Memorandum 27
Submission from The Royal Society
SUMMARY
— When appointing his scientific advisory
team, Barack Obama said:
"The truth is that promoting science
isn't just about providing resources—it's about protecting
free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence
are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about
listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient—especially
when it's inconvenient". The provision of independent
advice to Government has always been an important function of
the Royal Society. We therefore welcome the Committee's inquiry
into the relationship between science, engineering and policymaking
in the UK.
— A number of initiatives in recent
years, such as the appointment of Chief Scientific Advisers from
outside Government and the creation of independent departmental
scientific advisory committees, have improved the quality of science
and engineering advice at the heart of policymaking. It is important
that this Committee and others keep this situation under review,
particularly in light of any changes in the wider political and
economic environment.
— It is surprising that DIUS is one
of the few Departments with science spending not to have an independent
advisory group to guide and comment on its policy in this area.
We believe that when allocating the science budget, the Director
General of Science and Research (DGSR) should be advised by an
independent group of experts, who can identify emerging areas
of science or initiatives that might require funding, as well
as advising on the wider consequences of particular funding decisions.
— We do not support sections of the
science budget being earmarked for particular regions, except
where this allocation reflects scientific excellence. The key
to a region's success is less its ability to create or develop
its own science and technology base, and more about its capacity
to absorb and capitalise on the best science and technology, drawn
from a variety of national and international sources. Rather than
a debate about what Haldane meant in 1918, we need a better understanding
about the way in which the Government now interprets the Haldane
Principle.
— We believe that independent advice
from the scientific community facilitated by the Academies and
Learned Societies should play a greater role in the scientific
advisory process. Government Departments should consider commissioning
advice more often from the Academies and Learned Societies.
— Following the recent removal of Grant
in Aid support for our policy work, the Royal Society is the only
UK Academy that does not receive Government funding for its policy
work. This will eventually compromise our ability to provide authoritative,
independent advice to Government and others.
OVERVIEW
1. The provision of independent advice to
Government has always been an important function of the Royal
Society. We therefore welcome the Committee's inquiry into the
relationship between science, engineering and policymaking in
the UK. In our response we address the two different types of
input to policy-making from the scientific community. First the
scientific community's collective view on issues which affect
how science is done (policy for science), and second the expert
view on the interpretation of scientific evidence which is needed
for effective policy making (science for public policy). This
submission has been approved by Lord Rees of Ludlow OM, President
of the Royal Society, on behalf of the Council of the Society.
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
2. Irrespective of whether there is a Department
for Science, all Government Departments need to deal with science
and engineering. It is essential that the Government has access
to the very best scientific advice in relevant areas of policy-making.
Having a Government department with the word "science"
in its title would convey the importance of science to the UK
but there is a danger that it would also indicate that science
is being "taken care of" and that other Departments
need not concern themselves with it. As we outline below, many
Departments have made significant progress in putting science
at the heart of policy, although there are inconsistencies in
some Departments. For example we welcome the fact that the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office is now appointing its first Chief Scientist,
which in part compensates for the loss of expertise that resulted
from its Science and Innovation Network being moved to GO-Science.
3. We welcome the establishment of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee on Science and Innovation. This sends an important
signal about the importance of science and innovation, although
it is too soon to judge its long term impact. We hope that the
Sub-Committee will strike a careful balance between science and
innovation issues in its agenda. As an independent group of eminent
scientists and engineers, the Council of Science and Technology
(CST) should also play a key role in putting science and engineering
at the heart of policy-making. We have welcomed the role that
CST has played in reviewing the Government's progress against
the recommendations of the report on nanotechnologies that we
produced with the Royal Academy of Engineering. However we question
whether the CST's advisory potential is being fully realised.
2. How Government formulates science and engineering
policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
4. UK Government has made great strides
in recent years towards ensuring that the scientific evidence
and the maintenance of a strong science and engineering base are
at the heart of policy. It is important that this Committee and
others keep this situation under review, particularly in light
of changes in the wider political and economic environment. We
comment first on the situation as regards the use of scientific
evidence in public policy, and then move on to the formulation
of policy for science where we believe that there is scope for
improvement.
5. There has been a substantial improvement in
the use of scientific evidence by Government Departments. The
appointment of departmental Chief Scientific Advisers at a senior
level from outside Government has been instrumental in this. It
is vital that the CSAs are involved, from an early stage, in the
key strategic decisions within a Department and that they be adequately
resourced.
6. Particular challenges are presented by
policy issues requiring the input of scientific evidence and expertise
that fall at the boundaries between, or cut across, Government
Departments. Here cross-cutting groups to ensure that scientific
evidence is considered are essential. The Government's CSA has
done an excellent job at supporting this and in strengthening
the role of the CSAs as a group. As we note in Section 7, the
change in remit of the IUSS committee (compared to the former
Science and Technology Committee) has meant that there is no longer
the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny of these cross cutting
issues.
