Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON CMG FRS
12 DECEMBER 2007
Q1 Chairman: We very much welcome Professor
John Beddington, the Government's new Chief Scientific Adviser,
to this first session with the Innovation, Universities and Skills
Select Committee. We are delighted, Professor Beddington, you
have been able to come and meet us very early on, and can I assure
you that this is a very good-mannered, polite committee who simply
want to find out the truth from our witnesses. I wonder if I could
start by asking you, how did you get the job?
Professor Beddington: First of
all, Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks. I should slightly
correct your opening remarks because I am not actually in the
job yet. On 31 December, Sir David will leave his office and fairly
shortly after that I will take it over, so at the moment I actually
work for Imperial College. Obviously since the announcement in
October, Sir David has been rather generous with the time of his
staff, so I have been reading into the job and getting briefings
and so on, which has been very helpful, but rather challenging,
to say the least. In terms of how I got the job, I am assuming
by that you do not mean to say that I was approached by the following
head-hunters who asked, sort of thing?
Dr Turner: Yes!
Q2 Chairman: Yes, we do actually.
Professor Beddington: Well, I
used to be the Chairman of Defra's Science Advisory Council and
the head-hunters approached me to ask for my advice on who might
be a new Chief Scientist at Defra.
Q3 Dr Gibson: What type of head-hunters
were they who asked you?
Professor Beddington: They were
from KMC and they approached me about that, so I gave some advice
on that and then they raised the issue of the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser and asked whether I might be interested. I
then gave it rather a lot of thought because I was not sure if
I really wanted to do it, but the timing was good because I was
just going on holiday with my wife, so we talked about it for
a week and she said, "Well, you'll always be annoyed if you
didn't go for it and I'll probably be annoyed if you do go for
it, especially if you get it", but that is how it happened,
and then there was obviously the series of interviews and so on
with the appropriate panels.
Q4 Chairman: Previous Government
Chief Scientific Advisers, particularly the last two, have been
vocal and they have sometimes been controversial, but they have
certainly been independently minded which is perhaps what one
expects from a Government Chief Scientific Adviser. How will you
approach that role?
Professor Beddington: I think
the key thing here is to ensure, and I see it as my role, that
the Government gets the best possible scientific advice, that
where there is uncertainty, that is characterised, where there
is risk, that is characterised, but I see my job as really trying
to ensure that, when a new policy is made, it is based on the
best possible scientific advice that is available at the time.
Now, at some stages, there may well be contradictions between
scientific advice and other policy imperatives, and that is taken
as understood, but I think my central role is to do that and that
is what I will try to do.
Chairman: But can we expect you to be
outspoken? Is that your style? Are you a controversial figure
in the science world?
Q5 Dr Gibson: Is your research controversial?
Professor Beddington: It is hard
to know. Certainly I do not feel that I am a particularly controversial
figure, but, on the other hand, I am not shy. I am certainly prepared
to speak my mind and to sustain an argument if I believe it is
correct.
Q6 Chairman: Obviously Sir David
made his name in many ways by a number of crises that occurred
and perhaps he was fortunate in that sense, that issues of climate
change, foot and mouth and what-have-you came on. Can you actually
create your own priorities or do you have to wait for an issue
to come along like foot and mouth?
Professor Beddington: Well, I
certainly have got some priorities and one of them is that I really
feel there needs to be work done at the level of my role, which
is head of profession in science and engineering in government,
and actually to try and get some esprit de corps of the
large number of scientists who actually work with government.
I think that is one of the really key ones.
Q7 Chairman: Does that include the
Civil Service?
Professor Beddington: Yes, indeed.
In my role, just to explain, I am head of profession for science
and engineering in government. A number of CSAs in individual
departments are head of profession within their own departments,
but in some departments, particularly larger ones, that head of
profession role is one level down from the CSA. I think there
is a real opportunity here and I think it is one of the things
I would like to make a priority, to work with the community of
CSAs and their colleagues to try to actually think about how we
can build up the level of, as it were, the morale and the expertise
of the science and technology profession in government. In particular,
I would contrast, as it were, the science profession in government
with the legal and economic professions and, to an extent, both
the IT and the statisticians where I think there is much more
coherence. It is unimaginable, for example, that a policy would
be made without taking legal or economic advice and I would like
to get into a situation where that same thing happened within
science. Obviously science is more heterogeneous than the legal
or economic professions, but that is a challenge and that is one
of the priorities I would like to set fairly early on in my tenure.
