Memorandum from Scientists for Global
Responsibility (SGR)
ABOUT SGR
Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) is
an independent UK membership organisation of approximately 850
science, design and technology professionals. Our main aim is
to promote and support science, design and technology which contributes
to social justice, environmental sustainability and the reduction
of conflict. The issues raised by the potential replacement of
UK nuclear weapons and the related skills base as outlined in
the call for evidence obviously have strong links with these concerns.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The focus of this submission is the impact that
a decision to replace Trident could have on the UK science and
technology skills base. We provide evidence of the shrinking skills
base in science and technology in the UK and then discuss it in
the context of three issues:
(i) the extent to which the military use
of science and technology resources (both skills and funds) can
and does compete with urgent civilian uses;
(ii) the low level of employment generated
per unit of investment in military programmes compared with civilian
programmes; and
(iii) the extent to which military involvement
with science and technology can adversely affect the public image
of science and technology and so undermine recruitment and retention.
We conclude that a decision to replace Trident
will have a significant and detrimental impact on the UK's ability
to maintain the science and technology skills base needed in order
to support the civilian economy. In particular, we are concerned
that this problem will seriously undermine the UK's attempts to
play its role in tackling global issues such as climate change
and energy insecurity.
One specific recommendation we make in the context
of this argument is the need to carry out a detailed economic
assessment which compares the job creation potential for any Trident
replacement programme with those in skilled civilian sectors,
eg energy efficiency or renewable energy technology.
We also make brief comment on the current expansion
of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), and express serious
concerns that this is significantly beyond what is necessary for
"stockpile stewardship".
MAIN SUBMISSION
1. Introduction
The Defence Committee has called for evidence
regarding the UK manufacturing and skills base in relation to
the future of the country's nuclear weapons.
Much of the evidence already submitted to this
inquiry has examined the question of how to find enough skilled
employees both to keep the option of "Trident replacement"
open and, should the government decide in favour of this, to carry
out this replacement. Meanwhile, other submissions have argued
against Trident replacement on the grounds of morality and/or
international security. In this submission, however, we examine
the issue from a somewhat different direction. We look at the
implications for the overall science and technology skills base
for the UK if the government decides to retain nuclear weapons.
In short, our argument is that we believe that
a Trident replacement decision will have a significant and detrimental
impact on the UK's ability to maintain the science and technology
skills base needed in order to support the civilian economy. In
particular, we are concerned that this problem will seriously
undermine the UK's attempts to play its role in tackling global
issues such as climate change and energy insecurity.
2. Current concerns over science and technology
skills shortages
Both government and industry are very concerned
about the availability of science and engineering skills across
the economy both now and in the future. This is reflected in many
policy initiatives, not least the current science, technology,
engineering and maths (STEM) programme which is aimed at increasing
the numbers of students taking these subjects [1].
One principle reason for this concern is the
falling numbers of UK undergraduate students studying many of
the STEM subjects as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UK UNDERGRADUATE NUMBERS 1999-2000 TO 004-05
| |
|
|
| |
Subject |
% change between
1999-2000 and 2004-05 |
| |
Engineering |
-3% |
| |
Physics |
0% |
| |
Maths |
-11% |
| |
Chemistry |
-20% |
Source: HEFCE [2]
These figures are especially worrying when considered against
the 13% increase in the number of undergraduates during
the same period [3]. Little solace can be taken from the fact
that the number taking physics has been static during this period,
given the fact it is the least popular of the four subjects in
the table. And to make matters worse, the number of computing
undergraduates—which had been rising—is now starting
to fall, causing the British Computer Society to warn of a skills
"crisis" [4].
This shortage in skills is obviously not something that just
affects the military science and technology sector, but the whole
economy and society in general. It is therefore important that
decisions on military programmes take into account these wider
concerns.
