2 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT
THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT POLICY?
Background
7. We approached this questionis science and
engineering at the heart of Government policy?from two
connected, but distinct angles. First, the use of science and
engineering advice in policy making: does the Government have
effective mechanisms at its disposal for feeding science and engineering
advice into policy? And second, science and engineering's place
in Government policy: what role do science and engineering play
in the Government's vision for UK plc?[2]
On both of these points, the Government has a good record. Regarding
science and engineering advice, the former Government Chief Scientific
Adviser, Sir David King, maintained a close relationship with
the Prime Minister, providing crucial expert advice during the
foot and mouth crisis and successfully raising climate change
to the top of the political agenda. He also gained traction in
his campaign for every department to have a Chief Scientific Adviser,
something that the current post-holder, Professor John Beddington,
is continuing to push.
8. Regarding the role of science and engineering
in UK plc, the Government's reports on Science and innovation
investment framework 2004-2014[3]
and Manufacturing: New Challenges, New Opportunities[4]
have demonstrated a long-term vision. And funding has matched
the promises: research funding has doubled in real terms over
the last 10 years.[5] The
science budget is ring-fenced and is set to increase to more than
£6 billion per year by 2010-11. That commitment remains in
place, with fresh enthusiasm from both the Science Minister, the
Rt Hon Lord Drayson,[6]
and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,
the Rt Hon Lord Mandelson.[7]
THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT
9. When we began this inquiry, the organisational
arrangements were somewhat different. DIUS existed as a discrete
department for innovation, universities and skills, and it provided
a home for GO-Science. In between the completion of evidence-taking
and drafting the report there were machinery of Government changes.
These resulted in the merger of the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills and the Department for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform. The resulting super-department, the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), has subsumed the science
aspects of DIUS wholesale, with no changes to the structure (yet).
The figure below describes the structural arrangements as they
were before the merger (Figure 1).
10. The Government Chief Scientific Adviser
(GCSA), currently Professor John Beddington, oversees science
and engineering advice across Government and is also head of profession
for scientists and engineers in the civil service. The GCSA heads
up the Government Office for Science, which has cross-departmental
responsibility for science and engineering advice. The GCSA and
GO-Science are situated within the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS)formerly DIUSrather than the Cabinet
Office as both we and the former Science and Technology Committee
have suggested.[8]
11. Each Government Department, except the Treasury,
has a Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser (DCSA). DCSAs
are responsible for science and engineering advice in their departments.
Not all DCSAs are necessarily scientists; for example, the DCSA
for Ministry of Defence is an engineer (Professor Mark Welland),
the DCSA for the Home Office is a social scientist (Professor
Paul Wiles), and the DCSA for Department for Culture, Media and
Sport is an economist (Anita Charlesworth).
Figure 1. The structure of science and engineering
advice prior to the machinery of Government changes of June 2009.
Taken from our Fourth Report of Session 2008-09, Engineering:
turning ideas into reality, HC 50-I, p 72.

12. The DCSAs, along with the Health and Safety Executive
Chief Scientist, the head of the Government Economic Service,
a Treasury representative, the Director General of Science and
Research, and the CSAs to the Devolved Administrations, all sit
on the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee (CSAC). It meets
quarterly to advise the GCSA (who chairs CSAC) on cross-departmental
science and engineering matters.
13. There are also dozens of science advisory councils
and committees that assist Government in collating and assessing
scientific information and input independent advice into policy-making.
The highest of these councils is the Council for Science and
Technology, which advises the Prime Minister on science and
technology issues. It is co-chaired by the GCSA and Professor
Dame Janet Finch, Vice-Chancellor of Keele University.
14. Also working under the broad heading of 'specialist
advice' to Government are the National Statistician (Dame
Karen Dunnell), the Government Chief Social Scientist (Professor
Paul Wiles), and the joint heads of the Government Economic
Service (Vicky Pryce, BIS, and Dave Ramsden, HM Treasury).
15. The Minister for Science and Innovation,
Lord Drayson, is the first Science Minister to attend Cabinet.
In addition, he is in charge of research and procurement in the
MoD and he chairs the Cabinet sub-Committee on Science and
Innovation, which was established in 2008 "to consider
issues relating to science and innovation; and report as necessary
to the Committee on Economic Development".[9]
The sub-Committee has been welcomed by the science and engineering
communities.[10]
16. Working alongside the Minister for Science and
Innovation is the Director General for Science and Research,
Professor Adrian Smith, who is responsible for science and research
policy, including the science budget allocations and public engagement
on key scientific issues.
Why science and engineering are
important
17. Before we consider the importance of science
and engineering advice to Government policy, it is worth putting
science and engineering in context. First, science and engineering
contribute substantially to the UK's increasingly knowledge-based
economy. We learnt during our engineering inquiry that nearly
30% of the UK's GDP is produced by the "SET-intensive sectors".[11]
Given the importance of these sectors, the Government invests
a great deal of money in supporting them. And for good reason:
Research confirms that engagement between innovators
and the science base creates real welfare benefit. An important
recent study by the OECD found that 1% growth in public R&D
leads to a 0.17% increase in total factor productivity in the
long run. Moreover, this effect increases with the share of public
science conducted in universities. Other studies confirm the positive
contribution of academic research to economic growth.[12]
18. These facts have not been lost on other countries.
In 2002, the European Council called for EU R&D investment
to reach 3% of GDP by 2010. Among OECD countries, this has already
been reached by Finland, Sweden, Korea and Japan (see Table 1).
The UK has set a softer target of 2.5% by 2014.[13]
It is currently spending 1.8%.
