3 DEBATING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Background
89. On 26 January 2009, the Committee held its first
Science Question Time with the Minister for Science and Innovation,
Lord Drayson. During this session, the Minister suggested that
the UK should identify, and concentrate support on, areas of research
in which the UK could: (a) be world leading; and (b) have the
potential to provide significant economic returns on any investment:
I am calling for a serious debate about the areas
of focus for this country in the future. […] That is a debate
which I know will cause some interest, but I do think it is one
which we need to have because it is the reality of the environment
in which we operate as a country.[68]
I think it would be actually good for the country
to get a clear sense of what it is we think we can lead the world
in over the next ten years.[69]
90. Asked by the Chairman whether he had "the
bottle to lead this debate", Lord Drayson replied "Yes"[70]
and added "It is a bit late now if I have not!"[71]
91. Following our session with the Science Minister,
a number of speeches and public comments were made about this
debate. (Hereafter, it is called the 'strategic priorities debate'.)
92. On 4 February 2009, Lord Drayson gave a speech
at the Foundation for Science and Technology, in which he outlined
further the context:
This evening I want to stimulate a debate on
our national science and innovation strategy, and whether it is
adequately geared up to cope with the future. Since day one in
this job, the global economic downturn has dominated. With its
origins firmly linked to systemic problems in the global financial
system, the current downturn has been more severe and more rapid
than anything we've seen in recent memory.
I can relate personally to the impact of recession
on businesses and on people. As an undergraduate apprentice sponsored
by British Leyland in 1979, I well remember Red Robbo's picket
lines ranged in front of K Gate at Longbridge and saw a once-great
business collapsing before my eyes.
As a science entrepreneur, during the difficult
period of the early '90s, I had to make colleagues redundant,
and I had the bank manager threaten to put my company into receivership
unless I came up with the money to pay off the business overdraft.
I got through those tough times, but those experiences
taught me some lessons. Like the importance of having a broad
portfolio of products and services; not relying too much on one
area which can expose you to sudden risk; of knowing what your
strengths are - and playing to them. And being aware of limited
resources - and investing them wisely.
I mention these lessons because I believe we
should ask ourselves—in the midst of this global downturn—are
we applying these lessons well enough to our science and innovation
policy?
[…] What are the future growth areas? Where
will future jobs and wealth come from? Where does the UK really
have the potential to take world-class science and build world-class
business from it? What is government's role in facilitating this
transition?
Peter Mandelson has argued for a new industrial
activism, where government sets out a strategic framework as a
bridge to the future, where business and investors have confidence
in the long-term direction.
What is the role of science policy here?
[…] Has the time come for the UK—as
part of a clear economic strategy—to make choices about
the balance of investment in science and innovation to favour
those areas in which the UK has clear competitive advantage?
[72]
93. These are serious questions, which instinctively
cause unease because they raise questions about whether the Government
is planning a return—albeit more strategically—to
the policy of picking winners, the British Leyland mention acting
as an uncomfortable reminder. We return to this question later.
94. It also raises questions about the Government's
vision for UK science. The Science Minister, the then Secretary
of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Secretary
of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Prime Minister
have all made strong commitments to 'pure', curiosity-driven research.[73]
As the Royal Academy of Engineering put it: "All political
speeches to date on the subject have stressed that this vision
is about reaping the benefits of research already funded and that
the commitment to curiosity-driven research funding remains unaffected".[74]
95. Despite this, there have been concerns in the
academic community that an increased focus on translation will
amount to decreased focus, and possibly reduced funding, on basic
science. These concerns have centred on: the changes to the Research
Council funding application process so that each funding application—including
basic research with no immediate or obvious application—must
be accompanied by impact plans that should demonstrate the contribution
that the research will make to society and the economy; the forthcoming
Research Excellence Framework, which will include an assessment
of the economic and social impact of research;[75]
and steps that have been taken to refocus research funding on
priority areas supporting "key areas of economic potential".[76]
WHAT IS THE DEBATE ABOUT?
96. Putting these concerns to one side for a moment,
we should first ask what this debate is about. Our initial question
was whether Lord Drayson was calling for a debate about whether
the UK should be more strategic in its approach to funding science,
or a debate about how the UK should be more strategic.
We asked several players and received a mixture of responses.