3. Concerns related to the expansion of military use of
skilled employees
SGR believes that three very important factors related to
the issue of military skills are rarely raised in these discussions
and should be. They are:
(i) the extent to which the military use of science and
technology resources (both skills and funds) can and does compete
with urgent civilian uses;
(ii) the low level of employment generated per unit of
investment in military programmes compared with civilian programmes;
and
(iii) the extent to which military involvement with science
and technology can adversely affect the public image of science
and technology and so undermine recruitment and retention.
3.1 Competition with civilian science and technology
Probably the most important civilian areas where military
industry, including a Trident replacement programme, might compete
for skills and resources are those areas related to tackling climate
change. For example, graduates in the physical sciences, maths
and all the main engineering subjects are needed by the low carbon
energy sectors (such as renewable energy) as well as in military
industry. This section looks at the potential for competition.
Senior policy-makers and scientists all acknowledge the huge
threat of climate change and the importance of taking urgent steps
to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause it. For
example, in the wake of the recent Stern review, Tony Blair said
the consequences for failing to curb emissions were "literally
disastrous" [5]. Meanwhile Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor
David King, has gone further, saying "climate change is the
most severe problem that we face today—more serious even
than the threat of terrorism" [6]. It is also acknowledged
that reducing the threat of climate change, and by implication
reducing our use of fossil fuels, could have security benefits,
eg less potential for conflict over diminishing supplies of fresh
water or crude oil.
However, the Labour government's efforts to control UK GHG
emissions have only led to quite limited overall reductions—with
carbon dioxide emissions now actually greater than they were when
Labour came to power in 1997 [7].
One significant reason why the UK is failing to achieve sufficient
emissions reduction is especially relevant to the discussion on
skills: a lack of government spending on research, development
and demonstration (RD&D) of low carbon technologies. Despite
being warned by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
in 1999 [8] about the low level of funding in this area, especially
of renewable energy, the government has only made modest increases
since that time. For example, the most recent statistics show
the government spent only £37 million on renewable energy
RD&D in 2005 [9]—little more than 1% of the Ministry
of Defence's R&D spending that year.
However, in the last year, there have been several UK initiatives
to change the situation. Perhaps most significant was the Energy
Review which laid out a range of policies and measures to reduce
GHG emissions in the energy sector. Also significant in this context
was the announcement of the Energy Technologies Institute, whereby
the government will provide £500 million over ten years for
R&D on low carbon technologies, with matching funding to come
from industry [10].
Interestingly, even before these initiatives were announced,
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) projected that employment
in the renewable energy sector could, given supportive enough
policies, expand from 8,000 jobs in 2004 to up to 35,000 by 2020
[11]. The expansion of other energy sectors favoured by government
during the same period, for example, energy efficiency, carbon
capture and storage, and nuclear power (fission and fusion), would
also lead to a high demand for skilled workers.
Even without a decision on Trident replacement, these sectors
face stiff competition for skills (and the resources to support
those skills) from the military industrial sector. This is illustrated
by the UK Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS)—released in
2005 [12]—and its sister volume, the Defence Technology
Strategy (DTS)—released in October of this year [13]. These
documents detail the extensive government efforts to further utilise
science and technology skills and resources in the military sector.
No equivalent civilian sector benefits from such strategic government
support.
Another illustration of the advantage held by military industry
comes from the nuclear weapons sector itself. The recent increases
in funding for the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) took its
2005-06 budget to £493 million [14]. This single year figure
is nearly as high as the government contribution over 10 years
for the Energy Technologies Institute discussed above.
Hence, there are major concerns about skills shortages across
science and technology, the DIS and related efforts represent
a major effort to expand the use of such skills in the military
industrial sector, and we have an urgent need to move to a low
carbon economy which is critically dependent on such skills. Even
without Trident replacement, SGR is extremely concerned that there
would not be enough skilled labour to go around. With Trident
replacement, we think it very likely that skills shortages will
be serious. Furthermore, we think it likely that the military
would be in a position to exert its influence over the labour
market—through, for example, the promise of higher wages
and more technically advanced facilities—to ensure that
it was the civilian sector which bore the brunt of any shortages.