Table 1. 2006 Gross domestic expenditure on R&D
(GERD)
| % of GDP
| % financed by
| Target
|
|
| Government
| Industry
| Percentage
| By
|
Australia | 1.8
| 40.5 |
53.0 |
|
|
Brazil | 1.0
| 57.9 |
39.4 |
|
|
China | 1.4
| 24.7 |
69.1 | 2.0 of GDP
| 2010 |
Finland | 3.5
| 25.1 |
66.6 | 4.0 of GDP
| 2011 |
France | 2.1
| 38.4 |
52.2 | 3.0 of GDP
| 2012 |
Germany | 2.5
| 28.4 |
67.6 | 3.0 of GDP
| 2010 |
India | 0.7
| 80.8 |
16.1 |
|
|
Ireland | 1.3
| 30.1 |
59.3 | 2.5 of GNP
| 2013 |
Italy | 1.1
| 50.7 |
39.7 |
|
|
Japan | 3.4
| 16.2 |
77.1 | 1.0 of GDP for the public sector
| 2010 |
Korea | 3.2
| 23.1 |
75.5 | 5.0 of GDP
| 2012 |
Russia | 1.1
| 61.1 |
28.8 | 2.0 of GDP
| 2010 |
South Africa | 0.9
| 38.2 |
43.9 |
|
|
Spain | 1.2
| 42.5 |
47.1 | 2.2 of GDP
| 2011 |
Sweden | 3.7
| 23.5 |
65.7 | 4.0 of GDP
| 2010 |
Switzerland | 2.9
| 22.7 |
69.7 |
|
|
United Kingdom | 1.8
| 31.9 |
45.2 | 2.5 of GDP
| 2014 |
United States | 2.6
| 29.3 |
64.9 | 3.0 of GDP
|
|
OECD in figures 2008,[14]
and OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008, p
72
19. Related to but separate from the economics are
the social benefits that science and engineering provide. Our
lives have been improved immeasurably because of science and engineering.
Together, they have provided populations around the world with
fast transport and communications, safe and comfortable accommodation,
effective medical care, abundant energy, reliable and clean water
and food, and infrastructures to support all these necessities.
Science has helped us gain an understanding of how human activity
is warming the climate, and what impact that will have on food
and water security, and, crucially, what needs to be done to slow
or reverse the warming trend. Engineering offers humanity hope
to meet these challenges by developing clean energy sources and
transforming our ageing buildings and transport technologies so
that they are efficient and sustainable.
20. Science and engineering have combined to deliver
modern medicine, which in the past few decades hasas in
all other fieldssurpassed expectations. Professor Raymond
Tallis, the physician and philosopher, described the meteoric
improvements in healthcare in his impassioned analysis of modern
medicine, Hippocratic Oaths:
The most direct measure of success is postponement
of death, and on this medicine has delivered handsomely. Global
life expectancy has more than doubled over the last 140 years.
Nearly two thirds of the increase in longevity in the entire history
of the human race has occurred since 1900. If we narrow our gaze
for a while and look simply at the data for England and Wales
in the first fifty years of the NHS, the news remains pretty extraordinary.
Infant mortality fell from 39/1000 to 7/1000 for girls and 30/1000
to 5/1000 for boys; and the proportion of people dying before
reaching 64 from 40% to 7%. Life expectancy at birth increased
by nearly a decadefrom 66 to 74.5 for men and from 70.5
to just under 80 for womenduring the second half of the
twentieth century. If we look at the last century as a whole,
the changes are even more amazing. Whereas the proportion of deaths
that occurred between 0 and 4 years of age was 37% in 1901, it
was 0.8% in 1999; and while only 12% of deaths in 1901 were in
people above 75, 64% of all deaths in England and Wales in 1999
were among people over the age of 75.[15]
21. He goes on to quell the implication that just
science-based medicine is responsible for this change by acknowledging
that "Increasing prosperity, better nutrition, education,
public hygiene, housing, health and safety at work, the emergence
of liberal democracies protecting individuals against exploitation
and abuse, and social welfare policies have all played their part".[16]
Science and engineeringand, crucially, public policies
that have made use of scientific and engineering advicehave
played a key role in all of these developments.
22. We are content that the Government is both aware
of what science and engineering has to offer, and also eager to
make the most of it. When we questioned Lord Drayson, the Minister
for Science and Innovation, he told us:
I think that we have made real progress over
the last year in putting science and engineering more at the heart
of government policy, and I think we can point to specific achievements
which have helped to deliver that, but I do think that there is
more that we need to do.[17]
23. We found this forward-looking perspective reassuring
and were pleased to hear it echoed by Professor Beddington, the
Government Chief Scientific Adviser, who identified engineering
as "an issue where we really need to work harder".[18]
It is in this spirit of recognition of the past successes of science
and engineering, the Government's efforts to bring specialist
advice into the policy-making process and a forward-facing view
to improve the process further that we undertook this inquiry.
24. We were impressed by the Science Minister
and Government Chief Scientific Adviser's frank assessment of
how science and engineering advice is used in Government. We were
pleased to hear that they have taken up those concerns we raised
in the engineering report and that they have an appetite to improve
the use of evidence in policy-making.
Previous recommendations
25. In our recent report Engineering: turning
ideas into reality,[19]
we made a number of recommendations that were pertinent to this
inquiry. The Government has responded and is generally in agreement
with our conclusions. We welcome the Government's response, and
were pleased to receive a detailed account of the work that is
underway to increase the number and recognition of scientists
and engineers in the Civil Service. The Government did not agree
with all of our recommendations, in particular to do with the
structure of scientific and engineering advice (see Figure 2).
We discuss two of these rejected recommendations.