97. Lord Drayson, the initiator of the debate, told
us that he intended this to be a debate about whether the
UK needs to be more strategic:
My point in raising the topic as a debate was
to stimulate a serious debate about whether or not the science
community felt that we should apply more focus to decision-making
around research priorities […][77]
And after agreement to discuss how:
and also to encourage them, should they come
to that conclusion, as to make recommendations as to how that
should be done.[78]
98. However, when he launched the debate at the January
2009 Science Question Time, he said that he believed that there
would need to be "more concentrations" in the UK's research
spend,[79] as if the
debate would be about how to determine the strategic focus.
99. Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for
Science and Research, argued that this is about whether
there should be more focussed research funding.[80]
Iain Gray, Chief Executive of the Technology Strategy Board, disagreed:
"My belief is it is how we are going to do it. It is about
focus, identifying areas that we are going to make a big difference
in."[81]
100. John Denham, the then Secretary of State for
Innovation, Universities and Skills, was not clear. On balance,
his comments seem to suggest that the debate is about how to be
more strategic with funding:
We believe that we should have that discussion
about how they organise research to ensure that we maintain fundamental
research and get the maximum economic benefit from the substantial
investment that we make in research. That is under way. It is
not an 'if'—we are doing it. It is a discussion that the
research councils are having.[82]
101. Nick Dusic from the Campaign for Science and
Engineering was, like us, confused: "We have had Lord Drayson's,
John Denham's and the Prime Minister's speech, and each has a
different focus on this issue".[83]
102. The second area of confusion was raised by both
the Institute of Physics and the Medical Research Council (MRC).
They pointed out that key to the debate was what Lord Drayson
meant by 'competitive advantage': "Should we infer that advantage
is used here in an industrial, financial, or intellectual sense?"[84]
If he means scientifically competitive, the MRC argued, "the
Research Councils already do this in supporting excellence through
peer review".[85]
If he meant economically competitive "any policy would need
to recognise that the UK needs to grow new strengths as well as
building on existing ones".[86]
103. The third and most significant misunderstanding
was that the debate would probably result in a major shift of
policy towards science funding. This was certainly our understanding:
when he launched the debate at Science Question Time, Lord Drayson
indicated that there would need to be concentration in science
funding.[87] This apparently
is not the case. When we later asked him if there would be a government
policy announcement as a result of the debate, he succinctly replied:
"No".[88]
104. We have since, however, heard that Lord Mandelson
has indicated that a decision has been taken to push ahead with
prioritising applied research. In a speech in which he talked
about his "commitment to maintaining the support and standards
of scientific research", he declared: "and I don't mean
only applied research, which will obviously receive greater
emphasis, but fundamental science as well" (emphasis
added).[89]
105. We are left wondering what this strategic
priorities debate was about and whether it has led to a major
shift in Government policy. We are in favour of a discussion about
how best to focus research funds so that the UK gets maximum reward
from its investment, but the lesson to be learned is that the
Government should be clear in its own mind about the format and
goals of a debate before launching it. (This recommendation
is expanded later in the chapter.)
Picking winners?
106. Some aspects of this debate seemed to us to
share characteristics with the 'picking winners' policy of the
1970s. Lord Drayson did not launch this debate in isolation. It
followed an announcement by the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson,
that the government would support industry through the recession
in what he described as "market-based industrial activism".[90]
107. This new industrial activism, the Prime Minister
told the Liaison Committee, is not the old picking winners philosophy
of, as he put it, "taking one company or a second company
and saying that we were going to back this single company to the
hilt".[91] Rather
it is about backing the development of skills and research in
successful sectors in the UK economy.[92]
But this raises the same problem that bedevilled the policies
of the 1970s when decisions were made about which companies to
back. Now it seems the Government will have to make decisions
about which sectors to back. The Chairman asked the Prime Minister
how he intended to do this during a Liaison Committee session
in February 2009. The Prime Minister replied that "they pick
themselves".[93]
108. Do they? During our major inquiry into engineering,
we conducted a case study inquiry into plastic electronics. We
discovered during the course of that inquiry that the plastic
electronics industry "is likely to grow substantially over
the next few years" and that "the UK's research base
puts it in a unique position to capitalise on this growth".[94]
However, during the course of the inquiry we witnessed potentially
successful UK start-ups folding or moving overseas. It was clear
that the UK was missing out "on the opportunity to exploit
the economic potential offered by the commercialisation of innovative
technologies".[95]
Industries do not 'pick themselves'. In the case of plastic electronics,
the USA, Germany and Japan were picking the UK's start-ups and
turning them into winners; the UK was losing out.
