Memorandum 15
Submission from Concatenation Science
Communication
1. As someone who has worked with various
learned societies for a number of years, and who is currently
engaged in a number of science communication ventures, I am pleased
to be able to respond to this consultation. Alas, timing has prevented
a more considered contribution.
SUMMARY
2. The current Government has over a the
best part of a decade restored science investment lost in the
decade up to the 1998-9 financial year. This is appreciated
and is to the benefit of UK PLC.
3. 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. Furthermore it is no longer as effectively
monitored as it might by all-party Parliamentarian groups with
the loss of the House of Commons Select Committee for Science
& Technology. This committee needs to be restored.
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
4. This question can be interpreted a number
of ways: I will take it literally. 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.
5. There are many issues in public policy that
are underpinned by science. Failing to recognise, hence act on,
underpinning science is a failure to put science & engineering
at the heart of policy-making. Science can assist with policy
relating to issues on the political agenda such as climate change
impacts, biodiversity conservation, agricultural production, diseases
and health concerns, energy issues, etc, etc. However
scientists across disciplines can also help with regards to other
public agenda concerns.
6. For example all scientists generally handle
data and are aware of the problems: with data-set resolution reflecting
biometrics be they of an individual whole-organism or a sub-population;
of data substitution; of data loss; and of data interpretation.
All of these affect issues such as the use of genetic fingerprinting
as a forensic tool as well as biometrics for identity cards.
7. Another example concerns the way the
recent credit crunch has been handled. It has long been accepted
by both Parliamentarians from both sides of the House that the
UK needs to become more environmentally sustainable and this is
also agreed by the scientific community as a whole (see the "Charter
for Science & Engineering" launched at Parliamentary
Science Links Day 2001). However getting from where we are to
a more sustainable society faces a number of obstacles. Consequently,
in 2008, when it was announced that there were to be financial
incentives to help re-boot the economy it was a missed opportunity
that the sustainability option was ignored. Now, there are many
ways that this might have been tackled and I cite the following
for illustrative purposes only and not as a firm statement of
personal policy. One option might have been instead of a marginal
VAT cut to have used the same financial value in investing in
local government energy conservation schemes whereby local government
awarded (and monitored) grants to ratepayers for domestic energy
efficiency measures. This would have had the multiple benefits
of: stimulating the grass roots construction industry; improving
the actual value of property; as well as having a lasting benefit
of making the UK more sustainable in the longer-term. Yet despite
both political rhetoric regarding sustainability and the support
for sustainability policy concerns across scientific sectors,
such options were not considered.
8. Indeed Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science
and Innovation and the Council of Science & Technology do
not appear to have any significant say on such broader public
issues. They are more concerned with science investment and assessment
matters. Consequently science and engineering cannot be said
to be at the heart of, or underpin, Government policy.
9. As to whether there should be a Ministry
of Science then the answer is a very clear "no"! Science
cuts across all of society and the economy and technology
(that springs from science) increasingly so. Science therefore
needs not only to have its research interests looked after in
a coordinated way but also be applied, or underpin policy, across
all policy-making sectors in a co-ordinated way. The best
place for science and technology is (as it once was) is within
the Cabinet Office but run by a senior ranking Minister where
it can have the authority when dealing with issues across various
Government Departments.
How Government formulates science and engineering
policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
Strengths:-
10. Overall Govt investment levels in science
have caught up with the past lost ground period (that was prior
to 1998-9) and we are well-placed to move ahead (provided this
momentum is not lost given current competing UK credit crunch
concerns).
11. Govt policy has not impeded UK science having
higher impact per £ spent compared with most G12 competitors.
Weaknesses:-
12. Science is over-monitored. Much public
funded research is effectively appraised twice: once on project
application to funder, and periodically on university departmental
outcome through REAs (or its successor). Conversely applied research
(not Governmentally funded but often carried out by universities
when outside of industry) is not properly recognised by Government
and its Agencies. For instance environmental science research
did very badly in the 2001 RAE. (A specific example here
is that the ecological and land-management work of Herts U. which
I understand had significant funding from outside of the Science
Base was not properly recognised in the 2001 RAE: it had
previously been successful in attracting non-Governmental funding
but the poor RAE score made it harder (though fortunately not
impossible) for the university to attract subsequent non-Governmental
investment.) Then again, turning away from Government funded
research, much industrial research necessitates safety testing
or trials (again a form of monitoring) before being implemented
(or going to market) and this can eat into patent lifetime and
other private value (in the economic sense). Other countries
are less strict. If the UK is to retain industrial research then
industry and commerce must feel that it can function in a competitive
way with research in other nations. This means that though standards
must be maintained, such maintenance must not impede research.