CHIEF ENGINEERING ADVISERS
26. We argued that Chief Scientific Advisers who
were engineers and spent most of their time offering engineering
advice should be called Chief Engineering Advisers. We offered
eight reasons why this would be a good idea. These can be found
in detail in pages 92-94 of the engineering report, but briefly
they were:
a) because engineering advice is distinct from
other kinds of advice;
b) because engineers are best qualified to set
best practice in engineering advice;
c) because the Government should recognise the
importance of engineers and the appointment of Chief Engineering
Advisers would be one simple way of doing this;
d) because having Chief Scientific Advisers and
Chief Engineering Advisers has proved successful in other organisations;
e) three examples(i) intra-departmental,
(ii) cross-departmental, (iii) external communicationswhere
it would be simpler to call engineering advisers Chief Engineering
Advisers; and
f) because the Government already recognises
other specialists' expertise that it puts under the broad heading
of 'science'.[20]
27. In its response, the Government does not answer
these points in detail and explain, in the context of each point,
why the status quo is preferable to giving accurate job descriptions.
Nor does the Government separate out this recommendation from
the next one, which is presumably why its argument for rejecting
this recommendation makes no sense:
The Government does not therefore accept the
case for separate Chief Engineering Advisers at [
] departmental
levels. The Committee's proposals would involve additional management
layers and complication which would likely be counter-productive
and confusing.[21]
Figure 2. Our engineering report recommendations
for the organisation of science and engineering advice.

28. To be clear, our recommendation was that "Some
departments should have Departmental Chief Engineering Advisers
(DCEAs), some Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers (DCSAs),
and some should have both".[22]
It is hard to imagine how changing the title of staff to more
accurately reflect the work they do would "involve additional
management layers and complication" or be in any way "counterproductive"
or "confusing". If the Government intended to dismiss
only the part of the recommendation that some departments should
have both a DCEA and a DCSA, it should have been clear that that
was what it was doing. It should have also provided examples,
if they exist, to counter the comments we received from Professor
Christopher Snowden, Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive of the
University of Surrey who was representing the Royal Academy of
Engineering and the engineering institutions, who told us that
in business, chief engineers and chief scientists can work very
well together.[23]
29. We regret that the Government failed to answer
the core reasons for having Departmental Chief Engineering Advisers.
We urge the Government to give fuller consideration to our recommendation
that "Some departments should have Departmental Chief Engineering
Advisers (DCEAs), some Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers
(DCSAs), and some should have both."
GO-SCIENCE IN THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT
30. We recommended a small change to the machinery
of Government. We observed that the Government Chief Scientific
Adviser has three main roles:
a) he advises the Prime Minister on science and
engineering matters;
b) he oversees science and engineering advice
across Government; and
c) he is responsible for identifying emerging
issues in science and engineering policy (foresight).
31. He fulfils these takes with the support of the
Government Office for Science, which was based in DIUS and now
has been moved to BIS. We suggested that these core tasks could
be performed more effectively from the centre of Central Government:
the Cabinet Office.
32. Our position is, we believe, logical. We note
that there is another unit in Government which has almost identical
roles to GO-Science; these are listed on its website as:
a) to provide strategy and policy advice to the
Prime Minister;
b) to support government departments in developing
effective strategies and policies; and
c) to identify and effectively disseminate emerging
issues and policy challenges.[24]
33. It is the Cabinet Office's Strategy Unit.
34. When we asked Professor Beddington where GO-Science
would be best situated, DIUS (as it was then, now BIS) or the
Cabinet Office he told us:
I think there are merits on both sides, but I
think the key one is the link with both the Science Minister and
the Secretary of State for DIUS, but also with the Director General
for Research Councils, Adrian Smith, and that whole team, which
are responsible for so much of science funding. The fact that
I can walk up a floor and find Adrian Smith and his team and talk
on a day-to-day basis makes a tremendous difference, whereas if
I was down in Whitehall, that would be rather more difficult to
do.[25]
35. This is an interesting response. It supports
our basic premise on two counts. First, location matters because
it puts individuals in regular contact. In his current situation
he is in contact with the people responsible for science. Second,
location matters because it can put distance between individuals
and groups, which makes it 'rather more difficult' for them to
'talk on a day-to-day basis'. While it is important that the GCSA
has close working relationships with the Secretary of State and
Minister responsible for science and the DG for Science, his relationship
with the Prime Minister is even more important. If location can
make a "tremendous difference", as Professor Beddington
contends, it would be better for him to be based in the Cabinet
Office. We note that the GCSA has seen the Prime Minister four
times in the past year.[26]
This level of access is woefully inadequate and supports our case.
36. We were told by Lord Drayson that "geography
is not everything".[27]
However, we note that the Government's response to our engineering
report was prepared by "the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) with a major contribution from the Department
of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)".[28]
No mention of GO-Science. We also note that GO-Science did not
produce its own annual report, but was covered in three pages
of DIUS's annual report.[29]
The location of GO-Science has resulted in an apparent merger
with the then DIUS, now BIS.
37. The Government had an opportunity at the last
reshuffle to move GO-Science as per our recommendation in the
engineering report. That it did not, was a missed opportunity.
As the Government Chief Scientific Adviser explained, location
matters because it affords daily face-to-face interaction between
colleagues in the same building; and as he further pointed out,
he has only seen the Prime Minster four times in the past year.
We therefore appeal directly to the Prime Minster, who is responsible
for GO-Science, to bring it into the Cabinet Office alongside
the Strategy Unit.
Policy examples
38. During the course of this inquiry, several examples
were raised that highlighted different aspects of the importance
of a competent and active scientific advisory service. (We dealt
with the importance of engineering advice in our engineering report.)
Here we briefly consider two such examples: the licensing of homeopathy
by the MHRA; and literacy and numeracy interventions.
THE LICENSING OF HOMEOPATHY BY THE
MHRA
39. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency (MHRA) is the government agency responsible for ensuring
that medicines and medical devices are both safe and effective.
