Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 37)
MONDAY 26 JANUARY 2009
RT HON
LORD DRAYSON,
DR GRAEME
REID AND
MR JEREMY
CLAYTON
Q20 Dr Gibson: Tell us about learned
societies, how they could play more -- we have recommended from
a previous committee that learned societies and academies could
get involved to a greater extent in policy determination; do you
think they are or they are not?
Lord Drayson: I believe that this
is really to be welcomed, and so an example of this happening
in practice is that later this week, we will be launching a science
communications campaign to address the unfortunate fact that too
many people in our society regard science as an elitist endeavour.
We are going to tackle this head on on Wednesday, and we are doing
this in full consultation and support with the learned societies
who have been involved in the development of the communication
campaign, together with the research councils. I think it is the
first time actually we have the full science community on board
with the development of the campaign, which has been in response
to the policy development which has come out of the science and
society work. So there we went out, did the consultation, we asked
the general public, "What do you think of science, what are
the issues which concern you?", and we learnt some very important
things. On the one hand, we learnt that people have a very high
expectation of the power of science to do good, to address issues
of climate change, for example, to find a cure for cancer, but
whilst having those expectations of the importance of science,
when you ask them, "What is the impact of science on your
everyday life?", they regard it as unimportant.
Q21 Dr Gibson: Do you recognise that
all learned societies do not move at the same speed, do not have
the same understanding of the world they live in and how to engage
with the politicians; the black art of politics is different from
their type of black arts. Having been an academic, you know the
black arts of universities, much more vicious, I think, than the
politics we live in now. But there are differences between them.
Some are fast movers, some are slow movers, some do not even move
at all, and suddenly they discover late on that there is somebody
to engage with to make policy. Is that your experience?
Lord Drayson: I think it is fair
to say that there is a variety of different learned societies
in their focus, some have more, I think, of a focus on the modern
environment and the challenges that we face as a country today.
I think what we have to do in government is to work with them
in a leadership role, but very much bring them with us, and I
would point to the campaign on Wednesday this week, I would encourage
the chairman and the committee to judge whether or not this is
an example of effective working by my department, under my championing
of science, and working with the learned societies to address
what is clearly an issue for us as a country.
Q22 Graham Stringer: This Committee
has had contradictory answers out of the government when it has
asked questions about whether it is important whether or not science
is done in the regions, whether the government in actual fact
has a regional scientific policy. Some science ministers have
come and said, "We support Jodrell Bank, we support Daresbury,
we support science in the regions", and we have also had
statements in response to reports that it does not matter wherever
science is done, whether it is all done in London or whether it
is all done in Aberdeen. What is your interpretation of the government's
policy with respect to regional science policy, and your interpretation
of the Haldane principle, please?
Lord Drayson: My interpretation
is that the overriding factor which is most important is that
science, wherever it is done, has to be excellent science. It
is the quality of the science which is most important. Now for
science to be of high quality, it requires a critical mass of
scientists working in an area, supported with the right infrastructure,
having the ability to carry out the cutting edge experiments,
and in my experience, the ability to do that depends not just
on decisions about the future, it depends on history too. I learnt
in my own research that there is almost a genealogy to science,
like there are in so many other things in life, and therefore,
the existing location of expertise, the clusters of that expertise,
the location of infrastructure, is very important in terms of
where it makes sense for science to be carried out. So therefore,
the decision about the location of future investments of infrastructure
will have an impact on how that cluster of expertise is developed,
but we need to take into account the decisions rightly of the
peer review process, that is the principle of Haldane, that these
are not decisions which are made by ministers, they are made by
the science community, directed to make decisions, allocation
of resources, based upon where the excellence of science will
be carried out, but taking into account where the expertise and
the infrastructure lie.
Q23 Graham Stringer: That is a very
conservative policy really for a Labour government, is it not?
I hate the word, but it is a very non-pro-active policy. I understand
that the Cavendish laboratory is the Cavendish laboratory and
people are going to be attracted there, but would you not think
it should be part of a Labour government's policy to create another
Cavendish laboratory in Motherwell, Manchester or Newcastle, somewhere
else, so there should be more direction to the government's policy
about new investment?
Lord Drayson: I do believe that
history has shown us that it is very difficult and can be counter-productive
to believe that you can create a cluster of expertise. There are
many factors which lead to the development of a body of expertise.
