Memorandum 9
Submission from AstraZeneca
SUMMARY
— 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 is required.— A
new Department for Science is not required, rather science should
be fully embedded in all Departments. A common process of expert
strategic consultation coupled with integration and coordination
of science across and within government departments and the Sub-Committee
is needed.— Science and engineering advice should be
at the core of policy development and sought from a wide range
of stakeholders.
— Greater focus on building public
trust and confidence is urgently needed and will better enable
the UK to take scientific leadership and deal with critical scientific
challenges.
SUBMISSION
1. AstraZeneca is a global pharmaceutical
company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and
marketing of new medicines for the treatment of infections including
tuberculosis, cancer, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease,
neuropsychological, gastrointestinal, respiratory and inflammatory
disorders. Our innovative products bring benefit to patients
throughout the world.
2. AstraZeneca is pleased to contribute to this
inquiry. As a successful major pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca
values working in partnerships with stakeholders in the science
base to ensure a vibrant and sustainable biomedical research base
with the capability to develop and deliver to market products,
technologies and services.
Question 1. Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee
on Science and Innovation and the Council for Science and Technology
put science and engineering at the heart of policy-making and
whether there should be a Department for Science
3. 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. Such a strategy would
be founded on the major global challenges of health, sustainability,
nutrition and minimising environmental impact but also incorporate
the needs of existing and emerging knowledge based industry, skills
development and capacity needs and an indicative investment plan
for the research and engineering base. Science and engineering
strategy is fundamental to the development of policy across most
if not all Departments of Government and at the present time coordination
between Departments is weak and the processes by which expert
advice and consultation are sought are inconsistent. Such a strategy
is important if the UK is to remain an attractive location for
pharmaceutical research.
4. AstraZeneca welcomed the creation of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee on Science and Innovation with direct access to
the highest level of Government. If the UK is to be successful
in taking forward a knowledge driven economy then it is vital
that there is integration and coordination of science across and
within government departments and the Sub-Committee must act to
ensure that this takes place. Given the diversity of the Science
and Engineering agenda and the varied position of different Departments
along the "fundamental research through exploitation to technology
procurement" chain, in AstraZeneca's view a sufficiently
empowered Cabinet Sub-Committee is preferable to forming a new
Department of Science.
5. Further steps must be taken to fully
embed science in all Departments and to ensure common processes
of expert strategic consultation and coordination. This will
require strengthening departments by employing more scientists
within Government, creating mechanisms to ensure effective knowledge
exchange and networking both within government and outside, to
ensure that scientists in leadership and policy development roles
can keep up to date with current scientific and engineering developments.
6. Leadership for the health of the UK's
essential fundamental science and engineering base should be retained
by DIUS but there is much further to go in terms of developing
strong and effective working relationships with other departments.
The creation of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health
Research (OSCHR) is a welcome positive development to ensure
strategic coordination between MRC and the Department of Health
and to drive translation but the current situation is much poorer
for essential interfaces between (for instance), DIUS, DEFRA,
NERC and the Home Office.
7. The Council for Science and Technology
has produced some good reports, although the mechanism to identify
future subjects and the evidence gathering process are not always
clear.
Questions 2 and 6. How Government formulates
science and engineering policy (strengths and weaknesses of the
current system) , the role of GO-Science, DIUS and other Government
departments, charities, learned societies, Regional Development
Agencies, industry and other stakeholders in determining UK science
and engineering policy
8. The lack of an over-arching high level
Government strategy for Science and Engineering and a clear process
for its creation and renewal leaves too much room for Departments
to interpret and create their own strategies. The main Research
Councils within DIUS come closest to having a science and engineering
strategy creation process that is understood by their user communities.
9. Sound science policy-making is dependent upon
expert scientific advice, wide evidence and consultation, and
talented staff with the ability to develop and drive forward agreed
policy. Considering the whole "fundamental research, through
development and exploitation chain" it is necessary and beneficial
to seek input and comment from a wide variety stakeholders including
medical charities, learned societies and industry. Some such as
major Pharma have strategic interest in the whole chain, whilst
others such as the Regional Development Agencies maybe only interested
in exploitation and new business development. There should be
clear measurable outcomes with end points that can be identified
and mechanisms to monitor the outcomes of policy levers and to
ensure that such information is used to shape future policy decisions.
10. Many of the problems that currently
exist could be addressed by a better understanding and dialogue
between the relevant sectors of scientific practice, for example
the UK is training more STEM graduates than ever before but industry
is still unable to find appropriately educated staff. A meaningful
dialogue between universities, industry and government could address
these issues head-on.
11. The role of the Chief Scientific Advisor
and the creation of a close network of chief scientific advisor
positions in most government departments are welcome developments
and they could play a strong role here. Continuing to develop
and strengthen this network is critical to ensure appropriate
involvement in science spending, policy development and implementation.
