Memorandum 10
Submission from the Geological Society
of London
SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING AT
THE HEART
OF GOVERNMENT
POLICY
As the leading learned society on geological
matters the Geological Society recognises the value, hence importance,
of science and the need for it to be at the heart of Government
policy. We are grateful for the opportunity to respond on this
important subject.
SUMMARY
The conception of science as a particular
form of organised knowledge about the natural world is a peculiarly
Anglophone interpretation. In other cultures, including all other
European countries, "science" means organised knowledge
about anything. This shows how important it is to understand
how questions on this issue are influenced by our culture, and
above all the English language. In addition, within
what English speakers think of as "science", the boundaries
between classic disciplines like chemistry, physics, biology,
geology are breaking down. Many of the problems we face require
moving between disciplines, or outside of what we traditionally
regard as "science". The Government's formulation of
science and engineering policy needs to reflect this.
The current Government has over the
best part of a decade restored science investment lost in the
decade up to the 1998-9 financial year. This is appreciated
and to the benefit of UK PLC. However science is still not fully
effectively recognised in the policy-making process and is on
occasion actively ignored. Nor is it strongly represented and
coordinated across all Government Departments. We favour a more
focused and coherent system which might involve the creation of
a Department for Science.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
ADDRESSED
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
1. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science
and Innovation and the Council of Science & Technology do
not have the remit, and therefore are unable, to put science &
engineering at the heart of Governmental policy-making.
2. In light of problems with the current system,
detailed below, we favour a more focused and coherent system.
This might involve the creation of a Department for Science, if
that mechanism, given the proper powers and responsibilities,
could better direct the questions posed by other departments of
State to those best placed to provide meaningful answers. At
one time this was a role undertaken by the Science and Technology
Secretariat within the Cabinet Office.
How Government formulates science and engineering
policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
3. The breakdown of boundaries between scientific
disciplines is nowhere more evident than in our efforts to understand
the Earth systemthe complex web of influences that control
our ever-changing global climate. Here as nowhere else, disciplines
must work together to bring all their specialist knowledge to
bear on creating a new, unified scientific worldview that incorporates
everything from cosmology and solar physics through geochemistry
and biological evolution to chaos theory.
4. The current system whereby Government departments
and Parliamentary bodies obtain scientific advice is, we feel,
rooted in a world view where subjects under discussion were easily
defined as falling either in one domain of science or another.
As many of those topics now include aspects of environmental
change and hazard prevention or mitigation, this is no longer
even remotely true.
5. Moreover, many of the issues we now face
require even moving outside "science" as English speakers
usually describe it. This is because many of the solutions to
our current problems involve motivating large numbers of people
to behave differently, and in the process engaging ordinary non-scientific
and non-technical people in those decisionsmany of whom
will either be uncomfortableor appear to be uncomfortable,
which is for the purposes of political change, the same thing.
6. With this in mind, we feel that it is
worrisome that the recourse in most circumstances when scientific
advice is sought is to The Royal Society, foremost and in many
cases, in isolation. The Royal Society is an august body but
represents a very small proportion of the whole field of scientific
and technical endeavour and is highly biased towards research
and to academics, who are not always best placed to understand
the practical issues that need to be addressed alongside the theoretical
ones.
Whether 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
7. The views of the science and engineering
community should be central to the formulation of Government policy.
However the way the majority of consultations are conducted (as
compared with the Cabinet Office Guidelines as the official standard)
demonstrates that policy makers do not really value science unless
there is a very specific scientific question needing to be addressed
necessitating specific technical knowledge. Transferable science
skills to the broader social arena are not valued.
8. It would be useful to have not just the outcome
of a consultation assessed against the overall evidence submitted
but also that the outcome is assessed against evidence received
specifically from the independent scientific community (this includes
learned societies). Then it would be more easily possible to
see whether the science views had been considered.
Engaging the public and increasing public confidence
in science and engineering policy
9. Public confidence in science and engineering
cannot be improved until Government Departments and Agencies demonstrably
appreciate (through investment and action) that they themselves
have confidence in science and engineering. At the moment science
and engineering concerns are not managed and addressed in a co-ordinated
way across Government as they might. For example not all Government
Departments have as strong a recognition of the value of science.
Here for instance there is the Department for Culture, Media
and Sports which seems to be slow in developing its own effective
science resources. This lack of DCMS value percolates through
to its related agencies.
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
10. We at the Geological Society have a record
of building upon our science's naturally multidisciplinary nature
to address pressing problems by drawing many scientific societies
and interested parties together in framing recommendations and
facilitating discussion. For example, our recent meeting on Radioactive
Waste Disposal (24th October 2008: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/events/past/geological_disposal)
brought in expertise from many different fields and included a
wide range of practising and academic geologists, local government
representatives from potential volunteer communities, members
of regulatory bodies and government departments, representatives
of interested NGOs, those from other scientific societies and
members of the public. In doing so, the meeting recognised that
the solution is not a geological problem alone, any more than
it is a civil engineering, or metallurgical oneit involves
all these disciplines and moreincluding sociology and people
who know about public engagement.
11. The problem at the moment is that there is
no clear-cut, overarching management of science policy across
Government and so issues can and do fall between the cracks.
These include both specialist issues (for example of concern to
geologists) and generic ones (of concern to most scientists).
An example of the latter might be the actual and perceived value
(hence utility) of a reasonably good BSc to a prospective undergraduate:
science career concerns have been passed from pillar to post despite
much political rhetoric over the past three decades. An example
of a specific concern to geologists falling between the cracks
is that of systematics. Geologists working in palaeoecology need
to be able to identify fossil plant and animal species. Here the
issue, despite three Select enquiries over the past quarter of
a century, has fallen between education agencies and Government
Departmental stools with nobody charged to take ownership of implementing
the solution.
12. Again of concern to geologists, that
issues seem to return again and again without being addressed
was a matter that cropped up on three occasions during last year's
DEFRA Science Advisory public meeting. Because of this fundamental
lack of tactical management, simply re-arranging the relationship
between deckchairs GO-Science, DIUS and other Government
departments, charities, learned societies, Regional Development
Agencies, industry and other stakeholderswill have far
from maximum effect.
January 2009
|