4 THE HALDANE PRINCIPLE
History of the Haldane Principle
138. The Haldane Principle is popularly used to describe
the notion that "decisions about what to spend research funds
on should be made by researchers rather than politicians".[119]
It is supposedly derived from Lord Haldane's 1918 report on the
machinery of Government (hereafter called the Haldane Report),
which was written against the backdrop of the First World War.
In relation to research funding, which had for several years being
focused very strongly on the war effort, the key recommendation
was to separate out departmental research from 'intelligence and
research for general use'. The general research, it was proposed,
should be carried out by 'Advisory Councils' (today's Research
Councils), which would be overseen by a "Minister specifically
appointed on the ground of his suitability to preside over a separate
Department of Intelligence and Research, which would no longer
act under a Committee of the Privy Council, and would take its
place among the most important Departments of Government".[120]
139. Lord Haldane's recommendations were largely
based on the practice of a Committee that impressed him: the Committee
of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.[121]
Some of them sound familiar to us today; for example, that research
proposals were presented to an Advisory Council, "consisting
of a small number of eminent men of science".[122]
However, some do not fit too neatly with today's interpretation;
for example, that "all proposals for expenditure are referred
for sanction" to the Minister.[123]
140. Although Lord Haldane was clearly supportive
of a light touch approach from a Minister who was free of normal
departmental duties,[124]
nowhere in the report does he explicitly lay out a principle akin
to the one bearing his name today. As Professor David Edgerton,
from the Imperial College Centre for the History of Science, Technology
and Medicine, put it: "There is no Haldane Principle and
never has been".[125]
141. According to Professor Edgerton, what we now
consider to be the Haldane Principle actually derives from the
early 1960s when the then Rt Hon Quintin Hogg MP (later Lord Hailsham),
who was concerned about the Labour Opposition's plans to increase
the central control of research through the then Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, argued:
Ever since 1915 it has been considered axiomatic
that responsibility for industrial research and development is
better exercised in conjunction with research in the medical,
agricultural and other fields on what I have called the Haldane
principle through an independent council of industrialists, scientists
and other eminent persons and not directly by a Government Department
itself.[126]
142. In 1972, Lord Rothschild provided an alternative
to the Haldane Principle, the customer-contractor principle. In
his report A Framework for Government Research and Development,
he stated "The concepts of scientific independence used in
the Haldane Report are not relevant to contemporary discussion
of government research".[127]
Rothschild's principle made the Government Department or Government
Chief Scientist the 'customer' who commissioned 'contractors',
the Research Councils and Universities, to do research. This was
a move away from investigator-led research on the grounds that:
However distinguished, intelligent and practical
scientists may be, they cannot decide what the needs of the nation
are, and their priorities, as those responsible for ensuring those
needs are met.[128]
143. The customer-contractor principle brought with
it a "greater scrutiny of the activities of scientists, a
need for scientists to justify more clearly their demands upon
public resources, and a generally tougher financial environment".[129]
144. Government involvement in science research priorities
continued to grow throughout the 1970s and 1980s. In response
to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's
report on Civil R&D,[130]
the Government:
- placed strategic priorities for research under
the consideration of Ministers and the PM during the public expenditure
round;
- set up the Science and Technology Assessment
Office within the Cabinet Office and established "clear objectives
for expenditure and developed systematic criteria for assessing
and managing research";[131]
and
- asked research bodies to consider the national
benefits of their work, including the economic impact and commercial
exploitation of their work.
145. In 1992, the science portfolio was moved to
a Cabinet Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
and the Office of Science and Technology (OST) was set up as a
non-Ministerial department, headed by the Government Chief Scientific
Adviser. In addition to having responsibility for the UK's science
budget, the OST was charged with developing the Government's science
policy nationally and internationally.
146. In 1993, the OST White Paper Realising Our
Potential declared that:
[…] day to day decisions for Research Councils
on the scientific merits of different strategies and projects
should be taken by the Research Councils without Government involvement.