109. Past experience of failing to accurately
'pick winners' has led to a risk-averse executive. The belief
that 'sectors will pick themselves' is misplaced and when proactive
interventions by Government are not forthcoming, potentially successful
industries that germinate in the UK, blossom elsewhere. Choosing
to support one sector over another will be difficult. The Government
should develop clear and agreed methodologies for determining
priorities and acceptability of risk.
110. There is another side to this point: with a
finite budget, if one is to pick winners and give them extra funding,
money must be withdrawn from something else, the losers. We saw
the detrimental impact that shifting priorities can cause when
we looked at one Research Council, the Science and Technology
Facilities Council, as part of our Science Budget Allocations
inquiry.[96] The impact
of increasing the focus of the whole research budget on, say,
energy security or biotech, would be larger and could cause irreparable
damage to many research sectors. We have pushed the Science Minister
on this point, but have been unable to elicit a clear answer.
For example:
Chairman: […] you would be arguing
within the cabinet that in research terms, we should in fact be
putting greater resources into these areas like medicine and life
sciences, and in so doing at the expense of what? […]
Lord Drayson: Firstly I would say
that the very nature of science means that you need to have the
underpinning science across the piece, so for example to do good
life science research you still need to have good statisticians,
you still need to have good physics.[97]
111. If the Government is to develop clear and
agreed methodologies for identifying areas of high priority, these
must also be effective in identifying areas of low priority. Further,
the Government should not prevaricate on this issue: if it decides
to prioritise some areas of research it should come clean about
which areas of research will see reduced investment.
International partnerships
112. The UK's science and engineering industries
are among the strongest in the world. The three 'Bs', BP, BA and
BT are, for example, some of the largest multinationals in their
respective sectors, and the UK's pharmaceutical sector continues
to do well. Similarly, the UK's science and engineering research
base is very strong and attracts the world's best researchers,
both to work in British universities and also to engage in international
collaboration. The UK has played a lead or key role in several
high profile international research projects, such as the human
genome project, the Large Hadron Collider and building the ITER
fusion reactor.
113. We noted in our engineering report, however,
that the UK was absent in some important nuclear engineering research
projects. While this should not distract from the UK's considerable
strength in this area, it was clear to us that a relatively small
amount of funding would facilitate a large amount of collaborative
international research activity, from which the UK would likely
draw significant economic benefits in the decades to come. We
suggested to the Government that it should commission the National
Nuclear Laboratory to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on international
R&D.[98] The Government
rejected this in favour of a more hands-off approach, allowing
the NNL to take the lead in assessing the UK's options should
it choose to do so.[99]
114. The Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills should consider long-term investment returns when it considers
strategic priorities in international partnerships.
Directed and non-directed research
115. Before moving to the final part of this chapter,
it is important, having stated our support for having a debate
about strategic science funding, to restate the importance of
basic research. The late Lord Porter, the former President of
the Royal Society, famously once said that there are two kinds
of science: applied and not yet applied. We asked Professor Lord
Krebs about the balance between 'applied and not yet applied'
research. He gave us an illustrative example of the effectiveness
of basic science, which is worth reproducing in full:
Last night I happened to bump into one of our
Nobel Prize winners, Tim Hunt, who won a Nobel Prize a few years
ago for his discoveries relating to cancer research. I asked him
the question that you are putting to us, should the Government
focus on key areas of priority and he said absolutely not. If
you want to foster the kind of innovative research that led to
him winning a Nobel Prize you should allow great freedom for scientists
to propose research and judge it on excellence. He made the point
to me that the greater the originality of research the less predictable
the outcomes are likely to be. [...] I pointed to a very nice
study that was described by Sir William Paten a few years ago
in his book Man and Mouse in which he looked at ten key advances
in cardiovascular medicine and he traced back where those key
advances came from and he identified about 600 papers in the literature
that led to these key medical developments. Over 40% of them had
nothing to do with cardiovascular medicine at all and many of
them were not carried out in medical departments or medical faculties;
they were carried out in departments of chemistry, engineering,
physics, botany, agriculture, zoology, et cetera. I think the
difficulty with prioritisation is the inherent unpredictability
of where the key advances are going to come from. If I could just
add one more point, it is not that I am totally against having
key themes—indeed, when I was chief executive of NERC we
did have certain key themes broadly defined and the research councils
have that mechanism today—but I do think that the key themes
and the priorities should be presented in a broad way so that
the scientists can be innovative within those themes and not be
too prescriptive. I agree with Lord Rees that we do not want to
see a shift in the balance between strategically directed research
and responsive mode.[100]
116. Professor Fisk added:
I am reminded of Karl Popper's observation that
if you were going to predict the wheel essentially you would have
just invented it. It is very hard to talk about picking winners
in science. I do contend—I do not know if this is a consensus
with my colleagues—that it is a jolly sight easier to spot
losers.[101]
117. Curiosity-driven research is a key component
of a successful knowledge-economy. We strongly endorse the view
that increased focus in applied research and industrial follow-through
should not be at the expense of blue-skies research, which is
one of the UK's greatest strengths.
