Memorandum 39
Submission from the Science Council
The Science Council is a membership organisation
for learned societies and professional bodies across science and
its applications and it works with them to represent this sector
to government and others. The Science Council promotes the profession
of scientist through the Chartered Scientist designation and the
development of codes of practice; it promotes awareness of the
contribution of professional scientists to science and society
and advances science education and increased understanding of
the benefits of science. The Science Council provides a forum
for discussion and exchange of views and works to foster collaboration
between member organisations and the wider science, technology,
engineering, mathematics and medical communities to enable inter-disciplinary
contributions to science policy and the application of science.In
preparing this response we have consulted member bodies to identify
areas of common interest and the issues they raised form the content
of this memorandum. In addition a number of member bodies will
be responding individually to the inquiry.
CONSULTATION
It is noted that the title of the inquiry is
Putting Science and Engineering into the heart of Government
Policy. We have interpreted this as principally exploring
how best government policy across all areas may be influenced
by science and that engineering is intended to embrace technology
and inform evidence as case studies. If engineering is not a
case study, it was not clearly set out in the inquiry as to why
this area of science has been identified individually. In addition
to covering science policy more generally we have briefly addressed
the questions asked by the Inquiry about science funding and support
issues.
The Science Council's interests encompass both the
core disciplines of science (physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics)
and the application of science, including technology, engineering
and medicine. The Science Council has recently agreed a definition
of science as:
Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding
of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology
based on evidence.
1. QUESTION 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
1.1. In the 21st Century, science and technology
are fundamental activities in all areas of society and in recognition
of its importance the Government has made science and innovation
a leading priority for the future. The Science Council embraces
this view and believes that science as defined above has a place
in all areas of government policy and across all government departments
and activities, including local and regional government. There
is therefore a need to embed high quality independent scientific
advice across and within all sectors of government and government
agencies.
1.2. In the past there has been a tendency to
assume that a "separate" "scientific advice"
function within a single department or committee can effectively
carry influence across government departments: evidence suggests
this is not the case and that sometimes departmental positions
differ or are not fully compatible. There is no adjudication system
when such differences of view occur which can lead to presentational
and other difficulties. In addition, there is a need also for
policy in government agencies and regional and local government
to be informed and evidenced by science: for example in the areas
of waste management and recycling, power generation, transport,
water safety and conservation, and sustainable cities. Innovation
is needed to develop ways in which scientific information and
advice is shared more widely: using and developing the Government
Connect programme might be worth exploring further.
1.3. Government employs many scientists and engineers
working in a variety of roles, not only as scientists and engineers.
The Science Council would like to see the profile raised of scientists
within Government, including those working within Government laboratories
and suggests that scientists and engineers should be recognised
more explicitly as a professional group within Whitehall and local
government.
2. QUESTION 2
How Government formulates science and engineering
policy
2.1. The Science Council supports the appointment
and role of Chief Scientific Advisers in all government departments
and sees these as a very positive element within the overall structure
of government scientific advice. We believe that there should
be innovation and flexibility in the way each CSA functions within
their own environment. It is equally as important that CSAs and
their teams receive adequate support and have the resources to
commission or undertake research necessary to supplement evidence
or fill gaps in data to support the development of policy advice.
2.2. Science Council members were strongly supportive
of the work and role of departmental and agency laboratories whose
contribution to the development and implementation of science
policy, and to monitoring, was often under-appreciated. There
was also agreement that the criteria for assessing the effectiveness
of direct government science services should be substantially
different from those used to assess curiosity driven research
undertaken in HE.
2.3. The Science Council welcomes recent improvements
in the way CSAs work across government, for example the work of
the Sustainable Development Programme Board, the Inter-Departmental
Government Group on Water Safety and the DEFRA led Interdepartmental
Group on Costs and Benefits.
2.4. There is considerable potential for
Government scientific advisers to draw more widely on the expertise
of learned and professional bodies and the Science Council can
provide a central point of contact to facilitate this.
3. QUESTION 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
3.1. Many policy areas have wide potential
impact and there should therefore be a multi-disciplinary approach
to the gathering of scientific and technological evidence. It
is important that consultation processes reach out broadly to
involve all science areas that may have an interest, including
social and behavioural sciences. It is paramount that the science,
social science, engineering and technology bodies are also encouraged
to act collaboratively in working with Government and that Government
led review groups and advisory committees should reflect the breadth
of potential scientific interests. Regional, research and education
priorities and solutions may vary from sector to sector and from
discipline to discipline and it can be counter-productive for
a solution championed in one area to be offered as a blue-print
for other environments.
3.2. For example, in exploring skills needs there
may be significant differences sector by sector with some areas
facing shortages at a technical/non-graduate level and others
needing to increase the supply of graduates and post graduates
with cross disciplinary backgrounds. Policies with regard to
schools and higher education, and in skills areas, will need to
reflect and respond to these differing priorities within science
and technology sectors.
3.3. The capacity of learned societies and professional
bodies to contribute to the development of science policy varies.
Some are well endowed and receive some central support from government
and may also have well-established income streams derived from
publishing. Others are very small and do not benefit from government
support of any kind. All have in common the fact that they interact
with, and draw membership from the research environment, academia,
industry and other user communities. Professional bodies especially
are likely to cover a spectrum of scientific disciplines and specialisms,
for example across water, clinical research or environmental sciences.
Many include both science and engineering. The majority have
excellent international links and networks and are well informed
about global issues affecting their sectors. All have enormous
potential and an important role to play in capturing scientific
evidence and views and supporting the development of policy for
agencies across government.