7. We believe that there has also been a
favourable cultural shift within the civil service: for example,
the introduction of the analysis and use of evidence strand in
the competency framework for senior civil servants; and the enthusiastic
welcome that was given to our pilot civil servant-scientist pairing
scheme in 2007. The Department of Innovation University and Skills
(DIUS) is working in partnership with us to roll out this scheme
in autumn 2009.
8. Another positive development has been
the establishment by most Departments of independent scientific
advisory groups. They should have a remit to provide advice on
current policy development, identify gaps in the Department's
research portfolio and have a horizon scanning function. We welcome
the opportunity to identify suitable individuals for membership
of these committees. Many Departments have programmes of commissioned
scientific research that underpin and evaluate the Department's
policies. We welcome the establishment in the Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of the Science Quality and Priorities
Team, which is playing a key role in developing quality assessment
within Defra, for example in peer reviewing completed research.
We commend this approach to other Departments.
9. We welcome the increase in funding for
science in recent years. However we believe that a new structure
is needed to provide advice on the allocation of this funding.
It is surprising that DIUS is one of the few Departments with
science spending not to have an independent advisory group to
guide and comment on its policy in this area. We have previously
recommended to this Committee (RS, 2007) that the Director General
for Science and Research (DGSR) should be advised by an independent
group of experts from all disciplines and from a range of institutions:
a Science Budget Advisory Group (SBAG). This would be a group
trusted by the community and close enough to it to identify emerging
areas of science or initiatives that might require funding, as
well as identifying the wider consequences of particular funding
decisions. This mechanism for advice was proposed in the 1993 White
Paper "Realising our Potential" (Cabinet Office,
1993), although never implemented. We are aware that the Committee
had concerns that this might be too bureaucratic (House of Commons
Select Committee for Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills,
2008). However the SBAG would meet infrequently, with a tightly
defined agenda, and could thus operate in a light-touch way. Another
option would be extend the remit of an existing committee, such
as the CST, to provide this independent advice, subject to the
range of expertise of its members being appropriate. The DGSR
has recently invited us to be one of six organisations providing
him with advice during the next Spending Review. We welcome the
wider engagement with the community that this initiative will
bring but it does not go far enough. Whatever structure is put
in place, there should be transparency about the way in which
decisions have been made.
10. To ensure that science is at the heart
of policymaking, Departments must be in constant contact with
the scientific community. The appointment of CSAs, independent
departmental advisory groups and the commissioning of scientific
research play an important role in this. However, in formulating
scientific aspects of public policy and policy for science, we
believe that the Government could make better use of organisations
such as the national academies and Learned Societies as a source
of authoritative and independent advice. We address this in more
detail in under Section 6.
3. 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
11. There are two different types of input
to policy-making from the scientific community, each important.
These are firstly the scientific community's collective view on
issues which affect how science is done (policy for science),
and secondly the expert view on the interpretation of scientific
evidence which is needed for effective policy making (science
for public policy).
12. The collective experience of the scientific
community on issues which affect science and the way it is carried
out (such as funding structures, the manner in which scientific
advice is used by policy makers, intellectual property laws, etc)
is powerful because they are the voices from the coal-face—ie
the people who are living the effects of policy decisions. Academies
and Learned Societies have a key role to play in drawing together
the perspectives from their area of science and synthesising them
for structured communication. The Royal Society is unique in
that it draws on perspectives from right across the scientific,
engineering and medical community. In addition, evidence from
social science research into the effects of various funding structures
or initiatives over time or in different countries can also provide
valuable evidence.
13. The evidence generated by scientists
and the views of experts about the implications of research for
policy-making are vital. The Royal Society's policy reports and
statements are good examples of how experts can provide in-depth
analysis of a body of evidence—as relevant to a particular
policy question—and can formulate specific recommendations
for policy-makers charged with delivering solutions, as well as
highlighting areas of uncertainty and priorities for further research.
Scientific evidence must be treated as central to policy, although
it is only one factor that Ministers have to take into account.
For example, science might indicate the level of risk associated
with a particular course of action or inaction, but politicians
have to decide what level of risk to accept. There should be transparency
around these decisions.
14. These two forms of input overlap where
an in-depth understanding of scientific developments is needed
for making decisions about issues such as identifying priority
research areas, or choosing between scientific facilities to support,
or indeed identifying appropriate subjects and methods for inclusion
in school curricula. It is in these cases where it is most important
that the decision-making criteria are most clearly set out.