In 2006, it started licensing alternative medicines under the
Traditional Herbal Medicines Registration Scheme. The first such
product registration was for an arnica gel, which has been traditionally
used for the symptomatic relief of muscular aches and pains, stiffness,
sprains, bruises and swelling.
40. In May 2009, the MHRA granted its first licence
to a homeopathic medicine, for arnica 30c pilules. The product
has been licensed under the National Rules Scheme, which means
that it can make medicinal claims. The label will read: "A
homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition
for symptomatic relief of sprains, muscular aches and bruising
or swelling after contusions".[30]
41. We asked Professor Beddington what he thought
about the MHRA licensing products for which the best scientific
evidence does not show an effect beyond placebo.[31]
He was unable to comment on the specifics since he was not aware
of this particular instance, but he did comment of the purchasing
of homeopathy by the NHS:
I did write to the Chief Medical Officer about
this indicating [
] that I had real concerns that homeopathy
which had no scientific justification of mechanisms was being
used. [
And] in terms of a cost to the National Health Service
[
] it is £390,000 in £8.4 billion or something
of that sort. Subsequent to that I have taken this issue up with
the Director General who is dealing with these matters, Professor
Harper, to say can we explore this further, and we have had one
meeting on this issue. If we had not then had swine flu arrive
we would be continuing to follow this through.[32]
He also went on to say that he would "look at"
both the purchasing of homeopathy by the NHS and the MHRA's decision
to license homeopathic products.[33]
42. We are reassured to hear that Professor Beddington
will take steps to look at the MHRA's decision to licence homeopathic
products as well as the wider issue of the purchasing of homeopathy
by the NHS. We hope that he will be able to bring scientific evidence
to the centre of this complex policy issue.
LITERACY AND NUMERACY INTERVENTIONS
43. Since 2005, the Government has supported a number
of reading schemes. The Every Child a Reader (ECAR) pilot programme
cost the Government £5 million (it was matched with charitable
funding). The Every Child Counts (ECC) and Every Child a Writer
(ECAW) national programmes cost £169 million over three years.
Every Child a Talker (ECAT) cost an additional £40 million.
(ECAR and ECC are controlled by the Every Child a Chance Trust;
ECAW and ECAT are separate Government-run programmes.)[34]
44. In 2006, the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced
the nationwide rollout of ECAR, only a year into the three-year
pilot. This is problematic from an 'evidence-based policy' point
of view, but even if the Government had waited for the pilot to
finish it would have had little evidence to go on: the pilot only
demonstrated that the ECAR interventions were better than doing
nothing, because they did not include control groups conducting
other kinds of reading interventions. As for the other projects,
a recent Policy Exchange report commented:
At least with ECAR, there was a developed programme
ready to use, even if the evidence base was shakier than acknowledged.
The Government's commitment to Every Child Counts (ECC) and Every
Child a Writer is based on nothing at all [
] It is little
more than common sense that children who received extra support
for at least three days a week for several weeks in a row from
a trained numeracy specialist would show significant gains in
their performance [
but] this does not demonstrate the superiority
of ECC over any other programme nor does it tell us anything about
the costs or benefits of the programme.[35]
45. We raised this issue with Professor Beddington,
who was not familiar with it. He therefore answered in general
terms:
I think that where science appears to be done
badly, it is important that I should draw the attention in this
case to the chief scientific adviser in the appropriate department
and say, 'This looks to be rather poor'. [
But] I do not
have a mechanism for looking at all science developed in government,
I see that as devolving to the responsibilities of the individual
chief scientific advisers.[36]
46. Therefore, in our example, it was the responsibility
of the Department for Children, Schools and Families DCSA, Carole
Willis, to notice that these pilots were not designed to determine
the most cost effective or best way to improve literacy and numeracy.
We have previously lamented the lack of scientifically trained
civil servants in DCSF,[37]
and this example provides justification for our concern. Either
the DCSA did not recognise that these pilots were inadequate or
she was not aware of their existence; neither situation is acceptable.
47. We call on the DCSF Chief Scientific Adviser
to explain what advice she provided, if any, on the Every Child
literacy and numeracy programmes and report it to the House.
48. We agree with Professor Beddington that Departmental
Chief Scientific Advisers should have devolved responsibility
for the quality of scientific advice in each department. On that
basis, it is crucial that each DCSA has a tight grip on their
departmental remits and have sufficient support so that problem
policy areas can be identified and dealt with. The DCSA must challenge
policy-makers to demonstrate clear evidence to support policy
or to acknowledge that no such evidence exists. The GCSA needs
to be advised by DCSAs of those instances where DCSAs have been
overruled on such matters; and we further recommend that he publishes
these in his annual report.
Science Advisory Councils/Committees
49. Scientific Advisory Councils/Committees (SACs;
the terms 'council' and 'committee' are used interchangeably)
assist Government by collating, assessing and making judgements
about scientific information and providing expert advice to policy
makers. The Council for Science and Technology's report on How
academia and government can work together (October 2008) describes
Science Advisory Councils as follows:
SA Councils are independent bodies that support
senior departmental policy-makers by providing a broad range of
expertise within one body. They are recognised as wholly independent,
which inspires public confidence, accountability and increases
the efficiency of the use of academic input to a department as
they can potentially respond rapidly to urgent enquiries as well
as identifying issues themselves that need investigation.[38]
50. There are currently 75 SACs, ranging from the
Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee to
the Zoos Forum.[39] A
number of departments have established Departmental Science Advisory
Councils (DSACs), which reflect the needs of their parent departments
and can comprise expert scientists (including social scientists),
economists and technologists.
