Memorandum 59
Submission from the Natural Sciences Committee
of the UK National Commission for UNESCO
PUTTING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE HEART
OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
This submission is provided on behalf of the
Natural Sciences Committee of the UK National Commission for UNESCO,
an independent civil society organisation set up by Government,
in partnership with civil society, as the focal point in the UK
for provision of expert policy advice, and for programme work,
relating to UNESCO.
The National Commission is part of the global community
of 195 UNESCO National Commissions. Unique to UNESCO in the UN
system, National Commissions function as essential partners both
of governments and of UNESCO, acting as catalysts to involve key
national actors in UNESCO's fields of education, sciences, culture
and communication & information.
"Has the time come for the UK—as part
of a clear economic strategy—to make choices about the balance
of investment in science and innovation to favour those areas
in which the UK has a clear competitive advantage?"
We address each of the points raised by the
Select Committee in turn.
1. What form a debate or consultation about
the question should take and who should lead it?
Given the importance and pervasiveness of this
issue, we are strongly of the view that the debate needs to involve
high-level stakeholders from a wide range of sectors, including
the research councils, industry, HEIs, NGOs and Government departments.
Consideration should be given to using the Foresight process led
by DIUS but with scrutiny provided by the Sustainable Development
Commission. A facilitated workshop would help to identify key
issues and explore some of the implications of pursuing particular
lines. The list of Government's own Public Service Agreement targets
could provide a useful framework.
2. Whether such a policy is desirable or necessary
Before attempting an answer, it is not obvious
what "clear competitive advantage" means in this context.
It could mean that we concentrate on what we already do well to
the exclusion of new areas of research—an approach which
will inevitably lead to stagnation. It may also make it more difficult
to fund cross-disciplinary research and collaborations both within
and outside the research community. There should be a balance
between what we are good at and meeting future needs (both those
already identified and those yet to emerge). The phrase might
also imply a reduced priority for research directed at vital strategic
areas but with no direct economic benefit.
Assuming that the phrase does not exclude such science,
then we believe that achieving a sustainable future requires excellence
and efficiency in the science base underpinning the development
and implementation of environmental policy not only within the
UK but in Europe and internationally. The intergovernmental/international
science programmes of UNESCO—Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC), Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), International
Hydrological Programme (IHP) and International Geoscience Programme
(IGCP)—provide an important coordinating framework for such
activities, helping to ensure that public funds are used to address
global problems in a more joined-up fashion.
Most global environmental problems require long-term
investment in science and engineering and any refocusing of UK
investment should aim to increase this rather than responding
to relatively short-term economic fluctuations. We therefore need
to preserve and further develop a national capability in key aspects
of environmental science quite apart from immediate economic outlooks,
recognising that with population growth, climate change, etc the
demand for such knowledge is only likely to increase.
3. What the potential implications of such
a policy are for UK science and engineering, higher education,
industry and the economy as a whole
Our perspective is obviously international with
a particular emphasis on working in programmes supporting development
in other regions of the globe. Refocusing our scientific effort
in terms of promoting UK economic competitiveness, as mentioned
earlier, could jeopardise this. However, we note the Prime Minister's
comments regarding poverty and inequality—that we should
be "enlisting science in the service of humanity". We
must have a policy that enables the free flow of information across
continents and not necessarily one targeted for hi-tech economic
futures of the UK; otherwise this would be just another form of
intellectual imperialism. However, we should also provide leadership
in science to the rest of the world in topics where we know we
can make a difference. We believe environmental science is one
such crucial area not only because of its intrinsic intellectual
challenges but because of strong linkage to sustainability and
peace. Reducing conflict, eg arising from mass migration in the
face of climate change, is itself of great economic relevance
and is likely to become more important as an issue with time.
It is welcome that the Government continues to hold
the view that increased spending on science and engineering is
required. The UK needs to have long-term environmental science
to underpin policy and because of public good arguments we believe
that should come from the public purse rather than vested interests.
Knee-jerk funding reactions to sudden economic changes although
understandable are to be avoided if at all possible. Experience
has shown that when areas of research expertise are closed down
they can take a very long time to re-establish and the increased
competition from other countries is likely to make this even more
difficult in the future. We also consider that the balance can
be shifted towards long-term, strategic, policy-driven research
without compromising on excellence; the Hadley Centre set up to
support UK involvement in the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change is a good example. There is however a pressing need for
better joining-up between research and policy and obtaining the
appropriate mix between universities, research councils and government
labs in achieving this. Returning to the international dimension,
we note with approval the recent decision to appoint the FCO's
first-ever Chief Scientific Adviser. That person will need to
look outside the department for the best scientific evidence and
it will be important that this engagement is with those parts
of the scientific community that have experience of international
programmes and organisations.
4. Were such a policy pursued, which research
sectors are most likely to benefit and which are most likely to
lose
Mention has already been made of the increased
priority that should be given to environmental research. There
are also spin-offs, eg the extraction of pharmaceuticals from
the deep ocean—the largest gene pool on the planet. The
energy sector is clearly of vital importance and Government has
made clear its commitment to renewables and clean coal associated
with carbon capture and storage. These continue to require much
research which can also benefit from private sector finance; however,
there is a strong need to ensure that knowledge sharing is not
impaired.
On the loss side, there is potential for the biosciences
to suffer. Although recent ministerial speeches on the subject
of this consultation have cited examples such as bee colony collapse,
GMOs, etc., thereby indicating awareness of the concerns being
expressed, there is a fear that this area may be hit at the expense
of the engineering and physical sciences.
April 2009
| 
