around.
Ms Duncan: Would it be helpful
if I mentioned some of the things that we are doing to strengthen
that link between social sciences and policy?
Q11 Chairman: It would, yes.
Ms Duncan: The Professional Skills
for Government initiative, which is about equipping all civil
servants with skills to do their jobs properly, one of the core
skills for policy-makers is that they have expertise in using
the research and analysis and we are working with our social science
colleagues to provide training. There is also the Co-ordination
of Research and Analysis Group which actually brings social science
heads together with policy-makers in an open dialogue, and I think
those sorts of issues are actually strengthening how we work to
feed into policy.
Q12 Dr Iddon: Why is there not an
equivalent for the natural and physical sciences, indeed technology
as well, that would match the Government Social Research Service,
the Government Economic Service, the Government Statistical Service
and the Government Operational Research Service? There does not
appear to be a government organisation for the natural and physical
sciences and technology.
Professor Sir David King: Unless
you want to call the Office of Science and Technology precisely
that. The Office funds the science base in our university sector,
the Office reviews the quality of science, as I have just said,
in every government department, and, through the chief scientific
advisers, I am trying to pull the evidence base in the sciences
across the patch together, so I think that is the very function
of the Office of Science and Technology.
Q13 Dr Iddon: But it is embedded,
David, in a particular state department rather than being detached
from all the state departments with an umbrella government organisation,
as all the rest are. Do you think that is a disadvantage, being
attached to the DTI?
Professor Sir David King: The
Office of Science and Technology was placed in the DTI some years
ago with an effort to focus on the innovation and wealth-creation
agenda from within the science base, and that is the rationale
behind it. I believe there is much work still to be done. We have
a tremendous opportunity. There is a tremendous platform from
the science base today with probably the highest density of SME
clusters emerging from our universities in the world, and I see
that as a massive opportunity for new wealth-creation in the UK.
There is still a job to be done there, but your question, Brian,
is a good one because the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser
is to report to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and yet my
office is in the DTI. I think that tension exists and I feel it
many days of the week.
Q14 Dr Turner: I remember, at least
I think I remember, in my youth that there was a body called the
`Scientific Civil Service'. Whatever happened to it? Why did it
disappear and do you think it really was expendable?
Professor Sir David King: The
Scientific Civil Service, I think, served a very good purpose
and at the same time I think it developed a glass ceiling in the
sense that promotion to higher managerial positions within the
Service appeared to be blocked to those who were going into the
Scientific Civil Service. Therefore, I think many good people
decided not to give themselves that label so that they would have
the opportunity of promotion to the top. I am simply giving you
the reasons why I believe the Scientific Civil Service notion
was taken away. I am now operating as head of profession for science
and engineering within government and we are trying to strengthen
that role again. What is very important, just as a follow-up to
your point, is to note that the privatisation of government laboratories,
such as the Laboratory for the Government Chemist, the LGC, means
that we are losing scientific expertise from within the Civil
Service, so the opportunity for people to bubble up into top positions
in the Civil Service with a hard science training is being reduced
as this happens. It is an unintended consequence, if you like,
of the privatisation. Now, we are trying to correct that through
this role as head of profession.
Q15 Dr Turner: Having said that about
the Laboratory for the Government Chemist, did you have any input
into the discussions on the future of the Forensic Science Service
because the same issues apply?
Professor Sir David King: The
same issues apply and, as a matter of fact, the LGC does do forensic
work for the Home Office. Your question is a very direct one and
the answer is, no I was not heavily involved in that.
Q16 Dr Iddon: Perhaps I can go back
to our original discussion about your position having been moved
from the Cabinet Office, where it was originally started, up to
the DTI and that you are embedded there. I agree with your statement,
that it is a good thing to focus on knowledge transfer and getting
science and technology moving there to the aid of the country,
but do you think that the focus on that and the fact that you
are embedded in that single state department detracts from some
of the other activities that we would expect the Government Chief
Scientist to be involved in?
Professor Sir David King: I think,
to be honest, this has not been a major problem for me probably
because of the visibility I was given for the foot and mouth disease
epidemic. In other words, I think it is recognised in all departments
that I serve this super-departmental role, that I am not tied
within the DTI, but I report to the Prime Minister. I think that
is now widely recognised, so I do not think that I personally
find difficulties arising from that.
Q17 Chairman: Would you prefer to
be in the Cabinet Office rather than the DTI?
Professor Sir David King: That
is a very big question.
Q18 Chairman: Could you give me a
little answer—yes or no?
Professor Sir David King: I do
not want to give a simple yes or no, and perhaps I may just slightly
elaborate. This would probably mean taking all 150 of us into
the Cabinet Office, and Sir Gus O'Donnell is very keen to get
the Cabinet Office down to be a lean, mean machine, so he is not
keen to take on such a big number of civil servants into the Cabinet
Office. We also carry this large budget, £3 billion, so I
think, for both those reasons, it is not seen by the Civil Service
to be appropriate.
Q19 Dr Iddon: That has probably killed
my question which is directed to Sue Duncan and that is: do you
agree that moving the Government Social Research Service from
the Cabinet Office to the Treasury was a good thing?
Ms Duncan: Yes, it is actually
a move that I very much welcome. It has happened as part of Sir
Gus O'Donnell's review of Cabinet Office functions, but, for the
Government Social Research Service, it means that we will both
be co-located with the professional unit for the Government Economic
Service, so it encourages closer working there, and it also means
that we are in the department that leads on the spending reviews,
which draw heavily on government-generated research and evidence,
and it is actually an opportunity for me to have a stronger input
into that process. I have already discussed that in a preliminary
way with both Professor Stern and with the Permanent Secretary
of the Treasury, and that is something I will be looking to develop
when I move.
| 