51. We took oral evidence from three advisory groups:
- a SAC, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs (ACMD), which is one of the specialist Home Office advisory
committeesalthough it directly advises ministers, it also
advises the Home Office Science Advisory Committee;
- a DSAC, Defra's Science Advisory Council, which
is the main advisory council to that department. It advises Defra's
Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Bob Watson, and has a number
of subject specific advisory committees feeding into it; and
- a non-ministerial government department, the
Food Standards Agency, which feeds into Department of Health (DH)
policy and is itself advised by a number of advisory councils.
DEPARTMENTAL SCIENCE ADVISORY COUNCILS
52. Judy Britton, Deputy Director of the Government
Office for Science, outlined the role of DSACs in relation to
policy scrutiny:
On the scrutiny side of things John Beddington,
before he was Government Chief Scientific Advisor, [
] is
championing the idea that there should be these kinds of councils
throughout government departmentsthe Home Office has one
which learned societies sit on as well as the chairs of their
scientific advisory committees. The idea is that they take a view
across the department at a strategic level and can see what is
going on, critique it and challenge it. He thinks these are a
very valuable form of more internal scrutiny than a select committee.[40]
53. GO-Science is working with other government departments
to determine whether additional departmental Science Advisory
Councils (SACs) might be usefully created.[41]
Currently only the Ministry of Defence, Defra, the Home Office
and the Food Standards Agency have departmental SACs. The Council
for Science and Technology is in effect the Prime Minister's SAC.
54. We agree that departmental science advisory councils
can provide a valuable form of internal scrutiny (a subject we
return to in Chapter 5). Strong consideration should be given
to increasing the number of departments that have Science Advisory
Councils with a departmental remit. The Department of Health,
the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department
for Transport are obvious 'top-of-the-list' candidates, with the
latter two in particular needing high quality engineering advice.
Figure 3. The advisory bodies from which we took
evidence.

ACMD AND THE HOME OFFICE
55. A policy issue arose in relation to Science Advisory
Councils during the course of our inquiry. It concerned a disagreement
between the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs (ACMD)which makes recommendations to Government on
the control of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs, including
classification and scheduling[42]and
the Home Secretary.
56. The ACMD is one of the better known Advisory
Councils, because its advice to Government appears in the media
from time to time, particularly when the Government is reconsidering
reclassifying drugs. It has also received Parliamentary scrutiny
in the past. The former Science and Technology Committee conducted
a case study inquiry into drug classification as part of its overarching
inquiry into scientific advice, risk and evidence in policy making.
57. In early 2009, a paper written some months previously
by Professor David Nutt, before he was appointed Chairman of the
ACMD, was published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
The controversial lines were:
Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts
of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and
ecstasy. [
] This attitude raises the critical question of
why society toleratesindeed encouragescertain forms
of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use.[43],
58. On the weekend prior to the publiction of the
ACMD ecstasy report, Professor Nutt was attacked in the media.
A spokesman for ACMD quickly commented:
The recent article by Professor David Nutt published
in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was done in respect of his
academic work and not as chair of the ACMD. Professor Nutt's academic
work does not prejudice that which he conducts as chair of the
ACMD.[44]
59. The then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, also criticised
Professor Nutt. She told the House:
I spoke to Professor Nutt about his comments
this morning [9 February 2009]. I told him that I was surprised
and profoundly disappointed by the article. I am sure that most
people would simply not accept the link that he makes up in his
article between horse riding and illegal drug-taking. That makes
light of a serious problem, trivialises the dangers of drugs,
shows insensitivity to the families of victims of ecstasy, and
sends the wrong message to young people about the dangers of drugs.
I made it clear to Professor Nutt that I felt that his comments
went beyond the scientific advice that I expect from him as chair
of the ACMD. He apologised to me for his comments, and I have
asked him to apologise to the families of the victims of ecstasy,
too.[45]
60. We asked Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, former
Chairman of the ACMD, what he thought about Professor Nutt's comments
and whether he should have been criticised for them. He defended
Professor Nutt robustly:
Risk comparisons are widely made for all sorts
of purposes. The ACMD does risk comparisons in shoe-horning substances
into A, B and C. The public is often given risk comparisons: the
numbers of people dying from tobacco consumption are equivalent
to a jet airliner crashing once a weekthis sort of thingand
the sort of thing that Professor Nutt was saying in that article
is just one example of a widely-used technique of revealed preference
[
] If David Nutt had written an article saying he thought
that heroin and morphine should be legalised, then his position
as Chairman of the ACMD would probably be impossible, whatever
his personal views might have been. On this particular occasion
I do not think it was appropriate for him to be criticised. What
he did and the sort of comparisons he made were widely used in
social sciences.[46]
61. We identified support for Professor Nutt from
other witnesses. Professor Lord Krebs told us that he thought
it "quite wrong that the Government should criticise independent
scientific advisors for publishing scientific work in the peer
review literature".[47]
And Professor Beddington wrote to the Home Secretary:
indicating that I had real concerns that this
affair had the potential of being used both widely and in the
media more widely as a discouragement for people wishing to become
members of science advisory committees. She responded to me in
indicating that she felt that she supported the idea of independent
advisory committees, and she felt this had been evidenced by her
support of a number of individual recommendations of Professor
Nutt's ACMD committee. I still feel that we need to be exploring
this, because I think that where you have a publication which
is in an independent peer reviewed journal, I think it is unfortunate
for government to actually criticise that in Parliament. So I
would concur with, for example, the comments that Lord Krebs gave
you when you asked him about the same subject.[48]
62. The correspondence between Professor Beddington
and Jacqui Smith is provided in the written evidence.[49]
63. We asked Professor Beddington whether he had
provided public or private support to Professor Nutt. He told
us:
I did not write to or contact Professor Nutt,
and I think perhaps in retrospect I perhaps should have done.