Consultation
118. The final part of this chapter explores consultation.
The Government is committed to using consultation to make better
policy:
This Government is committed to effective consultation;
consultation which is targeted at, and easily accessible to, those
with a clear interest in the policy in question. Effective consultation
brings to light valuable information which the Government can
use to design effective solutions. Put simply, effective consultation
allows the Government to make informed decisions on matters of
policy, to improve the delivery of public services, and to improve
the accountability of public bodies.[102]
119. There are two kinds of consultation that the
Government uses: formal and informal. We have received submissions
on both kinds and here we briefly comment on each. We consider
both the formal Science and Society consultation that DIUS launched
in July 2008, and the informal strategic priorities debate.
FORMAL CONSULTATION: SCIENCE AND
SOCIETY
120. The Science and Society consultation was launched
by the then Science Minister, Ian Pearson MP. It was presented
as a "consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK".[103]
In particular, the Minister said:
I believe we need a society that is excited by
science; values its importance to our social and economic wellbeing;
feels confident in its use; and supports a representative well-qualified
scientific workforce. […] I believe we now need a more mature
relationship between science, policy and society, with each group
working to better understand the needs, concerns, aspirations
and ways of working of the others.[104]
121. The consultation attracted 3,200 question responses
from more than 400 individuals, organisations and umbrella groups
from across business, education, media, policy, science and the
third sector.[105]
A summary of responses was collated; the key messages were:
a) the UK should aim to have a science-literate
population that is critically engaged and a skilled, representative
scientific workforce; this will best be achieved by:
i. joining up science and society activities,
with an enhanced role for the Government as co-ordinator and enabler
of science and society activities;
ii. recognising school and college science education
as the underpinning of national STEM (science, technology, engineering
and mathematics) skills;
iii. increasing the connectivity between the
science community, the media, education and industry; and
iv. improving the equality and diversity amongst
those studying and working in science and engineering disciplines;
b) more use needs to be made of social science
in public engagement and STEM issues.[106]
122. Running through this list, it is not clear how
useful this consultation was. The Government was already committed
to improving the STEM qualifications of the population as part
of its drive towards a knowledge economy; school was already identified
as a key vehicle to meet those aims and the Government has taken
a number of steps to improve STEM teaching and participation;
many initiatives that link the science community to the wider
world already receive Government support; and equality and diversity
are core values in just about every part of what the Government
does. The notion that the Government should play an enhanced role
as a co-ordinator and enabler of science and society activities
is tantamount to the science and society community asking for
more money and co-ordination, which was fairly predictable. And
the charge that the Government could make better use of social
science has been well made previously.[107]
123. We asked Tracey Brown, Managing Director of
Sense About Science, what she thought about the consultation.
She commented:
It is such an enormous range of subjects that
were covered that it did just re-pose the questions in the end
and I think they found themselves with something perhaps rather
overwhelming because it was not very focused. One of my frustrations
is that there is very little being invited in the way of true
evaluation of what had gone before, which I suspect might be because
there is a lot of incentive to talk about the fact that money
was well-spent, and therefore nobody wants to ask the really difficult
questions about where it might not have been so well-spent. Surely,
actually, that is where you are going to develop quite a useful
set of insights into what should be developed in the future. It
is only a summary that has been produced and they are now looking
to evaluate that summary, but the hands-off almost no comment
feel to it is quite strong.[108]
124. Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive of the British
Science Association, added:
I would say that what the consultation, as far
as I have seen it so far, has shown—perhaps not surprisingly—is
how diverse and complex what we call public engagement is. […
T]rying to capture it all under one heading is a bit too difficult.[109]
125. On 26 May 2009, the Government announced the
formation of five Expert Groups that will engage the science community,
media, public, business and policy makers "to help change
cultural attitudes to science in the UK".[110]
Lord Drayson explained that "a significant outcome from the
consultation is that respondents want us—Government—to
take a more active role".[111]
Therefore, these groups have been set up to look at: how to demonstrate
the relevance of science to everyday life; partnerships between
the media and scientists; science and learning; science careers;
and how science and engineering can be socially responsible and
ethical.