Often that is down to one or two key individuals, and what I believe
--
Q24 Graham Stringer: Can I just interrupt
there? I accept that, that great scientists will attract the right
research workers. But what attracts great scientists quite often
is investment in equipment and facilities. There is a chicken
and egg argument here, is there not? The government can intervene
and say, "We will provide you with your latest atom smasher
[or whatever it is] in Newcastle", rather than in London,
Oxford or Cambridge.
Lord Drayson: You are absolutely
right, and I think there is one factor which we need to in future,
I believe, pay more attention to when we are making decisions
about infrastructure. There is no doubt that the decisions that
we take about next generation infrastructure will impact the development
of these future clusters of scientific excellence. I believe that
we need to think more in the future about that problem which I
highlighted in an earlier question about the process of conversion
of that science into wealth and jobs, and the fact that we have
had this bottleneck up to now where we have not seen the development
of our businesses far enough. I think that we can identify areas
in the country whereby there is the ability for businesses to
be spun out of research campuses, but to make sure that those
businesses are supported by the local councils for a strategy
of growth, so therefore when a business gets to the point where
it is looking at its first production facility, that it would
be encouraged to locate that production facility next to its R&D
laboratory, and that you are developing a critical mass of expertise
and wealth, not just in the science base itself, but also in the
commercialisation of that science. What we have seen, has dogged
us a bit I think up to now, is in some cases, it has been difficult
for businesses which have grown up, for example, out of the campuses,
from Oxford, Cambridge and London, to be able to make that growth
once they get to a certain size of business, and I think that
does force us to look for other developments of science campuses
in the future.
Q25 Graham Stringer: That is answering
rather a different point, is it not? That is answering what happens
to research when it has taken place and how the country or the
region or the local community most benefits from it. What I would
like to leave you with is a final question, and a thought really:
if you accept that money will follow scientists and current institutions,
then most of the investment in science, as it is at present, will
end up in the golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London.
Do you not think that for the next stage of investment, which
leads to those business clusters and could lead to better development
of them, that the government should review its policy on where
money is invested, and look to invest more in the regions?
Lord Drayson: I think that this
is something which should be constantly looked at. I do not think
that you can come to a conclusion about science policy and then
it is done. This is something which continuously evolves. But
I do think the answer to your -- you posed this as a chicken and
egg problem, where do you intervene in that process, I think you
are right in describing it as a chicken and egg problem. My answer
to where you would intervene is with the individual. In my experience,
what I believe is that what should come first is the world class
scientist, and therefore, my view as to an appropriate strategy
for a university anywhere in the country looking to develop would
be to identify: well, what is the subject area where we are looking
to become world class, and to try and attract to that university
one or more individuals who are world class in that area. What
that then does is attract grant funding, infrastructure, researchers
and industrial interest, which then builds that, and we have seen
that as an effective model. I think that is the key to the development
of science campuses in other areas in the future.
Q26 Mr Marsden: Lord Drayson, my
colleague Graham Stringer has pressed you quite hard on what I
might describe as the push/pull basis of where you invest, where
you build up critical mass and so on and so forth. I suppose if
one was being mildly caustic, one might say that to continue to
review things is fine if you are looking at it from the golden
triangle of the south-east and nothing is actually appearing to
happen to change that. But let me pick up the point that you made
earlier, because you were talking quite rightly with the chairman
about the whole business of engaging with different government
departments, and one thing and another, and I was interested in
what you said about local councils. The one thing I do not think
has been referred to so far is the regional role of development
agencies. Development agencies, after all, whether people like
it or not, now command a substantial amount of government funding.
Should you not be in your capacity now having a pro-active series
of discussions and involvements with RDAs as well as with the
ministers across government?
Lord Drayson: Yes, you are absolutely
right, and that is exactly what I am doing, so I have had meetings
with chairmen of the RDAs, I have been discussing with them their
views around the regional focus that they have in their area towards
clusters of excellence, how they can work with, for example, my
department's Technology Strategy Board to make sure that there
is an alignment between the investments that they are making,
the actions they are taking to attract inward investment, and
the decisions that the Technology Strategy Board is making, again,
independent from government, but making real choices about which
technologies government support goes into, and making sure that
all of that is aligned. I think you are particularly right to
stress this in this very difficult economic environment, where
we really do need to make sure that there is that alignment.
Q27 Mr Marsden: Can I just follow
that up with a quick question, and ask: again, you referred in
your previous answers to the importance of university impetus,
investment in positions and all the rest, are you convinced at
the moment that all the regional development agencies have an
effective and concrete strategy for working with higher education
institutions in their region to produce the sort of results that
you are talking about?