I did not. So to that extent, I am more than happy to share my
concerns with this committee. I think that it is important that
people are allowed to publish in peer reviewed journals without
being criticised.[50]
64. We agree with Lord Krebs and Professor Beddington:
SAC members should not be criticised for publishing scientific
papers or making statements as professionals, independent of their
role as Government advisers.
65. The independence of scientific advisers is
crucial. The most important aspect of any scientific or engineering
advice is that it is politically and ideologically neutral; it
must take into consideration all the relevant evidence and be
presented fairly and impartially. Independence from Government
is essential for advisers so that they are free to present the
evidence without fear of prejudice or attack from those they advise.
That is why independence is important.
66. But there is an additional consideration.
After the Home Secretary criticised the ACMD Chairman, Professor
Beddington noted that her actions against Professor Nutt might
discourage people from serving on Scientific Advisory Committees.
We received evidence that suggests his concern was not without
merit. Tracey Brown, Managing Director of Sense About Science,
told us:
There is a serious issue in terms of the knock-on
effect of this as well. [
] We [Sense About Science] have
over 3,000 scientists working with us [
] and we are already
picking up a really negative reaction to that. There was already
frustration about the number of people who feel that their time
is misused.[51]
67. It is important to safeguard the independence
of the advisory system. In situations where the independence of
a SAC chairman or member is or might be threatened for political
reasons, support should be offered by the DCSA and/or the GCSA.
68. We welcome the steps taken by the GCSA to
deal with one incident that occurred between the Chairman of the
ACMD and the Home Secretary. Further steps that should have been
taken are: (1) the GSCA should have written or spoken to the Chairman
of the ACMD, letting him know that support was being provided;
(2) the correspondence between the GCSA and the Home Secretary
should have been published immediately so that other SAC Chairmen
and the public (including the science community) could see that
support was being offered; and (3) the GCSA should have provided
public support for the Chairman of the ACMD and for his right
to publish.
69. The Government should seek specialist advice
prior to making policy decisions, early in the policy-making process.
Clearly the Government should be free to reject the advice of
its SACs, since scientific evidence is only one factoralbeit
a very important onein policy decisions: Advisers advise,
Ministers decide. However, when the Government does take a different
policy decision to that recommended by a SAC, it should make clear
its reasons for doing so.
THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR SCIENTIFIC
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
70. All SACs are expectedalthough not requiredto
adhere to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.
The Code of Practice "promotes good practice in the operation
of Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) and their relationship
with Government".[52]
The code was last updated at the end of 2007 in response to recommendations
in the Science and Technology Committee's Scientific Advice,
Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making report.[53]
The 2007 updates, for which explanations are given in the Consultation
on the update to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory
Committees[54] document,
include changes such as dropping the term 'lay' and encouraging
Chairmen and secretariats to maintain clear records to assist
scrutiny.
71. We are supportive of the Code of Practice for
Scientific Advisory Committees and below make a number of suggestions
that we hope might improve both the Code of Practice and the operation
of SACs across Government. We appreciate that the Government has
just updated the Code, and suggest that our recommendations, which
amount to relatively minor alterations, should be considered at
the same time as the Government Chief Scientific Adviser considers
his Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making.[55]
INDEPENDENCE
72. Throughout the Code of Practice, the concept
of 'independence' is key. We also received many submissions that
put an emphasis on the independence of science and the importance
of independent advice and advisers.[56]
However, 'independent' is a slippery term. Most of the professional
and learned societies offer 'independent' advice, but what does
that mean? Independent from whom or what? What is clear is that
'independent', in this context, should not be confused with 'objective':
professional and learned societies serve the interests of their
membership or fellowship. (That of course does not detract from
the fact that scientific or engineering knowledge has a special
kind of independence that other kinds of knowledge do not possess.)
73. We conclude that there would be value in being
clear in the Code of Practice as to what 'independence' means.
Members of Science Advisory Committees are likely to represent
the views of their constituencies; what is important is that they
have no conflict of interest with Government. Therefore, in the
case of Science Advisory Committees, 'independence' should mean
'independence from Government'.
MEMBERSHIP
74. Different SACs require different membership structures
in order to maximise their effectiveness. This is well recognised
and is manifested in the wide range of SAC memberships across
Government. For example, the ACMD has 35 members and Defra's DSAC
has 13 members. The ACMD is made up of people from academia, the
police, social work, psychiatrists and so on. Defra's DSAC is
mostly made up of academics.
75. When we spoke to Dame Deidre Hutton, Chair of
the Food Standards Agency, she explained that the FSA has lay
people on the board, on advisory councils and throughout the agency.
She regarded them as "extraordinarily important" because
they could highlight "what the real issues are for the public
in terms of their acceptance of risk" and they could also
"frame the questions that the scientists look at right at
the beginning of the process".[57]
76. Professor Gaskell, Chairman of Defra's DSAC,
framed the issue of lay membership in a different light. He was
concerned that the term 'lay' "can be used pejoratively",
but felt that instead it should be used to suggest "another
skill set which is of value to the committee".[58]
Although he argued that "they do have a role to play; they
do bring a different perspective" and that "lay members
often bring [
] a capacity to ask the awkward and inconvenient
question", he clearly felt uneasy with the term 'lay', preferring
to focus on individual expertise:
In our committee, [
] in many senses many
of the people there are lay for 80/90% of the time because it
is the main issue of the day which somebody else has got the FRS
in and they have not [
] We have a number of social scientists
on our Science Advisory Council and, of course, they will bring
a different perspective from the natural scientist. So I think
the term 'lay' is encompassed by a range of inputs across the
council, and we are very clear that we are expecting council members
to contribute to the business of the Council even when it is not
their specialty area and in that sense act as a lay member.[59]
77. The Government shares Professor Gaskell's view.
In its summary of the consultation responses on the Code of Practice,
it stated:
The Government supports the revision of the Code
to drop the term 'lay' in favour of SACs developing a competence-based
approach to accessing the required skills for each SAC through
person specifications [
] SACs can thereby retain some flexibility
in shaping their membership and that of the secretariat in consultation
with their sponsoring department to meet changes in circumstance.[60]
78. We agree that SACs should recruit members
based on competencies. However, we are concerned that dropping
the term 'lay' removes an expectation that specialist advisory
councils should have non-specialist members. Additionally, we
are not convinced by the argument that scientists from one subject
are necessarily a 'lay' person in another scientific area.