15. The success of any consultation can
be assessed as part of the scrutiny outlined under Question 7.
4. The case for a regional science policy
(versus national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle
needs updating
16. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs),
advised by their Science and Industry Councils, play an increasingly
important role in regional science policy. We welcome this and
the fact that the RDAs have agreed to meet regularly with the
Technology Strategy Board to facilitate better co-ordination of
policy. The RDAs should utilise the economic and social benefits
that science and technology can bring to their regions but this
does not necessarily require there to be a centre of excellence
or large facility in every region. The key to a region's success
is less its ability to create or develop its own science and technology
base, and more about its capacity to absorb and capitalise on
the best science and technology, drawn from a variety of national
and international sources. We do not support sections of the science
budget being earmarked for particular regions, except where this
allocation reflects scientific excellence. We also question what
signals any greater focus on policy at the regional level within
the UK might send to our international partners, given the increasingly
global nature of science and innovation.
17. A range of interpretations and definitions
of the Haldane Principle are being used to justify or criticise
the involvement of the Government in science funding decisions,
particularly those relating to the Research Councils (RC). Recent
areas of conflict include the allocation of funding between responsive
mode funding and the cross-Council themes that are based on the
Treasury's priorities, the increasing focus on translational research
and the regional location of large facilities. One person's definition
of an overarching strategy (acceptable for Government to outline
for the RCs) might be regarded by another as compromising the
independence of the scientific community in setting detailed priorities
for science. We do not need a debate about what Haldane meant
in 1918, but a shared (or at least improved) understanding between
the Government and the scientific community about the way in which
the Government now interprets the Haldane Principle would be welcome.
5. Engaging the public and increasing public
confidence in science and engineering policy
18. In the past decade, considerable expertise
has developed amongst many stakeholders in ways of strengthening
relations between science and society including at the Royal Society.
19. The Royal Society supports the sentiment
of DIUS' draft vision for science and society (published last
year) and is committed to achieving it. For example, the Society
has a significant public programme to inspire an interest in
the joy, wonder and excitement of scientific discovery (Royal
Society, 2008). Involving over 9000 people in 2007, this
programme includes lectures, panel discussions, seminars on the
history of science and a Summer Science Exhibition. The Society's
lectures are also webcast live and made available online as video
on demand (history of science seminars are available as a podcasts)
to allow the widest number of people to access the public programme.
The Society's Press Office works to engage wider publics with
science through media coverage of the Society's activities, and
by drawing attention to research published in the Society's peer
review journals.
20. The Society regards its 350th anniversary
in 2010 as a unique opportunity to increase the public's
engagement with science and to inspire young people. More specifically,
we also view the anniversary as a platform for raising the public
profile of science and emphasising its centrality to our shared
culture. To this end, our 2010 anniversary programme will
include events and activities with over 100 partner organisations
drawn from across the arts and sciences, taking place in over
75 museums and galleries across the UK's nations and regions.
The centrepiece of the anniversary year will be a major festival
of science at the Southbank Centre in which the Society's Summer
Science Exhibition, talks and discussions, music, film and the
arts will be brought together in a confluence of ideas, issues
and debate about science.
21. As well as communicating science, the
Royal Society is looking to deepen public engagement. In certain
respects, the Government's draft vision for science and society
goes only part way to our own. We see two main limitations: the
draft treats science as a homogenous activity and underplays its
rich diversity; and it leaves little room for more reflective
or critical forms of public engagement with science. These points
need to be addressed in the development of a final version of
the strategy.
22. We see gaining a richer understanding
of these complex relations between science and society, and between
publics and science, as serving an important function in our goal
to influence policy-making with the best scientific advice.
Historically, decision makers have viewed science issues principally
from a scientific perspective, but there is now an acceptance
that social and ethical perspectives are also fundamental. Recognising
this, the Society has led the scientific community in undertaking
effective public and stakeholder dialogue so that policy makers
and the science community are able to take account of a diversity
of views. Such dialogue exercises have informed the Society's
policy work, as well as that of Government. The Government's Sciencewise
Expert Resource Centre for Public Dialogue in Science and Innovation
(Sciencewise ERC) is another important step in this direction,
and needs Government's full support as well as the resources to
expand its work.
23. We are committed to working with Government
and others to engage the public in science and engineering policy
and in increasing our understanding of the complex relations between
science and society.
6. 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
24. We have dealt with the role of many
of the bodies listed by the Committee in the previous sections.
In this section we focus on the value of the independent authoritative
voice of science provided by the National Academies, the Learned
Societies and Research Charities.
25. The provision of independent advice to decision
makers has been an important function of the Royal Society since
the 17th Century. As we prepare for our 350th anniversary in 2010,
the Society aims to extend the reach, impact and influence of
its policy work through the establishment of a new Science Policy
Centre.
