Memorandum 16
Submission from UK Deans of Science
1. The UK Deans of Science welcome this
particular inquiry by the Innovation, Universities, Science and
Skills Committee and wish to make some brief comments on some
of the issues it raises.
2. The UK Deans of Science (UKDS) has members
in around 70 HE institutions that have significant science
portfolios. Our primary aim is to ensure the health of the science
base of the UK through the promotion and support of science and
scientists and of science research and science teaching in the
UK's HEIs.
3. In summary we would wish to make the
following points, which are further developed and explained in
later paragraphs. We urge the Committee to take particular note
of those bullet points that are presented bold.
— We wish to record our thanks for
the very significant financial and other support for science given
by the Government over the past ten years. We are delighted that
the Science Minister now has a seat in the Cabinet (paragraph
4 below)
— For a number of reasons the time
has come for the creation of a separate Department for Science
within the Government(paragraphs 5 and 6)
— New ways need to be found for obtaining
the views of the science and engineering community that reach
a wider group than has frequently been the case in the past (paragraph
7)
— We would advise against increasing
the powers of RDAs to develop regional science policies. While
there may be strong arguments in favour of further support for
regional science activities any funding should not come from current
national science budgets (paragraph 8)
— National discussion of the Haldane
Principle should be initiated (paragraph 9)
— There needs to be further recognition
of the contribution that the scientific process, "way of
thinking" and method of approach, can make to society (paragraph
10)
— A Committee similar to the previous
Science and Technology Select Committee should be re-formed to
ensure full and proper Parliamentary scrutiny of science issues
(paragraph 11)
— Steps need to be taken to ensure
substantial increases in the number of members of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords who have science or engineering
qualifications (paragraph 12)
— The number of scientists and engineers
in the civil service in each Government Department should be reviewed
and strategies adopted to ensure significant increases in all
Departments through appropriate changes to recruitment policies
(paragraph 12)
4. Firstly, we should point out that our
comments should be seen in the light of our view of the Government's
track record in supporting the science base over the past ten
or so years. We would wish to record that we recognise the priority
that the Government has given to science, engineering, technology
and mathematics—in bringing them into the mainstream of
Government, prioritising them in several public spending rounds,
and ensuring that all Government Departments give consideration
to science when developing their individual strategies. The major
real term increases in capital and revenue funding for science
in higher education has transformed the potential of the UK's
science base. This has, of course, helped to indicate just how
far the UK could progress in science and innovation if the right
policies, structures and parliamentary processes are followed
in the future. In this respect the decision that the Science Minister
attends the Cabinet is particularly welcome.
5. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science
and Innovation and the Council for Science and Technology have
the potential to bring science and engineering further into the
centre of Government thinking. However, the requirement to consider
matters relating to science and innovation and to report to the
Committee on Economic Development suggests that there may now
be an over emphasis on science in terms of its potential for economic
impact. We find it very odd that, as we understand it, the Chief
Scientific Advisor is not a permanent member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee
but may attend only by invitation. Our members consider that our
universities' science research and development must deliver solutions
to the many local and global challenges and give the UK a major
economic competitive edge. However, there is much more to scientific
innovation than that which can be instantly measured by economic
return (for example, inventions that may take considerable time
to turn into products, outputs from curiosity-driven research
that may not have an instant application, various improvements
in treatment of disease, etc). It is for this reason that UKDS
would wish to see the current combination of (economic) innovation,
with universities, science and skills changed by the creation
of a separate Department for Science within which there could
be further consideration of the appropriate balance between applied
and curiosity-driven research.
6. There are further arguments for the creation
of a separate Department for Science. The open-minded way that
the Government has continually considered, developed and refined
its science strategies and policies has begun to illustrate just
how far science can offer solutions to the challenges facing almost
every Department of State. This means that each Department needs
to consider how it uses and supports the science base so that
science and engineering policy is in danger of being developed
in an ad hoc way across the whole of Government with no central
focus and coordination. It also means that there is no single
place where the more fundamental and holistic issues relating
to UK science and can be fully considered and taken forward.
7. The views of the science and engineering
community must be taken into account when science policy is formulated.
We offer no magic bullet to show how this can best be achieved.
