Memorandum 81
Submission from the Open University (OU)
PUTTING SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING
AT THE
HEART OF
GOVERNMENT POLICY
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
issues raised by the Select Committee, referring to Lord Drayson's
question: "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 clear competitive advantage?"
What form a debate or consultation about the question
should take and who should lead it
Such a debate should be led by a body which has no
vested interests in the issue and which has democratic accountability,
such as a Parliamentary Committee, rather than by government-appointed
advisors.
To be truly a debate rather than a facade or fait
accompli, an inquiry should investigate key policy assumptions
underlying Lord Drayson's semi-rhetorical question. In particular:
— Clear? His question assumes that
a competitive advantage is (or can be) clear. If it is really
so clear, then do UK companies already pursue this opportunity
by investing significantly in the specific technique or sector?
What doubts are indicated about an advantage? Given the long history
of failed expectations for several technologies, what counts as
evidence of future commercial prospects?
— UK advantage? His question assumes that
the unit of competitive advantage is an entire nation, as if we
were all common shareholders and potential beneficiaries of any
return on investment. This assumption might be plausible if all
investment remains within a public-sector body, but is this arrangement
being proposed? How is the UK being conflated with specific private
interests?
— Science/innovation: His question
also assumes that more science can make a significant difference
to innovation and its economic competitiveness. As Lord Drayson
put it in his speech, we should "boost the economic impact
of our science base". This presumes many close linkages between
more science, innovation and commerce. Yet these links have a
long history of disappointment and failure, especially when starting
from science. Meanwhile resources have been diverted from alternative
innovation pathways, which need not depend on new scientific knowledge.
Whether such a policy is desirable or necessary
Such a policy may be desirable if key policy
assumptions (as above) are properly investigated, by drawing on
diverse views from experts and stakeholders, as a basis for scrutinising
specific proposals for investment priorities in scientific research.
Such proposals generally combine arguments about competitive advantage
and common societal benefits, thus assuming (or implying) that
these are complementary. Many such proposals also assume that
societal problems result from genetic deficiencies, as the basis
for a techno-fix. All these policy assumptions should be investigated,
putting a strong burden of evidence upon the advocates.
For example, speaking at the Royal Society on 4th
February, Lord Drayson's speech linked general societal problems—ageing
populations, ill health, obesity, etc—to NHS resources,
to genomics, to "the genetic basis of disease" as a
general assumption about its cause. From this tendentious conflation,
he has advocated private-sector access to the NHS database, in
the name of the public good. Whose problem is being addressed
by this solution?
As another recent example, the BBSRC Chief Executive
Professor Douglas Kell has requested an extra £100 million
for crop research to increase yields in ways not requiring oil-based
inputs, in order to avoid world hunger and food riots. "Only
science can bring the levels of increased production we need to
ensure safe, nutritious and affordable food for everyone",
he said.
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2009/090428_increased_funding_food_security.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8021000/8021960.stm
Such claims make several policy assumptions:
— that the growing appropriation of
land for global markets (mainly in animal feed and biofuels) must
be accepted as a natural feature of trade liberalisation;
— that world hunger is due mainly to
inadequate agricultural production rather than other causes, eg
small-scale producers losing income and access to land for local
food need;
— that yields are limited by currently
available crops due to deficiencies which could be corrected through
laboratory research; and
— that novel crops could significantly
increase yields without increasing inputs such as water, fertiliser
and chemicals.
Such assumptions have been questioned by numerous
studies. Alternative perspectives have been presented in the prestigious
2008 report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). All the above
assumptions warrant close scrutiny by drawing on diverse views
from experts and stakeholders, especially NGOs dealing with development
issues.
What the potential implications of such a policy
are for UK science and engineering, higher education, industry
and the economy as a whole
If public-sector investment decisions simply
accept the above assumptions, then the decision-making procedures
would lack democratic legitimacy. If public investment is directed
at techno-fixes (such as the ones above), then resources may be
diverted from understanding the wider causes of societal problems
and from addressing them, while benefiting only private interests
(at most).
If an inquiry systematically questions the above
assumptions, then the outcome could be quite different priorities
than those being currently advocated. Private interests could
complement the public good rather than subordinate it.
Were such a policy pursued, which research sectors
are most likely to benefit and which are most likely to lose
Benefit or loss may result, but not necessarily
for an entire sector of research or industry. A targeted investment
may favour specific techniques within a research sector, thus
pushing the sector along one pathway, while losing or weakening
other potential pathways. At issue is what counts as scientific
and societal progress; such a policy judgement should be democratically
accountable.
Note on my relevant expertise
For two decades I have carried out research on the
regulation and innovation of agricultural biotechnology, in projects
funded by the European Commission and by the ESRC. Now I am carrying
out an EC-funded study of the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy in the
agricultural sector (see www.crepeweb.net).
In the next few months we will have findings relevant to your
inquiry. I would be pleased to send you or to present more information
along those lines.
May 2009
| 