There is, however, a preceding level of broad priority setting
between general classes of activity where a range of criteria
must be brought to bear.[132]
147. This was a modern rendition of the Haldane Principle
in all but name.
The Haldane Principle today
148. The then Secretary of State for Innovation,
Universities and Skills put his mark on the Haldane Principle
in April 2008:
For many years, the British government has been
guided by the Haldane principle—that detailed decisions
on how research money is spent are for the science community to
make through the research councils.
Our basis for funding research is also enshrined
in the Science and Technology Act of 1965, which gives the Secretary
of State power to direct the research councils—and, in practice,
respects the spirit of the Haldane principle.
In practice, of course, Haldane has been interpreted
to a greater or lesser extent over the years, not least when Ted
Heath transferred a quarter of research council funding to government
departments—a move undone by Margaret Thatcher.
But in the 21st century, I think three fundamental
elements remain entirely valid.
— That researchers are best placed to determine
detailed priorities.
— That the government's role is to set
the over-arching strategy; and
— That the research councils are 'guardians
of the independence of science'.[133]
149. We will briefly discuss each of these threads.
RESEARCHERS ARE BEST PLACED TO DETERMINE
DETAILED PRIORITIES
150. We received many submissions in support of this
concept. Professor Lord Krebs reminded us that key advances are
often heavily dependent on basic science that has nothing to do
with the innovation in question.[134]
He used the example of cardiovascular medicine, but one could
similarly use MRI scanning:
[T]he use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in diagnostics
was a product of decades of fundamental physics and chemistry
research into the properties of atomic nuclei.[135]
151. Or penicillin,[136]
or Teflon,[137] or
superconductivity,[138]
and so on.[139] As
the British Academy put it: "Applied research relies on the
foundations that have been developed by basic research."[140]
The University of Oxford similarly commented:
The fundamental character of research is evolutionary.
That is, ideas are generated, explored and categorised. Some turn
out to be fruitful but many don't. This means that a sufficiently
broad research base is needed both to generate the ideas and to
recognise and exploit them. In most cases these two functions
are not coterminal and do not arise from the same persons or groups.
Therefore there is an inherent danger in 'focusing' that risks
the functioning of the enterprise as a whole.[141]
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IS TO SET THE
OVER-ARCHING STRATEGY
152. The issue of whether the Government should set
the over-arching strategy is similarly simple to support. The
Government provides the money; it seems only reasonable that is
should be able to set broad themes for areas of research. Professor
Lord Krebs, who is strongly opposed to a prescriptive role for
Government in research decisions, nonetheless commented:
[I]t 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.[142]
153. Rather, the difficulty is defining the relationship
between an 'over-arching strategy' and 'detailed decisions'. If
one views the research that is funded by the Research Councils
as static there is no obvious conflict: the Government suggests
topics that it considers important and the Research Councils fund
research in those areas through open competition. However, matters
are complicated when the funding regime changes: the Government
changes the priority of a strategic area of research and the Research
Councils stop funding research in one area and start funding it
in another. In this situation it is clear how the over-arching
strategy at a given point in time can have a discrete and predictable
impact on detailed funding decisions.
154. The most recent example of this took place in
the 2009 Budget, which provided that the Research Councils were
to make £224 million of savings[143]
"by reducing administration costs" and—this is
the key point—"refocusing spend on new research priorities".[144]
Although the Government has said that the Research Councils will
decide how the money will be spent, the rules about how the money
can be spent have been set by Treasury. In this case, the Treasury
has allowed "refocusing spend on new research priorities"
to count as value for money savings.[145]
In other words, when old grants run out in low-priority areas
and they are replaced by grants in high-priority areas, that counts
as a saving. This funding rule means that Research Councils must
concentrate more of their funding into specific research areas,
which are known in advance by Government.
155. The 2009 Budget Research Council savings
have had an impact on the way that Research Councils allocate
their funds. While this cannot be regarded as dictating 'detailed
decisions', it is not 'over-arching strategy' either; it is somewhere
in between.