This could have serious repercussions on UK efforts to tackle
climate change, not to mention the country's attempts to improve
energy security.
3.2 Employment generated by military projects
Some advocates of Trident replacement cite employment generation
as one of the arguments to support their case. However, the military
industrial sector in general is very capital-intensive, and nuclear
weapons technology especially so, hence the employment benefits
of public investment are not as high as many other parts of the
economy.
This is illustrated by economic research from the USA which
suggests that the unit cost of each military job is greater than
other sectors [15]. The study estimated that for each billion
dollars spent on military procurement 25,000 jobs were created,
while the same figure created 30,000 jobs in public transport,
36,000 in housing and 41,000 in education.
The situation for Trident replacement is likely to be significantly
worse. For example, building new nuclear weapons-capable submarines
would be very capital-intensive. With a rolling programme for
four replacement submarines—each one costing in the region
of £1 billion [16]—maintaining a shipyard workforce
(almost certainly at Barrow) of only about 10,000 employees, it
is hard to see how this could be considered effective in job creation
terms.
In contrast, a sector such as building energy efficiency—which
needs to be expanded rapidly in order to reduce GHG emissions
and improve energy security—has very good job creation potential
because it is not very capital-intensive.
No economic assessment seems to have been carried out to
date comparing the job creation costs for any Trident replacement
programme with those in skilled civilian sectors, eg energy efficiency
or renewable energy technology. We therefore believe it essential
that such an assessment is carried out before any decisions on
Trident are made.
3.3 Perception of military science and technology
There has been a lot of discussion recently on which factors
might be to blame for the decline of students taking physical
sciences, maths and engineering as discussed earlier. Suggested
factors include:
— these subjects are considered boring or "geeky"
by students;
— the quality of teaching has declined;
— the resources available for teaching have
declined; and
— the potential for better pay is higher if
other subjects are studied (eg financial, management or media
studies).
One possibility that is little acknowledged is the degree
to which the public image of science and technology may be tainted
because many of the UK industries that rely heavily on them are
perceived to contribute to major problems such as international
conflict and environmental damage. The unpopularity of current
British military deployments, for example in Iraq, is likely to
be adding to this.
Credence for this idea comes from a number of sources. Firstly,
in contrast to the physical sciences and engineering, the number
of undergraduates in the biological sciences has grown in recent
years [17]. Since biological sciences are closely associated with
health issues, this gives an indication why it bucks the trend.
Secondly, the physical sciences and engineering have historically
had problems recruiting girls and woman into their profession.
Recent research [18] suggests that girls are interested in working
in science, but only if it involves a strong consideration of
ethical issues. A third indicator is this year's survey of the
organisations which university students see as their ideal employers
[19]. Among science and engineering students, the top three were:
(i) BBC (unchanged from last year);
(ii) NHS (up from 56); and
(iii) Environment Agency (up from 86).
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems both fell.
Further anecdotal evidence comes from SGR's own work on careers
issues. We regularly attend university careers fairs around the
UK to highlight the opportunities for scientists, engineers and
the related professions in areas such as sustainable energy, environmental
protection or peace-building. We are frequently told by students
that our presence at these events is a welcome alternative to
many of the mainstream employers, not least those with military
connections.
Concern within the science and technology community about
the current level of military involvement in this sector was also
discussed in a recent SGR report [20].
Given these data, we are very concerned that a Trident replacement
programme and the associated recruitment drive will negatively
affect the public image of the science and technology employment
market and therefore the inclination of young people to pursue
studies in this area, making it even harder to attract and retain
qualified scientists and engineers.
4. AWE's current expansion
Finally, we wish to make some brief comments on the current
expansion of the AWE in advance of the official decision on Trident
replacement.
The expansion has so far involved recruitment of several
hundred staff (mostly in science and engineering) [21], ostensibly
for a nuclear weapons "stockpile stewardship programme".