Lord Drayson: Well, one can never
be absolutely sure that everything is 100% as it should be, but
the impression that I get is that the RDAs are doing a very effective
job. The way in which the academic institutions and universities
have responded to this downturn has actually been to be pretty
pro-active, I think actually going out to their local business
community, reminding the business community of the resources that
the university can offer, are engaged with their RDAs, and this
is something which they absolutely should be doing in these times,
but the sense that I get is they are doing it. If there is any
feeling that they are not doing that well enough, I would be grateful
to learn that and follow that up.
Q28 Chairman: I think the problem
is that this is another department that looks after the RDAs,
and the reality is, as science and engineering minister, how do
you get a handle on that effectiveness? It would be useful—not
this session, but perhaps you could give us some feedback as to
what is the interdepartmental relationship which means that you
have a really critical eye rather than, as you have rightly said,
"I feel that that is okay", because I think you would
accept that that is not good enough.
Lord Drayson: Chairman, my sense
that that is working well is based upon having had a lot of interaction
over the last few months with BERR and, depending upon what is
the subject area, the government department that has a responsibility.
So I will give you a specific example, the challenge of moving
to a low carbon economy, the need to really change transportation
infrastructure, and a really good working relationship which has
developed between the Technology Strategy Board, in terms of the
investment in the low carbon innovation platform for vehicles,
working with two RDAs in particular who have identified this as
an opportunity for their region, who are putting in resources
and finance to support that innovation platform, and working with
the Department of Transport and BERR to make sure that the work
that they are doing is all aligned, so it is based upon that type
of experience. The way I engage on that is through specific projects
like that.
Chairman: I think it would be useful
if we could have a note from your department, Minister, to say
how effective do you feel all the RDAs are, because I think we
can all give examples of where an RDA does some terrific work
on a particular project, but there are certain RDAs, and I will
not mention them, who never get mentioned, if you follow that
drift.
Q29 Ian Stewart: Lord Drayson, I
am going to go back to the stuff that Graham Stringer pressed
you on, because I must admit, I am just a bit perplexed at the
answer that you gave. You have brought very specific skills, we
recognise, to the job of minister. You have described those skills
and why the government has allowed you to have a cross-departmental
role, to raise awareness and understanding about physics, engineering
and so on, and particularly with your commercial background. That
all sounds very sensible. But it is not surely that a single minister
should have the level of understanding about physics, science,
engineering and so on, the point there must be that the government
must have that understanding, and it just strikes me as very strange
therefore that we are talking here in very vague terms about the
lack of government policy or strategy, in terms of regional science
or innovation policy. In Haldane, as we have discussed recently,
the principle that is missing, of course, is a principle on funding,
and there lies the very complex area where government may have
a good view of what is necessary, perhaps government accepts,
for example, the Regional Studies Association report that the
north and periphery of the UK is relatively weak on innovation
systems. If that is accepted, and government says that it is sensible
not to have everything concentrated in one area of the country,
any kind of golden triangle, wherever it might be, that there
is the need to recognise excellence elsewhere in the country,
maintain and improve that, how can we have a situation where a
government will not say that it has a regional science policy
or a regional innovation policy? It seems a contradiction in terms
to me. Do we need to revisit and maybe have a Haldane principles
review for the 21st century?
Lord Drayson: I think you have
put the focus on a very important question which we have to ask
ourselves as a country, which is that in the current economic
environment, and looking at the way in which the world is developing,
and is likely to shape up over the next 20 years, have we been
strategic enough in determining the balance of our investments
in areas of science, in areas of industry, taking into account
what other countries are doing, and asked ourselves the question:
what are the areas that we have the best chance of being most
effective and most competitive in, how are those areas likely
to develop, what is going to be the competitive space, what is
it that other countries are doing, and are there opportunities
for us to be more strategic in the choices that we make? Now that
is an enormously big question to answer. Other countries are taking
the view that making strategic choices about areas of focus is
the right way of dealing with the enormous complexity and the
speed of change which is taking place in the modern globalised
world. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we believe that
is true too, and if so, what are we going to do about it.
Chairman: This is a regional issue which
my colleagues are raising as to whether in fact strategically
government should in fact be saying, "In order to incentivise
and use science and engineering and innovation as the main driver
for economic recovery, we ought in fact to have a regional dimension
to that", and government has consistently said to this committee,
"No, we should not".