156. We have another problem with this decision.
It was announced that the Research Councils are the only Government
bodies to have their value for money savings reinvested internally.[146]
This is hardly surprising given that much of these 'savings' are
in fact a cost neutral refocusing of the budget; the 'savings'
have not freed up any cash that could be spent elsewhere. These
'savings' are in reality a strategic influencing of research funding
streams. Whether or not it is the right thing to do is open to
debate. But, either way, the Government should communicate clearly
what it is doing and not label them as something they are not.
157. To conclude, we are in favour of the idea
that researchers are best placed to make detailed funding decisions
on the one hand and, in principle, we support the Government to
set the over-arching strategic direction on the other. However,
it is necessary for the Government to spell out the relationship
between these two notions for a broader funding principle to be
of any use.
RESEARCH COUNCILS ARE 'GUARDIANS
OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCIENCE'
158. We were surprised to see this being said at
all, let alone as part of the Haldane Principle. As Professor
Edgerton put it:
I do not think anyone has ever thought of the
research councils as the defenders of the independence of science—that
is a very odd definition indeed and I hope we have not actually
got that. Learned societies, universities and individual academics
are the custodians of the independence of science.[147]
159. Research Councils are not, and never have
been, the 'guardians of the independence of science'. That responsibility
has historically lain, and should remain, with the learned societies,
universities and individual academics.
Science Budget Allocation letters
160. During our inquiry on the CSR07 Science Budget
Allocations we encountered concern over the level of control that
the Government exercised over the research budget.[148]
To clarify the issue, we asked to see the letters that the Government
sent to each of the Research Councils laying out the details of
their allocations.
161. The fact that the letters are not published
causes us concern on two counts. First, there is the principle
of transparency. The basis for decisions on how public money is
spent is the public's business; and these are not small sums of
money: many billions of pounds will be handed over to the Research
Councils in the coming years.
162. Second, the letters should throw some light
on how much control the Government had over how the Research Councils
were to spend the money they were given. The allocation letters
to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and
the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are published as a matter
of course, and although Professor Adrian Smith, Director General
of Science and Research, told us that the equivalent to the HEFCE
and LSC letters would be the Allocations Booklet, which is published,[149]
Nick Dusic, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering,
told us that "the science budget allocation booklet gives
us the high-level commitments for the different research councils
[… but] not the rationale".[150]
163. Freedom of Information requests to see the allocation
letters from the Campaign for Science and Engineering and us were
turned down. We then asked the Government to see the letters in
confidence, but we were refused again. Most recently, we asked
the then Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills,
the Rt Hon John Denham MP, why he was refusing to hand over the
letters:
Chairman: We accept that you are not going
to publish [the science budget allocation letters], but the reason
we want to see them is that there is a suggestion that the Government
is taking an overly prescriptive role in determining the way the
Research Councils spend their money. Given the fact that the Osmotherly
Rules state, July 2005, that the Government is committed to being
as open and as helpful as possible with select committees and
that, indeed, during your time as a select committee chairman
you received from Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary, papers
which were very sensitive but were relevant to a committee inquiry,
could you give us an explanation as to why you are digging your
heels in and not allowing the committee to have those on a confidential,
not to publish, basis, and will you reconsider?
Mr Denham: Chairman, I would never
refuse a request from you to reconsider, so I promise you I will
go away and look at it again. The view that I have taken up to
now is that it does raise a precedent for the release of papers
which were intended to be confidential which I am concerned about.
I would say two things. I will go and consider it again, because
you have raised it with me quite fairly. I would also say to you,
Chairman, this may come as a surprise to my officials, but as
we look forward to the next allocation process, which we have
already discussed with you as to ways in which we can make that
more consultative, perhaps we can find a way which avoids this
situation happening again.[151]
164. We are sorry to report that we still have not
seen these letters.