Q8 Chairman: For that to be achieved,
you have got somehow to persuade those departments who do not
feel it is even valuable to appoint departmental chief scientific
advisers to do so. Why will you be any more successful than Sir
David King?
Professor Beddington: Well, I
think I would give it my priority. In terms of actual persuasion,
and obviously I was here last week listening to Sir David talk
and discuss these issues with you, obviously certain departments
have not chosen to have a chief scientific adviser as yet, but
I think what I would hope to do is obviously continue the persuasion
process, but actually try to understand why they are not doing
this. There must be reasons and, if I can understand those reasons,
maybe there is some way of mitigating them so that one can move
on. In terms of an expectation of being more successful than Sir
David, the honest answer is I do not know at the moment, but I
shall certainly try.
Q9 Chairman: Do you think you should
have the power to insist that a department has a chief scientific
adviser in it?
Professor Beddington: Well, I
do not think any adviser should have the power to insist on anything.
I think you can advise strongly that you believe that to be the
case, but I would not seek to have those sorts of powers.
Q10 Chairman: Just hazard a guess
as to why they do not want them.
Professor Beddington: I really
do not know, Chairman. I am not quite in the job yet and I need
to understand it. Prima facie I can see no reason other
than perhaps resources, but I really do not know and that is what
I hope to explore early in the new year.
Q11 Chairman: Well, we wish you every
success with that. The previous Science and Technology Select
Committee were very, very keen to see champions for science, and
particularly for areas of science where it is very important in
terms of public perception as well and indeed for the science
community that there are champions. One area that the previous
Committee concentrated on was marine science where there was a
lack of a real champion for marine science, despite its importance
in terms of climate change and obviously the economic impact of
the oceans and the seas. Do you see yourself taking on that role
(a) as a champion of science and (b) will you consider giving
a higher profile to marine science?
Professor Beddington: I have not
decided on that. It is a difficult issue and there are other competing
priorities but obviously marine science has, I think, been somewhat
underplayed in the last year or so, but I think that the current
proposals for changes to the way in which marine science is addressed
seem to me to be worth exploring and also their interactions,
and ocean acidification as a consequence of climate change is
one which is really concerning and needs exploration, so I think
I would want to look at that. In terms of being a champion of
marine science, the short answer to that is I really do not know
at the moment; it is too early.
Q12 Chairman: But you have not ruled
that out?
Professor Beddington: No, I have
not.
Q13 Dr Turner: I am sure your predecessors
and others have probably given you lots of quiet advice, especially
on the sorts of obstacles that you are likely to encounter in
trying to carry out your role. What do you see as the most likely
obstacles you will meet in the government system and how do you
intend to approach them?
Professor Beddington: I think
one of the obstacles is obviously a lack of understanding of science
and I think that is rather important. I think part of the role
that I want to try and grow into is actually to be a reasonable
champion for science, but to put it into terms that do not seem
bizarre, which are readily understandable and can be addressed,
so I think a lack of understanding of truly what science is and,
after all, we should be able to phrase the most difficult scientific
questions into something that anybody reasonably well read can
actually understand. It is almost perhaps going back to the "two
cultures" issue of CP Snow five or six decades ago, but I
think that is one of the obstacles. The other obstacle of course
is money and there are obviously real difficulties there and one
has got to work within those constraints, but those are the two
things that spring to mind. I do not think there is any deep prejudice
against science, but I think there is a lack of understanding
and appreciation of what it can do.
Q14 Dr Turner: It has been suggested
that there is something of an anti-science bias in the Civil Service
culture. Do you anticipate having difficulties with that?
Professor Beddington: I do not
know. I heard Sir David speak on that a week ago in this room
and he obviously thinks that is the case, but I do not think,
for example, talking to Lord May, who was his predecessor in the
job, that Lord May felt that that was a particular problem. I
think the answer is I will wait and see. I have not encountered
it and I have worked within different departments of government
as an adviser for quite a long time and I have not encountered
it in any sort of dramatic form, but I think let us wait and see
and, if I encounter it, I will work out how to deal with it.
Dr Turner: And you will come and tell
us what Sir Humphrey says!