Q30 Ian Stewart: Not only that, Lord
Drayson, if we take the analysis that Graham Stringer put forward
before, which you accepted, that great scientists attract funding,
projects, and so on, the assumption that could be taken from the
statement I made earlier about the Regional Studies Association
report, saying that we are relatively weak in the north and the
periphery of the country, but that does not recognise that we
have great scientists outside the golden triangle. It is not just
about generating great science and physics elsewhere in the country,
it can be about maintaining world class science elsewhere in the
country, and that is where certainly I find on this committee
the complex nature of this dilemma between Haldane and a government
not having a regional strategy for physics is really quite worrying.
I am glad you recognised that it was a big issue that you are
tackling.
Dr Reid: There have been some
really impressive innovations in science outside the golden triangle,
and I think just for the record we can think of research pooling
in Scotland where actually the physics community in particular
have developed Scottish physics research in some really exciting
ways; in Wales, we have seen the merger between the University
of Cardiff and the University of Wales Medical School; and in
the north-west, we have seen the creation of a major university
through the merger in Manchester. In each case, as I understand
it, these innovations came from the community and won support
from the public purse because of the quality of the ideas and
the ambitions that they were putting forward. So I think it is
probably overstating things to imagine that the government must
lead all of the innovations and determine the geographic distribution
of these innovations.
Q31 Chairman: Would you tell us one
major national facility that the government has supported in the
last ten years outside the golden triangle?
Dr Reid: I think I would have
to confirm the answer I am about to give, but I think that there
are supercomputing facilities going into Edinburgh.
Chairman: Is that not sad that you, who
are responsible for this area, cannot just name them off the top
of your head?
Q32 Graham Stringer: Can I say that
when we visited Daresbury, we were told that 97% of fundamental
research done outside of universities was done in the golden triangle.
Surely that is not a situation that any government, particularly
a Labour government, can be satisfied with? It is actually the
spatial distribution of investment, not just the fact that Manchester,
Wales or Scotland are trying to pull themselves up by the bootlaces
that is important, is it not?
Dr Reid: It is important, but
I think that the examples I gave before are not just about people
pulling themselves up, the university community in Scotland wins
a higher proportion of research council income per capita or per
GDP than the UK as a whole, they punch above their weight and
have done for some time, so there are high performing communities
outside the golden triangle, but the sheer scale of the golden
triangle—
Chairman: I think you are actually missing
the point that we are making. We understand that there are these
brilliant research groups that are appearing, and the government,
to be fair, funds them according to the brilliance of their science.
We have no complaint about that, I do not think, as a committee.
It is the other thing, as to how government incentivise with major
facilities other areas of the country, but I would like to leave
that at the moment because we are desperately short of time, and
to bring in Evan Harris.
Q33 Dr Harris: Good afternoon, Minister.
I just want to look at the issue of scrutiny and to a certain
extent transparency. My first example comes from what we have
just been discussing. I do not know if you read our report on
the science budget allocations, which was dominated by the whole
STFC business, and the government's response, and then there was
a debate in the Lower House on this, but there is this difficulty
of understanding what the government's position is on this. I
think everyone agrees that the government's role is to set out
the overarching strategy, John Denham made that clear in his speech
in April 2008, and you may have more to say on how you are developing
that in due course; and that researchers peer review, the research
councils decide which projects to fund, particularly on the detail.
So the question is: when it comes to where you site something,
like a collider or something, and there are different bids, is
it for the government, is it a strategic decision to park it in
the north-west or south of Oxford? The difficulty we had in that
report, just to shortcut this, is that on the one hand the government
said, "We do not interfere in those decisions", but
on the other hand, there was clear evidence which we concluded
which showed the STFC council, once the government had seen their
draft, had to change their decision on what they were going to
site at Daresbury, and those of us from the golden triangle do
not feel that there should not be a regional policy in the north-west,
but if there is, it should be explicit, and then it can be scrutinised
by us and the science community. I happen to think, and this is
my view, that when it is government money or taxpayers' money,
then the government is entitled to have a view on issues like
where it should be spent. It does not mean that it is intervening
on the quality of the science. I was wondering if you could reflect
on that, because that is where we are struggling: the government
says it does not have a regional policy, but it appears from reading
between the lines of what is happening that when it comes to something
politically sensitive, they very much do.
Lord Drayson: Firstly, I would
say that when a decision is taken about the location of a major
piece of infrastructure, it clearly will have a strategic impact,
and what is important is that the strategic impact of that decision
takes into account the regional development agency piece, in terms
of does that piece of infrastructure lead to the facilitation
of the commercialisation of that science. So, for example, investment
in a supercomputing facility, will that decision, which will have
a strategic impact, have an impact in terms of the location of
the development of a cluster of spin-out businesses, for example.