165. The Government's refusal to give us confidential
access to papers relevant to this inquiry is unacceptable. Without
seeing the Science Budget Allocation letters, we are forced to
speculate that the Government has exerted inappropriate influence
over the Research Councils. However, we have been unable to confirm
or deny this suspicion because of the Government's contempt for
Parliamentary scrutiny.
Regional science policy
166. The Haldane Principle has a close associate
called the Excellence Principle which stipulates that decisions
about what science to fund should be made principally on the excellence
of the science. To put it simply, the Excellence Principle guides
the Research Councils in spending their research funds; the Haldane
Principle guides the Government, encouraging it to leave the Research
Councils free to apply the Excellence Principle.
167. The Government defines the Excellence Principle
as follows:
Public funding of research at a national level,
through the Research Councils and funding bodies, is dedicated
to supporting excellent research, irrespective of its UK location.
The 'excellence principle' is fundamental to safeguarding the
international standing and scientific credibility of UK science
and research and supporting an excellent, diverse, expanding and
dynamic science base, providing value for money for public investment.[152]
168. One potential difficulty with the Excellence
Principle, as noted in the 10-year framework, is that it "results
in geographical disparities in research funding".[153]
It is easy to see why this might happen: once a critical mass
of excellence is reached in a particular location, it attracts
a high percentage of the available research funds and research
in that area grows further. This presumably accounts in no small
way to the large quantities of research funding that are won in
the 'golden triangle' (London, Oxford and Cambridge), leaving
an apparent lower level of funding in other parts of the UK. It
is worth noting, however, that if one normalises the amount of
funding won by each region by either population or the number
of research institutes, the variance in regional funding is less
extreme.[154]
169. On the face of it, the Excellence Principle
is a good thing because it keeps science competitive and sends
the money where it is most likely to produce the best results.
However, there is a clash with another very important concept.
The Government views science and innovation as key factors in
economic development. This is a long-standing position that has
been reaffirmed many times since the current economic crisis started.[155]
When one combines the view that science and engineering are important
for the economic health of a region, on the one hand, with Government's
responsibility for the economic health of the region, on the other,
one logically arrives at a policy whereby the Government makes
strategic decisions regarding the economic health of regions by
influencing where research money is spent.
170. To paraphrase: there is a fundamental clash
between the Government's commitment to the Excellence Principle
as currently stated on the one hand, and its responsibility for
ensuring the economic health of the regions on the other. We explored
this problem during our inquiry into the Science Budget Allocations
and made the point that the Government was not being clear about
how decisions are made about regional science funding.[156]
171. The Government responded by saying that it was
"committed to excellent science and research, wherever this
may be in the United Kingdom",[157]
and argued that in order to maximise the role of research and
innovation in economic performance in the regions, "regional
and national bodies need to co-ordinate their funding and strategies".[158]
The response does not include a list of regional and national
bodies that need to work together. And the document to which the
response points (Science and innovation investment framework
2004-2014) only gives one example: the Science Research Investment
Fund, which includes a capital stream "that can help universities
improve their capacity to compete on the basis of excellence".[159]
It is a good example of how Government can support both the Excellence
Principle and encourage strategic science funding for the
regions, but why did the Government not use it, or others—if
there are any—in its response? It comes back to our original
point, which was not that the Excellence Principle and the notion
that science and engineering are important for the economic health
of the regions are impossibly incompatible, but that the Government
is not being clear about how it rationalises the two concepts.
172. Lord Drayson has already accepted that while
excellence is the primary driver for decisions about funding major
science facilities, there is a regional dimension too.[160]
And according to the Regional Studies Association, it is a relatively
simple fix:
The Haldane principle is generally only applied
to research in the research councils sector, and whilst there
has been some shift towards politically determined programmes
in selected areas the principle of academics deciding on the award
of funds still holds. This principle need not be altered dramatically
to achieve a rebalancing of research between regions as much of
the emphasis needs to be placed on creating new centres and facilities
outside of the research council remit.[161]
173. Logically, the Government cannot support
both the Excellence and Haldane Principles in their current form
and be responsible for promoting science and engineering
as a means of economic recovery and growth in the regions. The
time is ripe for an unambiguous rationalisation of the two concepts.