There has often been a tendency to rely on the same "great
and good" individuals and organisations that, perhaps, can
be relatively conservative in outlook and lacking in more forward
thinking. Such reliance on the great and good also tends to ensure
that the views of the most radical thinkers, younger scientists
and some minority groups are not heard. It is important that
a full range of individuals and organisations are offered the
opportunity for engagement in the development of policy. Whilst
Governement calls for comment can be helpful, we believe that
rolling programmes of meetings with a wide range of individual
scientists and engineers, with relatively open agendas, and where
the participants can be confident that the consultation is genuine
and that decisions have not already been made, could offer a way
forward. Such an approach would certainly be preferable to commissioning
one individual or organisation to produce, by consultation with
a handful of others, a document that effectively becomes policy
on its publication date. Of course, following the fuller consultative
process that we suggest would mean that the Government (not the
permanent civil service staff) would have to weigh up the outcomes
and make final decisions on the way it wished to move forward.
8. UKDS believe that there would be some
merit in a comprehensive review of how Regional Development Agencies
approach the science agenda and how their policies support the
Government's science agenda. There are already many examples of
universities, either individually or in clusters, developing some
of their research and teaching (Bachelors and Masters degrees)
in ways that support the economic activity of their local area.
Substantial Regional Government support in Australia has led to
individual HEIs developing quite distinct and different agendas.
Closer to home the activities of the Scottish Universities Physics
Alliance is also worthy of note. UK Universities have also been
instrumental in helping to change the type of industry operating
in their locality through their research developments and active
support for the creation of science parks. However, where RDAs
are concerned we would advise great caution. While some may be
successful supporters of economic development and work that is
well established, we have no confidence in their ability to see
beyond relatively close horizons or to develop forward-looking
science policies that will result in real innovation. We would
only add that any additional financial support for regional science
activities must not be taken from current national science funding
and RDAs.
9. RB Haldane's proposal 90 years ago
stated that researchers, not politicians should make decisions
about what research funds should be spent on. For many years this
Principle has been mentioned in national discussions about research
funding as though it still pertains to methods of research funding
allocation. We do not believe that the Haldane Principle is applied
to much of the Government research funding received by the universities,
although, as far as we are aware, there has never been any open
discussion about abandoning it. We believe that the time has come
for a serious discussion about the Haldane Principle, something
that could be one of the first inquiries carried out by a re-formed
Science and Technology Select Committee (see paragraph 11).
10. Scientists command the respect of Government
and the public. It is vital that this respect is maintained and
that the Government can be seen to refer to independent and informed
expertise. This can instil public confidence in the Government
on issues from general day-to-day problems to major crises. It
is essential that the discipline of independent, disinterested,
scientific enquiry is recognised as a major benefit that the training
of scientists has to offer. The contribution that science makes
to the economy is beyond dispute. The contribution that the scientific
process, "way of thinking" and method of approach, can
make to society is significant and often underestimated. Emphasis
should be placed upon this when engaging the public and increasing
public confidence in science and engineering policy.
11. Government science and engineering policy
needs to be scrutinised in as independent a way as possible. It
remains to be seen whether any Government would wish to set up
a wholly independent body of people to carry out such a task.
To be totally independent such a group would need to be selected
by a process that was far removed from Government Ministers or
Government appointees, something difficult, but not impossible,
to achieve in practice. However, a properly constituted Committee,
with a similar remit to the previous Science and Technology Select
Committee would make a very valuable contribution to this. It
is very clear from our scrutiny of the new Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills Committee that, despite the efforts of its
members, it has too wide a remit and has not been able to give
sufficient attention to science issues. When discussing such issues
we understand that the number of Committee members able to be
present has sometimes been unacceptably low. UKDS therefore wish
to press most strongly for the re-forming of a Science and Technology
Committee that is given a remit that empowers it to look across
Departments and scrutinise all aspects of science policy in all
Government Departments.
12. UKDS believe that science and engineering
will never achieve the position they deserve and the country requires
until changes occur in the Lower and Upper Houses. Firstly, there
need for far more MPs and members of the House of Lords who have
a background in science and engineering. Changing the numbers
of MPs will require political parties to be willing to make decisions
about their choice of candidates who will stand in elections.
We recognize that IUSSC has no control over this. However, the
Government might be persuaded to increase the number of members
of the Upper House who have scientific backgrounds. Perhaps even
more significantly, there is another area where we believe scientists
and engineers form a minority group—within the ranks of
the civil servants who support the Government. UKDS strongly urge
the IUSS Committee to review the numbers of qualified scientists
and engineers who work in all Government Departments and to propose
a significant increase in the future through appropriate changes
to recruitment policies.
13. UKDS would be happy to provide further
comments if required.
January 2009
|
