Memorandum 36
Submission from the Biosciences Federation
(BSF)
INTRODUCTION
The Biosciences Federation (BSF) is a single
authority representing the UK's biological expertise, providing
independent opinion to inform public policy and promoting the
advancement of the biosciences. The Federation was established
in 2002, and is actively working to influence policy and strategy
in biology-based research—including funding and the interface
with other disciplines—and in school and university teaching.
It is also concerned about the translation of research into benefits
for society, and about the impact of legislation and regulations
on the ability of those working in teaching and research to deliver
effectively. The Federation brings together the strengths of 45 member
organisations (plus nine associate members), including the Institute
of Biology which represents 39 additional affiliated societies
(see Appendix). This represents a cumulative membership of over
65,000 individuals, covering the full spectrum of biosciences
from physiology and neuroscience, biochemistry and microbiology,
to ecology, taxonomy and environmental science. The Biosciences
Federation is a registered charity (no. 1103894).
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
i. The Biosciences Federation welcomes the creation
of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science and Innovation, which
was long overdue, and urges the Cabinet Office to ensure that
the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is represented
on this Committee in the future. It is too early to say how effective
the Committee will be in ensuring integration across government
departments. ii. The Council for Science and Technology has produced
some excellent reports in recent years. However, the mechanisms
used to identify both future studies and the individuals/organisations
from whom evidence should be gathered, remain unclear. The website
needs a radical overhaul to allow sufficient engagement with stakeholders.iii.
The Biosciences Federation believes that creating a Department
of Science is currently unnecessary and risks orphaning science,
rather than integrating it across government departments. Focus
should be given to ensuring that science is fully embedded in
relevant departments, and that these departments have the capacity
within them to put science at the heart of policy-making.
2. How Government formulates science and engineering
policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
iv. The installation of departmental Chief Scientific
Advisers has seen a major improvement in the quality of scientific
input into the decision-making process. However, we urge the Chief
Scientific Adviser's Committee (CSAC) to be more transparent in
its workings and outputs. We also strongly support continued detailed
evaluation of departmental policy procedures under the Government
Office for Science's Science Review Programme but wish to see
more visible outcomes.v. Good policy making depends on a strong
scientific culture within Departments. Departments must ensure
that they employ well-qualified scientific staff, and that these
staff maintain and extend their competencies and their awareness
of current scientific issues. We are not confident that any departments
are fully developing capacity in this area. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that examinations for entrance into the Civil Service
Fast-Track Scheme put more value on economic knowledge and drafting
ability than scientific literacy.
vi. The Biosciences Federation warmly welcomed
the 2007 update to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory
Committees, particularly the recommendation that Scientific Advisory
Committees should aim to hold regular meetings in open session.
The Food Standards Agency has given an exemplary lead in opening
its proceedings to scrutiny.
vii. In its response to the former Science &
Technology Select Committee's report on "Scientific Advice,
Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making", the Government
claimed to directly seek advice from Learned Societies. We see
little evidence of this which suggests that expertise is not drawn
from a sufficiently wide "pool".
viii. The Biosciences Federation is concerned
about skills shortages in specialist scientific areas and research
funding for basic research. Government must strengthen its links
with sector skills organisations such as SEMTA and recognise that
much good and fundamental research does not drive economic growth
in the immediate term. A long-term view is needed to develop the
evidence and capacity that is vital to the formulation of sound
policy-making.
4. The case for a regional science policy
(versus national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle
needs updating
ix. The Haldane principle remains sound and does
not need updating, but rather adhering to! The principle still
allows Government to ring-fence some monies for strategic overarching
priorities, but scientists must be free to direct the detailed
research agenda. This is essential both for the protection of
vulnerable areas of research and to allow the development on new
research fronts, particularly in areas of basic research which
may not be immediately applicable to the formulation of public
policy.x. The Biosciences Federation believes that there must
be an overarching national science policy which is delivered on
a regional basis in order to use local strengths to meet local
needs. Regional science will also be important in reinforcing
national policy. Our concerns over scientific literacy within
the Civil Service also apply to the Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs).
5. Engaging the public and increasing public
confidence in science and engineering policy
xi. The current consultation procedures are largely
passive in nature and do not actively engage the public in the
decision-making process. Mechanisms of engagement should be implemented
to ensure that public opinion is proactively sought, for example
by making more use of citizen's juries. However public opinion
alone must not be used to determine Government policy. The role
of public engagement in policy making is discussed further in
the BSF response to the DIUS consultation on "A Vision
for Science and Society".[146]xii.
The recent RCUK/DIUS report "Public Attitudes to Science"
found that the public subscribe to the "Haldane Principle",
showing a preference for scientists and their professional bodies,
rather than Government, to regulate science and engineering.
3 & 7. Whether the views of the science
and engineering community are, or should be, central to the formulation
of government policy; how government science and engineering policy
should be scrutinized and how the success of any consultation
is assessed
xiii. It is the knowledge of the scientific community,
rather than its views, that should be used to inform government
policy decisions. We are not confident that government departments
build up their contact base sufficiently to allow them to draw
on a broad pool of expertise. The importance of Learned Societies
to science and engineering policy formulation should be better
recognised by Government. Our organisations offer a wealth of
expertise, through our members, who work at the forefront of research
and innovation. Learned societies are well placed to deliver impartial,
non-partisan, advice to Government based on the best available
scientific evidence.xiv. The former Science & Technology Select
Committee was well placed to scrutinise science-based policy across
all Government departments. Its new siting risks that the Committee's
recommendations will only apply within DIUS. The Government Office
for Science must strengthen its role in scrutinising science policy
with more visible outcomes.
xv. Although the evidence gathering process is
clear, it is not often clear how this evidence has been used in
policy formulation. For example, the analysis of the 2007 consultation
from the FSA on the options to increase folate intake in young
women was conducted in "tick box" manner and so nuanced
positions were lost. Government departments and agencies should
look to the Environment Agency as a model of good practice where
detailed responses, showing how and why evidence has been incorporated
or rejected, are routinely provided.
xvi. Where new evidence has a radical impact
on existing bodies of evidence, it is essential that this evidence
is shared with, and replication sought by, experts in the relevant
knowledge base. Changes in policy should only occur after thorough
consideration of all the evidence and a detailed risk assessment.
TASKFORCE MEMBERS
This response was written by a BSF Task Force
comprising Dr S Ahmed (Institute of Biology), Dr E Bell (Physiological
Society), Dr F Bhatti (Royal Society of Chemistry), Dr R Dyer
(Biosciences Federation; Chair), Dr L Fielding (Society for Applied
Microbiology), Dr C Kirk (Biochemical Society), Dr B Knowles (Institute
of Biology), Ms C Margerison (British Ecological Society), Dr
R Prince (British Pharmacological Society), Dr E Thomson (Royal
Society of Chemistry), Dr C Wallace (Biosciences Federation)
and Dr J Wilbraham (AstraZeneca).
January 2009
146 Available at http://www.bsf.ac.uk/responses/ScienceAndSocietyOct08.pdf Back
|
