Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 77)
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2009
PROFESSOR DAVID
FISK, PROFESSOR
LORD JOHN
KREBS, PROFESSOR
JULIA KING
AND PROFESSOR
LORD MARTIN
REES
Q60 Dr Gibson: It is the PhD students
and the post-docs that do all the research. If you want research
you cannot do away with graduates.
Professor Lord Rees: Absolutely
not. Can I address this for a moment?
Q61 Chairman: No, we will leave that
there, thank you. John, you wanted to come in on very quickly
on this.
Professor Lord Krebs: I have just
one very brief comment on focussing and concentration. It is worth
bearing in mind the comparative figures in the UK: there are roughly
speaking 150 institutions that call themselves universities, of
which about 90% offer graduate programmes. In the United States
there are something like 4,000 institutions that call themselves
universities of which less than 10% offer graduate programmes.
That is just a comparative fact about concentration.
Q62 Dr Iddon: I believe that the
Haldane Principle is dead and that central government is now calling
the tune more and more. What does the panel think of the Haldane
Principle? Is it dead?
Professor Lord Rees: I fervently
hope not.
Professor King: I think it needs
renewing personally. It is treated with some awe and we should
move on and look again at how this should be done. Again, we are
talking about research at very much the basic research end. I
talk about research to mean things that go right into new products,
processes and business models in industry. There are some very
different issues across the whole innovation chain; you cannot
put it all into one bucket. I think there are areas where we should
be focussing and I actually think we should be trying to persuade
some of our very best young scientists and engineers to work on
some of these big societal problems and problems that could really
contribute to the economy. I think we have to make them attractive
enough that actually some of those people who might have been
applying for responsive mode funding and getting frustrated by
it actually see that there are some other opportunities for applying
their intellect which might be equally stimulating and the thing
that excites me is about seeing what they do actually translated
into real products and into the stimulation of our economy and
indeed into making the profits that will enable us to invest again
with more research in our universities. We have to see the whole
process.
Professor Fisk: It is my impression
that the Haldane Principle was dead in the early 1980s. It is
a 1918 principle. Apart from Magna Carta I cannot think
of any other principle that ancient that clutters around in public
life and I think actually its term is positively unhelpful for
the end point you want to have. It sounds as if it is Lord John's
barons asserting their right to do what they like. In most other
countries there is an analogous principle but it is one about
the freedom of the academic community in public life to contribute
to the quality of public life. It seems like a public interest
principle and not a self-interest principle. My own feeling is
that we ought to be much clearer on what we think is the value
of independent research in a world which is always changing. The
political system is solving today's problems but needs engines
at the back to try and understand what is really going on so that
next week's problems are more soluble.
Q63 Dr Iddon: This proves the principle
that if you ask four academics for a view you get four different
views.
Professor Lord Krebs: I am uncharacteristically
almost going to agree with David Fisk, a rare event. There was
an interesting piece written by Bill Wakeham about the Haldane
Principle in Science in Parliament recently and he draws
essentially the point that David makes, that although we all talk
about the Haldane Principle it is not exactly clear what we mean
by it. If we mean by it that decisions about allocation of funding
to individual projects should be made through peer review by scientists
for scientists, I do not think that has been eroded. Although
you talk about these seismic shifts and tectonic plates and various
other geological metaphors, I do not think what we are seeing
today is really that new in comparison with what we have seen
over the last 15 or 20 years. There have been many occasions when
science ministers have stood up and said, "We have to focus
on national priorities". To me it is all a matter of balance.
Of course we have to justify spending public money on scientific
research in terms of some broader benefits to society but those
benefits can be many and varied, including tapping into the global
knowledge base by having our own expertise, but as long as there
is a core of funding that is for scientists to judge what are
the most innovative, creative projects that are being offered
at the moment and to fund those, I think the Haldane Principle
is not dead as I interpret it.