A biological instance is animal licence holder work which involves
considerable bureaucracy with little if any added value to the
high animal welfare standards found in the UK compared to other
nations.
13. Science and engineering is not valued (in
the political and social sense) in broader policy making issues
of UK. This seems at odds with overall policy goals of both the
Government and its opposition given that UK is an increasingly
technologically-based society whose politicians seek (we are told)
it to be underpinned by an increasingly knowledge-based economy.
14. Both the above mean that science and
engineering is not contributing to the UK as it might and that
the UK is not fully reaping the benefits of its science and technology
expertise.
15. The structure and integrity of the UK
science and technology sectors are being eroded. There seems
to be a lack of appreciation by many policy-stakeholder parties
as to how distinct different types of research truly are from
each other and who should invest in them. These include:-
— blue skies research (dependent on
Research Councils' investment)
— fundamental and basic research (Research
Councils' investment)
— policy-driven research (Government
Department and their Agencies' investments)
— applied basic research (Government
Departments' and industry investments)
— applied near-market research (Industry
and Commerce investments)
16. For example, while it is perfectly fine
for Government Departments to invest in policy-driven research
and then to contract this to Research Councils, there is increasing
pressure for Research Council's to invest their own resources
into what are in fact Departmental policy-driven research issues
including those of technology-transfer.
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
17. 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 (using
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 (see earlier examples).
18. 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.
The case for a regional science policy (versus
national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle needs
updating
19. The Haldane principle does not need
updating but it does need re-affirming. Government Departments
seem to be having an increasing number their policy-driven research
questions answered by investment from Research Councils and not
Departments and their Agencies. For example Research Councils
seem to be including technology transfer in their strategies when
in fact such research should be invested in by the Government
Department responsible for business and enterprise. (This is robbing
Peter to pay Paul.) (See also the letter in Nature from
Stephen Moss 17th July 2008. (Nature vol 454, p274.))
Engaging the public and increasing public confidence
in science and engineering policy
20. 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 a strong 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. For example Ofcom does not seem to value
science and has publicly distanced itself from science (see its
ruling on the Channel 4 "Great Global Warming Swindle"
case in which it said that it was not in a position to assess
programmes' science accuracy or consider possible science
misrepresentation). This means that the public has no media watchdog
protecting it from popular cultural misrepresentation of science.
Given this one example alone (especially one relating to the
media which is fundamental to influencing public perceptions)
it is hardly surprising that there is a need to increasingly engage
the public with, and increase its confidence in, science and engineering.
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
21. 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
specialist disciplines) and generic ones (of concern to most scientists).
22. An example of the latter might be the actual
and perceived value (hence utility) of a reasonably good science
BSc to a prospective undergraduate: science career concerns have
been passed from pillar to post despite much political rhetoric
over the past three decades.
23. An example of a specific concern to
ecologists falling between the cracks is that of systematics.
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.
24. Another instance indicating that science
policy issues are not being resolved, and so return again and
again without being addressed, was that this "non-resolution
returning" concern cropped up on three occasions during last
year's DEFRA Science Advisory public meeting!
25. 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 stakeholders—will have far from maximum effect.
How government science and engineering policy
should be scrutinised
26. It needs a Select Committee. It is
hugely regrettably that the House of Commons Committee for Science
& Technology was disbanded and an anathema given the UK has
an increasing technologically-based society whose politicians
seek (we are told) it to be underpinned by an increasingly knowledge-based
economy. If UK politicians of both parties truly seek the UK
to develop a knowledge-based economy and for the nation able to
develop and produce high-technology products and services, as
well as to consume the same, and for knowledge and knowledge-based
activities to pervade society, then the nation needs a Commons
Select Committee with a specific focus on science and technology
that scrutinises it across all of Government.
CONCLUSION
27. Investment in UK science has recovered
much lost ground from before 1998-9 and Government funded
science research is strong. However support for policy driven
Departmental and Agency work has not benefited as much and industrially
funded research does not have the supportive framework it might.
This is in no small part due to science both not being effectively
valued across Government Departments and not being actively managed
across Government. Re-locating science back within the Cabinet
Office, and being actively led by a senior ranking Minister, would
be a start. Ensuring that science and engineering is properly
scrutinised by restoring the House of Commons Committee for Science
& Technology would also be a fundamental move.
ABOUT THE
RESPONDENT
28. Jonathan Cowie is based near Leicester
and has been involved in science communication in the broadest
sense for a few decades. For many years he worked for UK learned
(biological) societies. More recently his ventures have come
under an umbrella called "Concatenation Science Communication"
http://www.science-com.concatenation.org.
Because of this history it has been a pleasure to submit this
response with the only regret that lack of time within the consultation
window prevented a more in-depth consideration.
January 2009
| 