Whether or not they are called 'lay members', non-specialists
do have a lot to offer specialist committees. The presumption
should be that SACs have lay/non-specialist members.
TRANSPARENCY
79. The Code of Practice is very clear on the importance
of transparency, stating that "Scientific advisory committees
should operate from a presumption of openness".[61]
This applies to both documentationpublication of agendas,
minutes, programmes of work, final advice and annual reportsand
the meetings themselves.
80. We found widespread support for transparency.
Openness about the advice offered to Government is the best way
to guard the independence of SACs, and to be seen to be independent,
which is also important.[62]
Open meetings were seen as both a way to communicate the work
of the SACs and also to gain important feedback on their work.[63]
SACs routinely publish their documentation online, and many hold
open meetings. We noted Professor Rawlins suggestion that SAC
meetings should be open "by default", adding that if
meetings are closed there should be "very special reasons".[64]
81. Given the enthusiasm for open meetings, and the
obvious benefits that are derived from improved transparencyparticularly
in terms of communication with the public and maintaining independence
from Governmentwe are attracted to the idea of holding
meetings in public as a matter of course. New media, such as webcasting,
could also be used to extend further the reach of the advisory
committees.[65]
82. We support the Code of Practice's emphasis
on the importance of publishing documents relating to the work
of science advisory committees. We would prefer a slightly different
emphasis on open meetings. Rather than recommending that SACs
"should aim to hold open meetings on a regular basis",
we suggest that SACs "should aim to hold the majority of
their meetings in public, making use of new media wherever possible".
83. One area in which transparency is important is
the process of SACs presenting their advice to Ministers. A spectrum
of options can be imagined where, at one end, SAC advice is published
to the media at the same time as it is presented to Ministers:
complete transparency. At the other end, SAC advice might be given
to Ministers in confidence, several weeks in advance of publication,
so that lengthy consideration can be given to the evidence, its
policy implications and a communication strategy, and changes
made to the evidence if necessary: no transparency (or independence).
Neither of these options are desirable, and current practice lies
in between. Professor Rawlins told us:
The ACMD has part-closed meetings, because ministers
have asked that the decisions should be made in closed meetings
so that they are provided to ministers before they get into the
public domain. That is an argument you can have with ministers,
but that was their request.[66]
84. We can see the logic and agree that it is
important that SAC advice should be presented to Ministers in
advance of publication, giving them sufficient time to consider
a response. However, it is also clear that SAC advice should,
when it is given to Ministers, be final advice, and not a launching
pad for debate. On this basis, we recommend that the process
of SACs providing evidence to Ministers should be as transparent
as possible. SAC evidence that is presented to Ministers should
subsequently be published in unaltered form, along with the date
on which the evidence was presented to Ministers and the details
of any requests for alterations or clarifications of the evidence.
COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEDIA
85. Connected to this is a problem about the way
in which SAC advice is communicated to the media. SACs typically
use their home department's press office. We received evidence
that indicates that this sometimes causes problems. Using the
example of the ACMD and Home Office, the Science Media Centre
told us that:
In both the cannabis and ecstasy cases the Home
Office decided that the media launch of the evidence and recommendations
from the expert group would coincide with the official reaction
to those recommendations by the Home Secretary. This immediately
transformed the media story from one about scientific evidence
likely to be covered by science reporters, into a political story
about a row between advisors and ministers covered by home affairs
and political reporters. Even if there had been no disagreement,
merging these two distinct events had the effect of doing the
following:
a) the scientists were denied the opportunity
to brief specialist science reporters and focus on communicating
the substantial scientific evidence which had informed their recommendations;
b) the wider public and policy makers were also
denied the opportunity to read the evidence as presented by the
independent advisers, and so a key opportunity to inform this
contentious debate with some scientific evidence was lost.
Because the press officers for the ACMD work
for the Home Office press office there was an immediate conflict
of interest when key recommendations of that independent committee
conflicted with government policy.[67]
86. When conflict between advice and policy occurs,
there should be an opportunity for informed public debate about
the reasons for disregarding or downgrading the importance of
scientific advice. The Government may have very good reasons for
disregarding scientific evidence, and it is entitled to use its
press office to make its case. However, this should not impede
the quality of press office service that SACs receive. Therefore,
it is important that SACs have access to an independent press
office. The obvious place for a small press office serving all
the SACs is within the Government Office for Science. We note
that GO-Science until recently shared a press office with DIUS,
and presumably will now share with BIS. This raises similar concerns
and we believe that it should have its own press capabilities
in any case. We recommend that a small press office be set
up within the Government Office for Science, to serve the press
needs of GO-Science and all the Science Advisory Committees across
Government.
Conclusion
87. In this chapter we have discussed a number
of specific aspects of the science and engineering advisory system,
from its structure to a detailed look at the Science Advisory
Councils. To conclude this chapter we return to the broader issue
of the place of science and engineering advice in Government.
The latest changes to the machinery of Government have brought
this issue to the fore and we welcome the opportunity to comment
on them here.