Q64 Dr Harris: On the question of
strategic priorities, some of you have raised concerns about the
impact of switching money from one stream of research to concentrate
it in another, but it looks like the decision that they want to
do that has been made. Professor Rees, are you expecting the Royal
Society to be consulted on how to do it? You have given a view
that the way they are proposing is not the only way to do it and
which to switch into. Are you expecting to be asked for your advice
or are you expecting to be asked your advice and then the Technology
Strategy Board will give the answer? Or do you think you will
not be asked and it will just be for the research councils to
argue amongst themselves?
Professor Lord Rees: We shall
offer our advice whether asked or not, but I think we will be
asked. I hope we will be asked. We will offer advice because the
Royal Society is plugged in in a unique way to expertise in all
fields in the UK and I think our view is important.
Q65 Chairman: Lord Rees, could I
just broaden that question? There is a whole host of different
organisations which offer advice to government from, obviously,
the Royal Society and the Royal Academy and the other learned
societies (Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of Physics et
cetera). Is there a better way of actually getting that advice
in a more formalised way to government? Should we, for instance,
follow the route of the American academies where in fact the Royal
Society and other organisations are actually commissioned to provide
advice? After all, you have at your disposal a fairly strong body
of eminent scientists.
Professor Lord Rees: I think it
is difficult for government to get a whole lot of conflicting
voices which they have to calibrate and this was, for example,
a particular problem in science education. What the Royal Society
did in that context was to set up a consortium called "score"
involving other learned societies, chaired by Sir Alan Wilson,
to speak with one voice. We believe that that is an effective
way in which we can coordinate views and also have a more effective
and helpful input into the Government on that particular issue.
I think there are other examples where the Royal Society, because
of its unique range, can help and obviously it has to work as
appropriate with other academies and other learned societies.
As regards to the contrast with the United States, as you know,
the United States has three academies and they have NRC with is
a large institution with 1200 employees, I believe, that churns
out reports at the request of government. We, at the Royal Society,
are smaller and we are more independent, but we have a tradition,
we believe, of providing very high quality advice. I mentioned
over the last few years infectious disease in livestock, nano-science
and nano-technologies, (a report that was widely praised nationally
and internationally) on ocean acidifaction, bio-fuels and also
on educational issues. These are reports we do by being able to
draw pro bono from our expertise.
Q66 Chairman: My point is, should
you be commissioned to do this? Should there be a formal mechanism
by which government actually commissions you and pays you to actually
offer that advice?
Professor Lord Rees: The nano-science
one was indeed done at the request of government and we would
welcome further commissions of that kind, although we accept we
cannot perform quite the same role as the Foresight studies. At
the moment there is a Royal Society study on biological enhancement
of food crops production chaired by David Baulcombe, one of our
distinguished fellows and a Lasker prize winner, and they are
doing a comprehensive job in liaison with a Foresight study on
a related topic which is being done under John Beddington's direction
in the Government. So I think there can be complementarity.
Dr Gibson: Just for the record, there
were two nano-technology reports which came out at the same time;
it was a deal done between the Royal Society and this Committee
who decided they would not stand on each other's toes and they
complemented each other quite well. That was an example of working
together. The best example I know of is in the cancer field which
was again promoted by this Committee some time ago when we formed
the National Cancer Research Institute, not a red brick building
which I wanted in south London but one which was a virtual one.
I think it has been an outstanding success in which all the different
charities meet and decide on the policy that is going to be carried
out in cancer. They know they cannot take head and neck at the
same level as prostate and so on but they meet together and formulate
national policies. Are we going to have something like that?
Q67 Chairman: You can bring that
round to the central thrust in terms of what the Government is
trying to do in terms of choosing these areas where we are world
class to actually follow.
Professor Lord Rees: I think the
Royal Society has a unique role to help provide independent advice
by drawing on expertise. It must do this in coordination with
government and, quite apart from the major studies I have mentioned,
we have contributed to issues of plutonium, bird flu et cetera.
Q68 Dr Gibson: What about the Royal
Society of Chemistry and the Royal Society of Biology that is
about to be formed? Will you be formulating a group with them?
Professor Lord Rees: The Educational
Consortium does involve them of course.
Q69 Dr Gibson: Make it political,
you mean? That is what we are saying. You really have to tell
the Government or they will tell you.