126. It is unlikely that the Science and Society
consultation will contribute substantially to "a new strategy
for the UK": most of what has been said was either predictable
or already government policy. However, we will watch the work
of the Expert Groups with interest.
INFORMAL CONSULTATION: STRATEGIC
SCIENCE FUNDING
127. We have discussed the debate on strategic science
funding in terms of content, and we have made clear our support
for the notion of a debate on whether science funding should be
more strategic. Now we consider it as an example of informal consultation.
128. The first problem that faced this consultation
is that nobody really knew what was being discussed. As we highlighted
above, the Government has not even managed to make it clear whether
this was a debate about whether science funding should
be more focussed or about how to focus science funding.
We asked Lord Drayson if, in hindsight, following the confusion,
it would have been better to conduct a more formal consultation,
perhaps publishing a Green Paper on strategic science funding
as a basis for discussion. Lord Drayson replied:
I have thought about this, and in retrospect,
no, I do not. I think that the way in which the debate was able
to be initiated as quickly as it was by the method which I took,
the way in which it was very effective, I must say, in stimulating
response, so there was no shortage of response to the debate,
in fact it had a useful by-product, I believe, in contributing
to the raising of the overall profile of the importance of science
as part of the debate about our response to the economic downturn.[112]
129. The points about starting the debate quickly
and raising science into discussions about economic recovery are
well made. But the point about the lack of clarity in the debate
was not satisfactorily answered. We discovered that the clarity
issue was not isolated to this debate. Sense About Science told
us: "There seems to be a tendency in science and policy engagement
to be coy about the existence of debates and misconceptions, making
only euphemistic reference to them".[113]
Tracey Brown later gave an example:
For example […] the recent consultation
that started two years ago on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act update made reference to things being controversial, for instance,
and did not explain why they are controversial or actually on
what basis the Government assumed them to be controversial.[114]
130. But it is not just clarity about the content
of consultations that is the problem. Another issue is clarity
about what is at stake in a consultation.
One of the biggest problems is not knowing what
is at stake. [… S]ometimes what is at stake only becomes
clear at some later stage of implementation, and then the scientists
get told off for the fact that they did not realise quickly enough
that this was going to wipe out their use of a particular procedure,
for example. We had this with the Tissue Bill, we had it with
the Physical Agents Directive[[115]]
and so forth.[116]
131. The problem of what is at stake is something
that has plagued the informal consultation on strategic science
funding. Much of the agitation in the science community has come
about over concern that the Government is going to take money
away from basic science to do more applied science. If the Government
had made it clear from the outset whether this debate was about
(a) if a more strategic approach to all science funding was required,
or (b) how to be more strategic in terms of focussing just the
applied research, the resulting responses may have been
more constructive. Whether or not the Government feels that it
has been clear on this matter, the extent of the confusion among
respondents demonstrates that more could have been done to make
it clear what was at stake. For example, the production of a single
document to which the Government could point—or even a single
speech, rather than the several public speeches that were made
on the issue—would have been useful.
132. We welcome the Government's commitment to
consultation. It would be helpful if the Government was clearer
about the reasons for each consultation and what was at stake.
This would make the process more worthwhile for all concerned
and would remove the feeling of 'box-ticking' that so often accompanies
consultations.
133. In the case of the strategic-priorities debate,
the benefits of a fast-moving process have been countered by a
lack of coherence. Launching the debate with a Green Paper or
something similar would have given a focus to the debate that
was sorely lacking. We acknowledge that this would have elongated
the timeframe for the debate, but since the intention was always
for an on-going debate, this should not have been seen as a problem.
Conclusion
134. In some senses this debate on strategic priorities
has been a distraction. At the outset, our plan was to examine
whether the Government places science and engineering at the heart
of policy, and if not, how it should do so. This debate has narrowed
our focus somewhat into a number of smaller, but important, questions.