But the decision on the location of that in the first place has
to be driven by, I believe, this recognition of the key driver
of the excellence in the individuals who are doing the science,
that is what comes first.
Q34 Dr Harris: So the regional dimension
is one factor?
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q35 Dr Harris: Would it not be good
if the role of government in that decision, if there is nothing
to hide, could be out there and transparent, and that is why I
was wondering if you would consider reviewing the decision of
the department, DIUS, not to release the allocation letters to
the research councils, even if they have to be blacked over for
commercially sensitive issues, just like you do release the allocation
letter to HEFCE. It is still all taxpayers' money, it is still
all public funding of research and teaching and research, in the
case of HEFCE, but it is disappointing that the government so
far has refused to release the content of those letters, so we
know and can scrutinise what the government says has some strategic
elements to it, because I do not think we disagree that that should
be permitted.
Lord Drayson: I think that as
we go forward, your argument about the need for clarity around
a view about the strategic impact regionally of key investments
does make sense to me, and so that is something as we go forward
which I am happy to take back and look at. I am actively working
with the RDAs in terms of this link-up between the interventions
which they are making and the science base, but I do not see any
benefit or need in terms of going backwards. I think as we go
forward from here, particularly in the context of an overall strategy
relating to our science policy and the development of wealth from
that science, making decisions about the strategic investments,
it does make sense to take into account the regional aspect.
Q36 Dr Harris: Can I just ask you
then about this issue, again, continuing on the scrutiny theme,
of what you said earlier? You said that you were driven by a wish
to see government policy based around good science and have wider
recognition in government of the virtues of the scientific method.
I think we all accept that policy does not have to be evidence-based,
but then it should be labelled as not evidence-based. To what
extent do you think government understands that if it does not
accept the clear advice of its scientific advisers, then it needs
to be clear in its public statements that the policy that they
have implemented, which they are entitled to, for ideological
or economic reasons, is not one based on the scientific evidence;
do you see the problem? Because if they say, "Well, it is
still evidence-based, we just disagree with the scientists who
are advising us", it rather debases the language of evidence-based
policy.
Lord Drayson: I think that it
is a fact that science, the evidence, is one aspect of the factors
which are taken into account when making a policy decision, and
I do think that it is a benefit to be transparent about the reasons
why a decision has been come to. I think that it is of increasing
importance to develop good use of scientific method in the development
of policy, I think that is something which could be developed
further, for example, in areas of social policy, operating on
the basis of a sort of clinical trial development in an area:
piloting something, getting good data about its efficacy, whether
or not it has achieved its end points, before rolling it out into
other areas. That is something which is being increasingly done,
and is to be supported.
Q37 Dr Harris: Absolutely, with sensible
and pre-agreed outcome measures. My last question is around a
specific example. If you take government drug policy, which is
something this committee has declared on, there has been consistent
advice from the advisory council on the misuse of drugs about
the classification of cannabis. In the government's response,
which was to reject it, at no point did they say, "We now
recognise this is not an evidence-based policy, it is for other
reasons", which it is not the remit of this committee to
comment on, that is for Parliament to decide. I just wonder whether
you think there is a price to pay for that, because if that happens
again, if/when the committee reports on Ecstasy, and the government
on the same day that that report is published says, "No,
we absolutely are not going to accept your clear advice on this",
then do you think there is a danger that scientists are going
to be not prepared to give their time to advising the government
if the government is saying, "This is a scientific question,
we are interested in the evidence", but then almost pre-empting
that by rejecting it for non-scientific reasons without being
clear that they are non-scientific.
Lord Drayson: Well, I believe
that scientists are sophisticated people and they understand that
these questions of policy are complex, they have to take into
account a number of different factors, and therefore, what scientists
expect is that the contribution that the data, that science can
make, is fully employed, where it appropriately can be, and then
the decisions are taken based around it with clarity about the
way in which that decision has been reached. I am not getting
a sense that there is any disillusionment amongst the scientific
community in the way in which they are engaged; quite the opposite,
I get the sense that the scientific community welcomes that engagement
and sees that as a positive trend.
Dr Harris: Because there was a pretty
strong letter to The Guardian about this issue.
Chairman: I am going to stop, that is
something clearly we will come back to, it is a constant thread,
but we have overrun, and I am going to leave the last question,
I am afraid, because we have overrun on this session. Can I thank
you very much indeed as far as our inquiry is concerned, thank
you very much indeed, Lord Drayson, Jeremy Clayton and Graeme
Reid for your evidence.
|