Professor Lord Rees: Absolutely,
and we will offer advice even if it is not requested of us. I
think we must remember that President Obama, when he introduced
his dream team of science advisors, said that the Government should
listen to scientific advice "even when it is inconvenient,
indeed especially when it is inconvenient".
Professor Fisk: Chairman, my slight
concern would be that Americans are much sharper about the structure
of the public sector so they would be much clearer whether the
National Academy of Sciences reported to Congress or to the Administration.
They would be much clearer in their own minds whether or not both
the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering depend
on quite large streams of funding from Government which go through
swing door processes but broadly speaking they are not quite as
independent as you might have expected if they are only being
funded by the membership. Then of course they do have the problem
that although they have a brand title which is, as it were, the
whole distinguished membership, it is very unusual for any of
these reports and processes to be processed through the membership.
It will be processed through a small number of members, very distinguished
in their sphere, who have just few part time days that they can
contribute to the report. That is really quite different from
some of the very big national Academy of Science studies that
the world often talks about. If we were to move into this process
of independent advice—personally I find myself warming to
it—I think the Committee might want to pay some attention
to the mechanics to make sure that those who are giving advice
do feel that they are in a position to do so. Otherwise you will
simply have retypes by the policy divisions inside these various
institutions that is not moving very far from what you would have
received from the Civil service.
Q70 Dr Harris: I want to probe this
issue of independent scientific advice and to what extent the
panel feel that the Government is an intelligent customer, a mature
customer or even a rational customer. Let us say there is a controversial
area of policy—food supply—and Professor Krebs, who
is an academic active in the field, is asked to advise the Government
because he is an academic active in the field of publishers. Let
us say that he is head of Food Standards or something and, incidentally
to that, he publishes an article in a peer review journal that
comes to the view that GM is a good thing. The Government does
not happen to agree with this and they demand that he retract
and apologise for that view because it is not what they want to
hear. Professor Rees, if he was a member of the Royal Society
would you feel that that was an acceptable behaviour by the Government
or would you see that there were drawbacks to that sort of activity?
Professor Lord Rees: I think it
is crucially important that advisors should be independent. They
should be listened to seriously, even if their advice goes against
the preconceptions of the government department concerned.
Q71 Dr Harris: Do you think, Professor
Krebs, if that had happened to you or to someone, someone might
feel constrained in what advice they then gave independently to
the Government because they feel they might be hectored, bullied
and asked to apologise for their scientific publications if it
did not match what the Government wanted to hear?
Professor Lord Krebs: First of
all I think it is quite wrong that the Government should criticise
independent scientific advisors for publishing scientific work
in the peer review literature. There is absolutely no doubt about
that. They are free and able to do that and should be autonomous.
Whether they feel intimidated by pressure from ministers, if they
are put under pressure then they should not give in to that, they
should stick by their independence. I cannot judge what would
happen to individuals; I certainly would not be intimidated by
it.
Q72 Dr Harris: Professor Nutt did
apologise which suggests he did either feel intimidated or felt
he had something to apologise for. I am asking you whether you
feel that any advice that now emanates from that source might
be perceived—whether or not it is—as being somewhat
constrained by fear that there might be another public attack
on the messenger.
Professor Lord Krebs: It is very
hard to judge what the perception will be, but I would simply
reiterate that independent advisory committees are there to offer
independent advice and that is what they should do. As I understand
it—you are referring now to Professor Nutt's publication—that
was not in his capacity as chair of the Advisory Committee, that
was as an independent scientist. So it is one thing for him to
be attacked for his independent scientific work (which he should
not be) but it is a separate issue as to how that affects the
working of the Advisory Committee. I would emphasise the independence.
Q73 Chairman: I do not really want
to follow this line further as we only have five minutes left
of this session. When Lord Drayson was before you and my colleague
Evan Harris asked him what was the methodology for agreeing on
the areas of priority, he mentioned whether peer review would
be the way to do it and Lord Drayson thought peer review was.
Do any of you have a view as to how the Government should go about
choosing the areas where we should really put our priorities?
What would you do?