New and expensive laser, supercomputer, hydrodynamics and other
facilities are being constructed to enable new studies to be carried
out concerning nuclear weapons components and assemblies in reinforced
explosion chambers, in collaboration with US scientists and weapons
designers [22]. Like the Trident system, much of this is large-scale
capital spending which, together with the increased use of highly-skilled
staff, adds to the pressure on limited resources (similar to that
discussed earlier).
SGR, however, has other serious concerns about this expansion.
Having studied the plans and proposals for the AWE development
carefully, SGR is of the view that the new facilities cannot be
justified on the basis of maintaining existing stockpiles. There
is a remaining suspicion that work is being undertaken or planned
which could assist in or is already part of the development of
a new warhead capability or design. This is of very real concern
as it is likely to further undermine progress in implementing
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and adherence to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. This is particularly worrying at a time when
reports suggest six Middle-Eastern countries are seeking civil
nuclear technology [23], and hence non-proliferation controls
need to be seen to be adhered to by all countries.
References[1] DfES & DTI (2006). The STEM programme
report. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/STEM%20Programme%20Report.pdf
[2] HEFCE (2006). Undergraduate students in STEM subjects.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2006/stem/students.pdf
[3] The number of full-time undergraduates at UK universities
has risen from 1,027,400 in 1999/2000 to 1,165,445 in 2004/05.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2006). Student tables. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/stud.htm
[4] Ghosh P (2006). Computer industry "faces crisis".
BBC News website, 17 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6155998.stm
[5] Anon (2006). Climate change fight "can't wait".
BBC News website, 31 October. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm
[6] King D (2004). Climate change science: adapt, mitigate
or ignore? Science, 303: 176-7.
[7] DEFRA (2006). UK Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukem.htm
(Accessed November 2006)
[8] Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1999). Energy—the
changing climate. 22nd Report. http://www.rcep.org.uk/
[9] International Energy Agency (2006). IEA Energy Statistics.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/rd.asp (accessed November 2006).
[10] DTI (2006). Energy Technologies Institute. http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-funding/eti/page34027.html
[11] Department of Trade and Industry (2004). Renewable Supply
Chain Gap Analysis. http://www.dti.gov.uk/
[12] Ministry of Defence (2005). Defence Industrial Strategy.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PolicyStrategyandPlanning/DefenceIndustrialStrategyDefenceWhitePapercm6697.htm
[13] Ministry of Defence (2006). Defence Technology Strategy.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/ScienceandTechnologyPublications/SITDocuments/DefenceTechnologyStrategy2006.htm
[14] Hansard (2006). Written answer to parliamentary
question, Des Browne to Alan Simpson. 6 June: Columns 504W &
505W.
[15] Harigel G (1997). The impact of the military-industrial
complex on society. In: D Schroeer and A Pascolini (eds). The
weapons legacy of the Cold War. Ashgate.
[16] p26 of Ainslie J (2005). The Future of the British Bomb.
WMD Awareness Programme. http://www.comeclean.org.uk/
[17] Higher Education Statistics Agency (2006). Student tables.
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/stud.htm
[18] Haste H (2004). Science in my future. Nestlé Social
Research Programme. http://www.spreckley.co.uk/nestle/science-in-my-future-full.pdf
[19] Universum Communications (2006). The Universum UK Graduate
Survey. http://www.universumeurope.com/ukgs2006.aspx
[20] Langley C (2005). Soldiers in the Laboratory: Military
involvement in science and technology—and some alternatives.
Scientists for Global Responsibility. http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/Soldiers—in—Lab—Report.pdf
[21] Hansard (2006). Written answer to parliamentary
question, Adam Ingram to Mike Hancock. 3 July: Column 702W. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060703/text/60703w1331.htm
[22] AWE annual reports and other related documents. http://www.awe.co.uk/
[23] The Times (2006). Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear.
4 November. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html
23 November 2006
| 