12. Departments should be encouraged to
attract well-qualified scientific staff and further develop capacity
in this area in order to provide expertise in policy making across
government. One suggestion would be to make use of short-term
secondments or appointments for scientists for specific projects
and encourage greater inter change and connectivity with scientists
in industry. Furthermore although the value of former academic
scientists into government and in advisory roles is unquestioned,
more value could be added by similarly involving scientists from
industry, particularly large companies.
Question 3. The views of the science and engineering
community are, or should be, central to the formulation of government
policy, and how the success of any consultation is assessed
13. The knowledge (not the views) of the
science and engineering community is vitally important to robust
policy development. Identification of future science related issues
is a critical component in policy making. Horizon scanning should
be coordinated across government and include individuals from
different departments. It is important that a wide spectrum of
scientific expertise is used and including the industry sector
and social science community.
14. Evidence gathering and research commissioned
by government departments should be of the highest quality and
involve appropriate use of scientific experts. Where possible
consistent and transparent processes should be used for gathering
evidence with the widest applicability, thus avoiding multiple
studies and consultancies by different Departments.
15. The current consultation processes aim
to reach a broad stakeholder base and are valuable. However,
it is not clear when and if such information, advice and evidence
offered through consultation is taken up and utilized in policy
development.
16. A clear international perspective is
vital in science and engineering policy-making especially if Government
wishes to engage fully its key global industrial players. A good
example is new science required to combat and deal with emerging
infectious disease, stretching from epidemiological trend through
to the latest advances in DNA vaccines. Scientists within key
Departments must forge stronger and more influential relationships
with European and US counterparts to share knowledge and to identify
early areas for collaborative policy development.
Question 4. The case for a regional science
policy (versus national science policy) and whether the Haldane
principle needs updating
17. It is important that an over-arching
National science strategy is developed under which a consistent
set of policies can be constructed. These should be implemented
nationally and regional bodies should follow the strategy developed
at a national level and not create new or variants. A number of
the Science Councils exist within the Regions and along with the
Devolved Administrations these have a role to play in the implementation
of policy and alignment with local strengths and needs. However
the solutions to many national problems in training and education
support cannot be solved by regional approaches, particularly
as the systems operate currently.
18. The UK will benefit if the regions and devolved
administrations work closely together to ensure the supply of
a critical mass of relevant skilled scientists and engineers able
to tackle the scientific challenges presented by effective treatment
of disease, sustainable energy, climate change and an ageing population.
The Research Councils, funding Councils and Technology Strategy
Board also have key roles to facilitate this.
19. The Haldane principle should be maintained.
It has served the scientific community well and still enables
Government to ring-fence budget for strategic priority research
whilst allowing scientists freedom to direct research.
Question 5. Engaging the public and increasing
public confidence in science and engineering policy
20. DIUS has recently conducted a consultation
on its vision for a new science and society strategy. We await
the outcomes of that work. In addition there is a reasonable body
of activity in the UK sponsored by ESRC and other bodies on societal
impact of science, public engagement and dialogue. The strategy
and planning of this work should be more strongly coordinated
with fundamental science and engineering strategy of key Research
Councils.
21. We believe that engagement with science needs
to begin at a young age and this should be an essential component
in Government policy. Confident teaching of science in schools
including the delivery of a balanced appreciation of more difficult
topics such as the use of animals and nuclear energy is critical.
Considerable steps have been made in raising awareness of science,
by industry through Science and Engineering Ambassadors, the STEM
Programme led by Professor John Holman, the work of museums, science
festivals and a variety of public and private initiatives. Attitudes
to science are improving with growing interest in issues such
as energy, climate change and medicine. However, more could be
done to improve scientific literacy and understanding.
22. Providing useful information in a usable
and meaningful form to a broad range of groups has greatest impact.
Traditional media routes and new forms such as the web can be
successfully utilized. However, much more needs to be done.
There are still negative perceptions about science and scientists
and there needs to be a step change and concerted action to alter
the negative public.
23. In support of this there is a pressing
requirement to link science policy to communication policy across
government departments and for each department to own all the
issues, including the difficult ones like GM foods, use of animals
in research and nuclear energy.
24. There is still a need to bring science
into an everyday context and demonstrate the role of scientists
and the impact of scientific discoveries and technological developments.
An ongoing public dialogue on important science -based challenges
and technologies should be encouraged and an appropriate format
developed. This should promote informed and open debate on the
scientific challenges, risks and potential solutions, priorities
and choices. By building public trust and confidence the UK will
be better able to take scientific leadership of some key topics
and to deal with the scientific challenges. A coordinated effort
involving government, industry, learned societies, medical charities
and other stakeholders would be required.
25. It is also important to monitor progress
on science literacy and a survey of public attitudes to science
should continue.
Question 7. How government science and engineering
policy should be scrutinised
26. The former Science and Technology committee
was well placed to scrutinise the science policy across all government
departments. Placing the committee within DIUS runs the risk
of diminishing the strength of this group. Further benefit could
be gained by making more visible the outcomes of scrutiny.
January 2009
| 