Q15 Mr Marsden: Professor Beddington,
I am very encouraged by what you said, that you saw one of your
primary roles as getting across the best possible scientific advice
in government, but of course, even with the best possible scientific
advice, and we see this in the public sphere and the political
sphere, the general public, particularly the media, are not always
receptive to, exaggerate in some cases, or in some cases simply
do not understand, the basis of the advice. One of the things
I wanted to ask you was whether you saw part of your job as having,
either directly to what you say or what you stimulate, a public
education role about science? One of the issues that comes to
mind with me, for example, is the risk:benefit analysis which
I think is something which is very seldom understood when scare
stories get into the media and things of that nature.
Professor Beddington: I think
the use of probabilities, and essentially it stems from risk and
uncertainty, is really one of the most difficult things to get
over outside the scientific environment, but it is clearly enormously
important. I think it is a difficult thing to do and one of the
things I will seek to do is to try to enhance that discussion.
I think, for example, taking your question slightly wider, obviously
part of the role is actually to put over to the media what are
the key issues, the key challenges and to correct the media and
to challenge them if in fact their interpretations are incorrect,
and I think that is part of the role and one that I will do to
the best of my ability.
Q16 Dr Iddon: Professor Beddington,
what do you think are the big issues that might face you in the
near- to short-term future and do you think the Government is
brave enough to tackle risk in science? We have had discussions
in this Committee, for example, about putting a British astronaut
on the moon, but the Government obviously backed off because of
the cost. Do you think we are brave enough with our innovation
and science in general?
Professor Beddington: I think
there are some enormous challenges coming. Listening to Sir David
here last week, obviously there are some key ones, climate change
being the biggest, I would argue, but I think that there are needs
that probably transcend risks. I think we have really got to take
climate change extremely seriously and we have got to look for
technological solutions. I think in a sense over the last five
or six years, one has seen a movement from, "This is not
a serious problem" to, "This is a really serious problem",
and I think that is now recognised pretty much throughout the
world, but the challenges and the risks that we need to take,
I believe, are to actually try to develop technology and engineering
solutions to actually mitigate these problems as soon as you possibly
can. Now, that, I think, is actually quite a risky strategy, albeit
absolutely necessary.
Q17 Chairman: Sir David told us last
week, which was surprising a little, that his first duty was actually
to the public and not to the Government. To whom will you be primarily
responsible?
Professor Beddington: In terms
of my primary responsibility, I report to the Prime Minister and
Cabinet and that I see as being part of my job. Now, in terms
of responsibility to the public, yes of course you would have
it, as any civil servant would, and that is part of being a civil
servant, that you have the responsibility both to your direct
superiors, in this case Sir Gus O'Donnell and the Prime Minister,
and in the case of appropriate ways to behave as a civil servant,
you obviously have a duty to the public.
Q18 Chairman: But the Prime Minister
comes before my constituents?
Professor Beddington: I think
they are equally important, depending on the issue.
Chairman: You will become a politician!
Q19 Graham Stringer: You have touched
on some of your experience in government. You are obviously going
for a different position now, a more senior position. The Government
is very big and it has a way of swallowing people up and changing
them. Can you expand on your experience in government and, in
particular, tell us what has been your most difficult or worst
experience of working with government so far?
Professor Beddington: I first
had work with government when I was actually asked by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office to take part in the development of a treaty
dealing with the Antarctic ecosystem, and it is a complex system,
lots of large mammals and birds and so on dependent on the fundamental
food krill. I was involved at this time in actually negotiating
what was essentially an international treaty which had to involve
science and it had to involve science right at the depth of it.
We were getting nowhere, absolutely nowhere in terms of people's
understanding of what is a complex ecosystem interaction and people
were taking simple fisheries models where you could take maximum
yield which did not take into account the ecological interactions,
and that is very, very difficult. We were getting absolutely nowhere,
so in fact what we hit on was a device and we wrote a paper in
Science, myself, Lord May and three others, in which we
actually pointed out exactly what were the major problems of the
Antarctic ecosystem and how this treaty needed to actually take
into account interactions between species. Sorry, that is rather
a technical answer, but that actually worked and the CCALMR Treaty,
the treaty which set up the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Living Marine Resources, actually has for the first
time these ecosystem interactions embedded in it, so that is the
first one which was quite difficult. The second one was after
the conflict with Argentina when I was asked essentially to develop
relations with the Argentine scientific community because we have
a number of such important shared fish stocks and that was extremely
complicated because obviously it was a bit delicate and a very,
very difficult political situation, so I found that hard. There
are two or three other areas which I would briefly touch on, if
I may, Chairman.
|