If we step back a moment from the issue of whether or not the
UK needs to make choices about "the balance of investment
in science and innovation to favour those areas in which the UK
has clear competitive advantage",[117]
there are a number of broader questions into which this fits.
The most important may be: what role will science and engineering
play in the future UK economy? From it run a series of questions
about science, engineering, education, academia, industry, international
competition and co-operation, and—the subject of this chapter—strategic
investment in R&D. It seems important that in asking the question
about strategic science funding, the broader picture about the
future role of science and engineering in the UK economy should
be revisited.
135. AstraZenca told us:
If the UK is to remain globally competitive it
must create and enact a robust, long-term national science and
engineering strategy that stretches from fundamental science through
to applied and translational activities that will ensure economic
impact and rapid exploitation.[118]
136. We could not agree more.
137. Any debate on strategic science funding should
be put in the wider context of the role of science and engineering
in the economic and social wellbeing of the UK. The 2004 ten-year
science and innovation framework was successful in focussing attention
on the importance of science and innovation. We now suggest that
the UK needs a 'national science and engineering strategy'. The
Government should spend the last two-years of the ten-year framework
(2012 and 2013) reviewing the science and innovation framework
and consulting on a new strategy that will set out the direction
of travel for science and engineering within UK plc from 2014
until 2024.
68 Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09)
169-i, Q6 Back
69
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Q
16 Back
70
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Q
10 Back
71
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Q
11 Back
72
www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/lord_drayson/fst Back
73
Lord Drayson: www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/lord_drayson/fst;
John Denham MP: www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/john_denham/science_funding;
Lord Mandelson: www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/ministerialteam/Speeches/page51775.html;
and
Gordon Brown MP: oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee
on 12 February 2009, HC (2008-09) 257-i, Q 46 Back
74
Ev 275 Back
75
www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/ref Back
76
HM Treasury, Budget 2009, April 2009, p 130 Back
77
Q 366 Back
78
Q 366 Back
79
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Qq
8-9 Back
80
Q 140 Back
81
Oral evidence taken on 1 April 2009, HC (2008-09) 384-i, Q 22 Back
82
HC Deb, 27 April 2009, col 603 Back
83
Q 148 Back
84
Ev 248 Back
85
Ev 244 Back
86
Ev 244 Back
87
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Qq
8-9 Back
88
Q 372 Back
89
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6471800.ece Back
90
The RSA Lecture, 'A new industrial activism', 17 December 2008
www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/ministerialteam/Speeches/page49416.html Back
91
Oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 12 February
2009, HC (2008-09) 257-i, Q 40 Back
92
Oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 12 February
2009, HC (2008-09) 257-i, Q 40 Back
93
Oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 12 February
2009, HC (2008-09) 257-i, Q 41 Back
94
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, p 41 Back
95
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, p 52 Back
96
IUSS Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-2008, Science
Budget Allocations, HC 215-I Back
97
Oral evidence taken on 26 January 2009, HC (2008-09) 169-i, Q
4 Back
98
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, pp 25-26 Back
99
IUSS Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality: Government
Response to the Committee's Fourth Report Back
100
Qq 40-41 Back
101
Q 44 Back
102
John Hutton (then Business Secretary): HM Government, Code
of Practice on Consultation, July 2008 Back
103
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, A vision
for Science and Society, July 2008 Back
104
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, A vision
for Science and Society, July 2008 Back
105
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Science and
Society: Summary of Consultation Responses, p 2 Back
106
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Science and
Society: Summary of Consultation Responses Back
107
For example, 'That full complement of riches': the contributions
of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the nation's wealth,
British Academy, January 2004; and Maximizing the social, policy
and economic impacts of research in the humanities and social
sciences, PPG LSE Public Policy Group, a report to the British
Academy, July 2008. Back
108
Q 237 Back
109
Q 238 Back
110
www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/press_releases/science_society_expert_groups Back
111
www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/press_releases/science_society_expert_groups Back
112
Q 369 Back
113
Ev 224 Back
114
Q 220 Back
115
see Science and Technology Committee, Watching the Directives:
Scientific Advice on the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields)
Directive, HC 1030 Back
116
Q 234 Back
117
www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/lord_drayson/fst Back
118
Ev 93 Back
| 