Researchers, industry, regional and national policy makers and
the public have a right to know on what basis research funding
is distributed both nationally and regionally; the rationale for
funding decisions should be transparent and rigorous. The Government
should adjust the framework for research funding and regional
development so that it does not contain internal contradictions.
174. An additional beneficiary of this recommendation
would be the Government. During the Science Budget Allocations
inquiry, the Government got itself in a muddle about whether or
not it had a regional science policy:
The Minister told us that "We want
to develop Daresbury as a world-class centre for science and innovation",
but went on to say that the Government does not want to "get
to a situation where [we are] dictating to research councils that
a certain percentage of their budget has to be spent in a certain
region". However, the Minister has subsequently said
that "individual delivery plans [of Research Councils]
should be in accordance with the strategic priorities of the government,
which includes a clear regional element, because we want to see
Daresbury developed as a world-class centre for science and innovation".[162]
175. When we visited the USA, we learnt about a well
established regional science policy called the Experimental Programme
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).[163]
The programme's aim is to strengthen research and education in
science and engineering and to avoid undue concentration.
Most of the top research in the US is concentrated in facilities
in states along the east and west coasts, and EPSCoR allocates
resources to inland states that do not have top-level facilities.
We were told that the programme was both long-standing and controversial,
but that it was yielding results; for example, one inland state
was on the point where it would soon graduate above the threshold
for EPSCoR support.
176. Science and engineering are crucial to the
economic wellbeing of every region in the UK, and development
strategies that have supported and made use of science and engineering
have proven successful. In the consideration of UK science policy,
it is essential that the regional dimension is clearly and publicly
set out. It is important that the Government is able to communicate
its role in regional development and in science policy, and especially
the relationship between the two. It will only be able to do this
if it resolves the conflict between its regional policies and
the Haldane Principle.
A multitude of funding relationships
177. So far we have identified two major problems
with the Haldane Principle. The first is the false dichotomy of
'detailed decisions' made by the Research Councils on the one
hand, and the 'over-arching strategy' set by Government on the
other. The second is that the Haldane Principle (and its close
relation the Excellence Principle) clashes with the Government's
responsibility for ensuring that the regions have access to science
and engineering excellence so that their economies can benefit.
178. There is a third problem. The Haldane Principle
only applies, in practice, to the Research Councils. That is fine,
as far as it goes, but the research landscape is far more complicated
than just a binary relationship between Government and the Research
Councils. There are also related institutions such as the Technology
Strategy Board (ca £1 billion over CSR07) and the Energy
Technologies Institute (ca £550 million over ten years),
which are supported by a range of different funding streams. The
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (formerly DIUS)
awards annual grants to three National Academies that fund research
(the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British
Academy, at £247 million over CSR07). There are the Large
Science Facilities Fund (£508 million over CSR07), University
Research Capital Investment (£740 million from the science
budget and £824 million from HEFCE over CSR07), the Higher
Education Innovation Fund (£297 million from the science
budget and £99 million from HEFCE), and the Public Sector
Research Establishments Exploitation Fund (£37.5 million
over CSR07), which in turn funds a number of Research Council
Institutes, cultural institutions, NHS regions and departmental
research bodies.[164]
And that is just DIUS (as it was).
179. Several other departments have research budgets,
including the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health, and
Defra, and there is also a regional dimension to funding:
There is a strong case for expanding on the Haldane
Principle in light of the money and authority now held by the
devolved governments and the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).
It is almost universally embraced that university research funding
should be driven by the quality of the science and coordinated
through the research councils. However, we believe that there
is currently a question mark over the effectiveness of the Haldane
Principle in insulating this funding from government directions,
and particularly the role of the RDAs in this area.[165]
180. We have created four broad-brush maps that go
some way towards demonstrating the multifaceted relationship between
Government and all the research that it funds. It does so through
a multitude of organisations. It would be inappropriate for the
same relationship to exist between each of these organisations
and Government.