26. To support the formulation of science
policy in Government, the Royal Society provides:
— authoritative independent advice
on topical issues (eg foot and mouth, pandemic influenza) as well
as an early warning of emerging issues/evidence that will challenge
policymakers (eg Ocean acidification). It does this both in response
to specific requests from the Government and proactively, often
with the involvement of other UK academies;
— a forum for discussion for policymakers,
academics and other stakeholders (including the public) on topical
issues—for example the synthetic biology co-ordination group
that the Royal Society initiated to track and stimulate policy
activities and processes to encourage the responsible and responsive
development of this field;
— an interface with the international
scientific community (including international scientific organisations
such as the InterAcademy Panel);
— links to scientific experts in the
UK and overseas to act as formal and informal advisors;
— a focal point for scientific community
in initiatives such as the two educational partnerships based
at the Royal Society: the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education
and the Science Community Representing Education.
27. The Fellows and many other experts contribute
to the delivery of our work and generously provide their time
free of charge. However the activities listed above require considerable
resources. Until recently, we received a contribution to this
work from our Grant in Aid. But the Grant in Aid allocation for
our policy work (less than 0.5% of our total Grant in Aid budget)
was removed by DIUS in April 2008 and our request to transfer
money to our policy work from other parts of the budget for our
programmes has been denied. We have had some success in raising
money for science policy from alternative sources but, given the
current economic climate, available funds are likely to be limited.
Eventually our ability to provide authoritative, independent advice
to Government and others will be compromised by the limits
of our private resources. We ask DIUS to look again at the anomaly
where by the Royal Society receives no Grant in Aid funding for
its policy work while the British Academy and the Royal Academy
of Engineering receive Grant in Aid for this activity and the
Academy of Medical Sciences receives a small block grant from
the Department of Health that can be used for its policy work.
28. Looking overseas, there are many examples
of governments supporting policy work by their academies. The
US National Academies, under the auspices of the National Research
Council (NRC), is commissioned to provide much of the scientific
advice required by the administration. The benefit of the advice
being produced by the Academies (rather than from within Government)
is that it is independent, authoritative and internationally credible.
In contrast to the situation in the US, the UK Academies are only
rarely commissioned to provide advice to the UK Government. Currently,
much of the work that the Academies might be expected to undertake
is carried out by bodies within Government, such as Foresight.
29. There is no question that the work produced
by Foresight is of high quality but we believe that the independent
advice of the scientific community (facilitated by the Academies
and Learned Societies) should pay a greater role in the scientific
advisory process. We are not recommending the creation of the
type of infrastructure associated with the NRC, but rather that
Government Departments should consider commissioning advice more
often from the Academies (individually or where appropriate as
a group) and on subject-specific issues from the Learned Societies.
When such work has been commissioned in the past, for example
the 2004 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering study
of nanotechnologies, it has proved highly successful. Commenting
on the nanotechnologies study, Lord Sainsbury said "I
see this as a model for what we should do in the future when major
advances in science and technology look like raising ethical,
health, safety or environmental concerns".
30. We note that there is no mention of
universities in the list of bodies determining UK science and
engineering policy. Their role should not be underestimated, particularly
given the number of universities that are establishing their own
science policy centres.
7. How government science and engineering
policy should be scrutinised
31. Within Government, the CSAs and the
rolling reviews of the use of science in Government Departments
carried out by GO-Science play an important role in scrutinising
the Government's science and engineering policy. The former House
of Commons Science and Technology Committee played a vital scrutiny
role, not least because it had a cross-departmental remit. We
are concerned about the extent to which the current (IUSS) Committee
can scrutinise policies that fall at the boundaries of, or cut
across, Departments. The House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee continues to have a cross departmental remit. The CST
has responsibility for looking at issues that cut across Government
Departments but it does not have scrutiny as part of its remit.
Outside Government and Parliament many organisations have a role
in providing independent scrutiny of policy, including ourselves
and the wider scientific community. To enable this external scrutiny,
Departments must be open and transparent about how decisions are
being made and the evidence that they use.
REFERENCES
Cabinet Office (1993) Realising Our Potential:
A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology Cm 2250.
House of Commons Select Committee for Innovation,
Universities, Science and Skills (2008) Fourth Report Impact
of the Science Budget Allocations
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/215/21505.htm£a5
Royal Society (2007) Royal Society Statement
on Science Budget Allocations RS Policy Document 06/07 http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28534
Royal Society (2008) Royal Society's response
to a vision for Science and Society: a consultation on developing
a new strategy for the UK RS Policy Document 22/08
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=31694
January 2009
| 