3.4. With these strengths, learned societies
and professional bodies could play a key role working with government
in areas such as horizon scanning and providing networks to advice
and evidence. Feedback from member bodies suggests that this
is not being utilised by CSAs or by many government agencies.
The links with local government that do exist tend to be informal
and very few and far between. The Science Council can act as
a point of contact for government, and others, in helping to identify
organisations with interests in a policy area under consideration
and we would welcome opportunities to explore how this could work.
3.5. To support public trust and confidence
in government scientific advice, both the consultation processes
and the preparation of advice should aim to engage all interested
stakeholders and provide an opportunity to participate in a timely
way. The inputs and outputs must be fully transparent and accountable.
Science Council member bodies complained that they often put
considerable effort into submitting evidence but that they were
not then informed or made aware of the policy output or given
other feedback.
3.6. Member bodies emphasised that a good
consultation process would allow adequate time for them to gather
evidence. Few will have existing standing advisory structures
on the topic under consultation, and they will want to have time
to consult with their members and draw together the appropriate
experts and interests. Government has an unfortunate tendency
to work to very tight timescales when consulting on key issues
and policy areas. While the sector appreciates that this may sometimes
be unavoidable, for the most part more satisfactory horizon scanning
would enable consultations to be conducted over longer periods
which would facilitate a much more considered input from the science
community and other stakeholders. Consultations undertaken at
speed have a tendency to play to campaigning groups and others
whose opinions and views may already be well formed but may not
be underpinned by scientific evidence.
4. QUESTION 4
The case for a regional science policy (versus
national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle needs
updating
4.1. There are several different drivers
of research, including curiosity, translation and development
and policy needs: there may also have different research provider
options. The Science Council supports the need for government
departments to support their own high quality research and laboratory
facilities that are able to meet the need to address urgent policy
related issues or provide current data related to policy implementation.
4.2. Our member bodies voiced very different
concerns with regard to funding and strategies for curiosity driven
science research, research facilities, innovation and development
research funding. Some were worried that inter-disciplinary research
and translational research needs were not being met. Others expressed
concern about the need to protect basic research funding. Generally
the recent developments at RCUK to address interdisciplinary research
needs and changes in health research funding were welcomed.
4.3. We believe that it is important strategically
to maintain investment in basic research but at the same time
to develop better ways of setting priorities more broadly to embrace
both the inter-disciplinarity of issues such as climate change,
and the need to invest and develop science across the UK in order
to ensure both the workforce and enterprise can develop.
5. QUESTION 5
Engaging the public and increasing public confidence
in science and engineering policy
5.1. The Science Council, in its response
to the recent DIUS consultation on Science and Society, welcomed
the focus of the programme on the role of Government in establishing
well informed science policy, securing public support for science,
and in establishing the skilled manpower base to enable the UK
to address the crucial issues facing society today. In response
to our consultation, our member bodies supported strongly the
need to engage the public in debate about way in which science
was applied in and for society rather than in debate about scientific
evidence and data.
5.2. However, an exception to this would be the
practice of involving the public directly in the collection of
data on specific issues. Examples include RSPB's Bird Watch Survey
and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's Tracking Mammals
Partnership where, with guidance, individual members of the public
become involved in monitoring and data collection. Such activities
provide an opportunity to engage and explain the process of science.
6. QUESTION 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
6.1. The GO-Science Foresight programme
is felt to focus more on the opportunities within science and
technology rather than wider horizon scanning. We consider that
full science policy horizon scanning should aim to pick up on
more political or attitudinal issues such as European legislation
or the emergence of campaign alliances as well as workforce and
skills issues that will have impact on the UK's ability to take
develop the science forward. We would also suggest that policy
development processes should look more specifically at the international
perspectives, including the way in which the UK contributes to
and draws from international science initiatives such as the International
Polar Year.
6.2. The Science Council welcomes creativity
and innovation in the way stakeholders, including learned societies
and professional bodies, are engaged in determining science policy
and priorities. Members cited innovation within two government
departments in particular: the Department of Health and The Defra
Science Advisory Council.
7. QUESTION 7
How government science and engineering policy
should be scrutinised
7.1. The Science Council was disappointed
that the Government decided to change the role of the Science
and Technology Select Committee in the House of Commons and replace
it with a committee that shadowed the Department of Innovation,
Universities and Skills. The extension of the Committee's interests
to embrace science are welcomed but there remains concern about
whether the committee is able, or inclined, to undertake inquiries
that overlap the interests of other government departments such
as Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Children Schools
and Families, DEFRA, Department of Health, Communities and Local
Government, DCMS, DFID, FCO, Home Office, Cabinet Office and HM
Treasury.
7.2. There remains a concern that the Select
Committee's priorities will remain the science issues that are
within the remit of DIUS, principally science research funding
and science and society, rather than the use of science within
Government as a whole. In the past the House of Commons Science
and Technology Select Committee was able to address issues from
across science and publish reports from a broad perspective, across
issues where narrow operational interest might be within one department:
these reports have required a joined-up cross-governmental response.
The Science Council believes that cross-governmental science
focused inquiries should remain a high priority for the Select
Committee.
7.3. In our consultation with member bodies the
question was asked as to how Government centrally was held politically
accountable for the quality of the science that it relied upon
to develop policy. Although we acknowledge the central role of
the Chief Scientific Adviser, and that the Minister of State for
Science and Innovation attends Cabinet, it is not clear how the
quality of scientific advice is made accountable at this level:
there is no Minister responsible for the overall science agenda,
as with Women and Equality and there is no ministerial inter-departmental
working group, as for example on human trafficking. Similarly,
there is no single point of contact in the House of Commons.
January 2009
| 