181. The relationships between the Government
and the research bodies that it funds should be both explicit
and transparent. We recommend that the different streams of research
funding are mapped and the nature of the contract between Government
and the research bodies described.
119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle Back
120
Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Machinery of Government
Committee, December 1918, Cd 9230, p 35 Back
121
Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Machinery of Government
Committee, December 1918, Cd 9230, p 34 Back
122
Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Machinery of Government
Committee, December 1918, Cd 9230, p 30 Back
123
Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Machinery of Government
Committee, December 1918, Cd 9230, p 30 Back
124
That is "immune from any suspicion of being biased by administrative
considerations against the application of the results of research",
Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Machinery of Government
Committee, December 1918, Cd 9230, p 34 Back
125
Q 168 Back
126
HC Deb, 9 December 1964, vol 703 cols 1553-1686 Back
127
Cabinet Office, A framework for Government Research and Development,
November 1971, para 54 Back
128
Cabinet Office, A framework for Government Research and Development,
November 1971, para 8 Back
129
Memorandum to the BSE Inquiry by the Office of Science and Technology,
para 6
www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/db/do01/tab01.pdf Back
130
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report of
Session 1988-89, Civil R&D, HL 24 Back
131
Memorandum to the BSE Inquiry by the Office of Science and Technology,
para 15
www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/db/do01/tab01.pdf Back
132
Department of Trade and Industry, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy
for Science, Engineering and Technology, May 1993, Cm 2250 Back
133
Speech given at Royal Academy of Engineering on 29 April 2008:
www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/john_denham/science_funding Back
134
Qq 40-41 Back
135
Ev 258 Back
136
Ligon B, 'Penicillin: its discovery and early development', Seminars
in Pediatric Infectious Diseases, vol 15 (2004), pp 52-57 Back
137
Anne Cooper Funderburg, 'Making Teflon stick', Invention &
Technology (American Heritage), Summer 2000 Back
138
Kantorovich A & Ne'eman Y, 'Serendipity as a source of evolutionary
progress in science', Studies in the History and Philosophy of
Science, vol 20 (1989), pp 505-530 Back
139
For a long list of serendipitous discoveries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity Back
140
Ev 240 Back
141
Ev 251 Back
142
Q 41 Back
143
£118 million of savings were agreed in CSR07. £106 million
of savings were announced in the Budget. Back
144
HM Treasury, Budget 2009, April 2009, p 130 Back
145
HM Treasury, Budget 2009, April 2009, p 130 Back
146
'State demands £106 million research refocus', Times Higher
Education, 30 April 2009 Back
147
Q 170 Back
148
IUSS Committee, Science Budget Allocations, pp 12-14 Back
149
Q 183 Back
150
Qq 193-195 Back
151
Oral evidence taken on 20 May 2009, HC (2008-09) 530-ii, Q 283 Back
152
HMT, DTI and DfES, Science and innovation investment framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 146 Back
153
HMT, DTI and DfES, Science and innovation investment framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 147 Back
154
Ev 284 Back
155
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
Prime Minister: oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee
on 12 February 2009, HC (2008-09) 257-i, Q 46 Back
156
IUSS Committee, Science Budget Allocations, para 77 Back
157
IUSS Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2007-08, Science
Budget Allocations: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth
Report of Session 2007-08, HC 639, para 71 Back
158
IUSS Committee, Science Budget Allocations: Government Response
to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, para 72 Back
159
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for
Education and Skills, Science and innovation investment framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 147 Back
160
Qq 33-34 Back
161
Ev 181 Back
162
IUSS Committee, Science Budget Allocations, para 75 Back
163
www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/about.jsp Back
164
See The Allocations of the Science Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11,
DIUS, December 2007, for the full science budget figures. Back
165
Ev 111 (Institute of Physics) Back
|