88. Shuffling the body responsible for providing
cross-departmental science and engineering advice from one department
to another and then back again within the space of two years is
the opposite of 'putting science and engineering at the heart
of Government policy'. It reduces science and engineering advice
to, at best, a peripheral policy concern, and, at worst, a political
bargaining chip. If science and engineering are to be successfully
placed at the heart of policy, as the Government is keen to do,
two things need to happen. First, the Government Office for Science
(and Engineering, as we would have it) should have a stable home.
We believe that this should be the Cabinet Office: the heart of
Government. Second, there needs to be a Government Chief Engineer
and a Government Chief Scientist, who are responsible for cross-departmental
advice and coordination, freeing up the Government Chief Scientific
(and Engineering) Adviser to advise the Prime Minister more closely
and to act as a public figurehead for science and engineering
in the United Kingdom.
2 The reader may detect more focus on science than
engineering. There are two aspects to this. First, we recently
produced a report on engineering that covered some of the topics
in this report in detail. We therefore put more emphasis on science
in some passages of this report. Second, when we talk about funding
for science and engineering, we specifically are talking about
those aspects that fall within the Committee's remit. For example,
funding for engineering that falls within our remit includes research
funding and FE/HE teaching, but excludes financial support for
manufacturing. A larger part of the science policy area falls
to this Committee. Back
3
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for
Education and Skills, Science and innovation investment framework
2004-2014, July 2004 Back
4
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Manufacturing:
New Challenges, New Opportunities, September 2008 Back
5
DIUS, The Allocations of the Science Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11,
December 2007 Back
6
For example, Q 377 and oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009,
HC (2008-09) 169-i, Q 19 Back
7
Speech given at the Science Museum, 9 June 2009, 'Science at the
centre of Britain's future prosperity' (www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/ministerialteam/Speeches/page51775.html) Back
8
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Fourth
Report of Session 2008-09, Engineering: turning ideas into
reality, HC 50-I, para 313 (referred to in as the 'engineering
report'); House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Scientific
Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, HC 900-I, para
25 Back
9
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/secretariats/committees/edsi.aspx Back
10
For example, Ev 151 (Royal Society); Ev 177 (Campaign for Science
and Engineering); Ev 182 (Biosciences Federation) Back
11
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, para
7 Back
12
HMT, DTI & DfES, Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014,
July 2004, p 149 Back
13
OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008, November
2008, p 72 Back
14
www.oecd.org/document/32/0,3343,en_2649_37417_41722336_1_1_1_1,00.html Back
15
Raymond Tallis, Hippocratic Oaths: Medicine and its Discontents
(Atlantic Books, 2004), p 22 Back
16
Raymond Tallis, Hippocratic Oaths: Medicine and its Discontents
(Atlantic Books, 2004), p 22 Back
17
Q 319 Back
18
Q 320 Back
19
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Fourth
Report of Session 2008-09, Engineering: turning ideas into reality,
HC 50-I Back
20
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, pp 92-94 Back
21
IUSS Committee, Fifth Special Report of Session 2008-09, Engineering:
turning ideas into reality: Government Response to the Committee's
Fourth Report, HC 759, p 22 Back
22
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, para
307 Back
23
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, para
303 Back
24
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy.aspx Back
25
Q 355 Back
26
Q 343 Back
27
Q 354 Back
28
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality: Government
Response to the Committee's Fourth Report Back
29
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Departmental
Report 2009, July 2009, pp 22-24 Back
30
'Arnica pill the first homeopathic remedy to get MHRA licence',
Pulse, 12 May 2009 Back
31
Enrst E & Pittler MH 'Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic
review of placebo-controlled clinical trials', Arch Surg,
vol 133 (1998), pp 1187-90 Back
32
Q 389 Back
33
Qq 389-390 Back
34
Rising Marks, Falling Standards, Policy Exchange, 2009,
pp 37-38 Back
35
Rising Marks, Falling Standards, Policy Exchange, 2009,
pp 40-41 Back
36
Qq 383-384 Back
37
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, para
278 Back
38
Council for Science and Technology, How academia and government
can work together, October 2008, p 16 Back
39
www.berr.gov.uk/dius/science/science-in-govt/advice-policy-making/codeofpractice/page27719.html Back
40
Q 132 Back
41
Ev 69 Back
42
http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd Back
43
DJ Nutt, 'Equasy-An overlooked addiction with implications for
the current debate on drug harms' Journal of Psychopharmacology,
vol 23 (2009), pp 3-5 Back
44
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7876425.stm Back
45
HC Deb, 9 Feb 2009, Cols 1093-94 Back
46
Qq 313-314 Back
47
Q 71 Back
48
Q 331 Back
49
Ev 293-295 Back
50
Q 338 Back
51
Q 216 Back
52
Government Office for Science, Consultation on the update to the
Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees: Summary of
Responses and Government Response to consultation, December 2007,
p 2 Back
53
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Scientific
Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, HC 900-I, para
70 Back
54
Government Office for Science, December 2007 Back
55
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality: Government
Response to the Committee's Fourth Report,
p 16 Back
56
For example, Ev 152 (Royal Society); Ev 225 (Food Standards Agency) Back
57
Q 275 Back
58
Q 279 Back
59
Q 279 Back
60
Government Office for Science, Consultation on the update to the
Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees: Summary of
Responses and Government Response to consultation, December 2007,
p 6 Back
61
Government Office for Science, Code of Practice for Scientific
Advisory Committees, December 2007, p 14 Back
62
Qq 307 [Dame Deirdre Hutton], 330 [Lord Drayson] Back
63
Qq 293, 295 Back
64
Q 295 Back
65
Q 293 [Dame Deirdre Hutton] Back
66
Q 295 Back
67
Ev 290 Back
|