Professor Lord Rees: I welcome
the fact that he asked for wide debate and I think it is very
important that there should be wide inputs which bodies like the
Royal Society could coordinate. I would like to make one other
point since I, like others, am a university professor. We all
welcome the report from the CST which says that more could be
done to engage the academic community with policy making and obviously
academies and learned societies can do this. My own university
is setting up a science and public policy centre to provide a
clearing house, as it were, whereby academics can engage with
policy makers. I think that is a good model because we want to
draw more of the best scientific experts into the policy process.
Some are already savvy about these matters but many are not and
universities could help them.
Professor Fisk: The words "peer
review" are getting very close to the Haldane Principle in
my terms. What I have noticed, working with industry, is that
they have almost added an extra qualifier and use the words "peer
assist" which is essentially the critiques of your peers
but in a constructive fashion. We have drifted slightly in the
UK British science community into peer review being largely negative
and destructive. If ministers and government departments want
to engage with the scientific community they do need some way
of feeling they have an added value of constructive criticism
and over recent years that has been quite hard to illicit.
Q74 Dr Harris: Professor King, let
us say that the Government wants to invest in those areas of physical
and bio-medical where there is an existing track record and/or
potential for economic benefit. Throughout everything they have
said it looks as if it could almost have been written by Lord
Mandelson. Who should make that decision? They say they want you
guys to decide; do you think the Technology Strategy Board is
best placed to answer that question or university academics?
Professor King: I think it depends
where you are in the innovation chain, if you like. I would agree
with Lord Rees that there is an area of basic research which has
to be really high quality research which the Government and industry
should not fiddle with. I disagree with a lot of the debate how
the funding divides but that should be there and it is very precious.
It is for the ideas that you do not what good they may be in the
future but they are fascinating and interesting and we should
encourage some of our scientists to be doing exactly that kind
of thing. Who should decide on how you take the decision? It depends
on where you are in the innovation chain and how close you are
to exploitation and to having this impact on the economy. If you
are a company and make particular types of product you make very,
very clear decisions on what sort of R&D you want and what
you are going to fund in universities. There is not one size fits
all; it is a complex process.
Q75 Dr Harris: I know about this
cross-cut cutting stuff but there is a stream of astronomy based
research and applied, aerospace basic research physics and applied,
medical categories basic and applied and my understanding is that
the Government is not going to de-fund basic and put it all into
applied. It wants to expand the basic and applied streams in some
areas where there is either strength or potential and reduce it
in others where there is found not to be strength and potential
for economic growth. I am accepting that it is not an attack on
basic science in those areas; I am asking who should made the
decision if it is going to be made by peer review—as Lord
Drayson feels it could, international peer review maybe—whose
advice should they take? People like you and your board who think
about economic applications or the basic scientists?
Professor King: I am saying that
it depends on where you are in the innovation chain. The basic
scientists are the best people to look at the quality of basic
science and the opportunity there but as we are getting closer
to application and to actually using that research I think it
is very important that organisations like the Technology Strategy
Board, consulting with industry (the Board has a major programme
engaging with industry), are looking at, for example, what is
the important basic research? I would not call it basic research
if we know it is for aerospace because it is already applied by
the time we know what it is for. I do think that our industry
in that area should be helping to advise and prioritise that research.
Q76 Graham Stringer: Professor King,
we have heard that the Finnish Government did very well in helping
the development of Nokia—as mentioned earlier on—and
there are examples of government involvement and direction of
science in war where there are clearly benefits. What is the best
example in the recent history of the UK where the British Government
has decided to take a similar sort of initiative by saying that
investment in this part of science will help the economy? What
is the best example of where that has been successful in the UK
in the last 20 or 30 years?
Professor King: I have no feel
for the whole scope of what the Government might have done but
we have some outstanding examples like the airbus wing technology
which was funded by the old DTI programme. We have some outstanding
examples of technology in Rolls Royce large engines. Rolls Royce
moved over quite a short period of time from being a minnow in
the aero engine market to competing for top place in the engines
for large aircraft. It was then supported by funding of innovative
programmes through the DTI. So there have been some really outstanding
examples. The ones I know from my background happen to be in aerospace
but I am sure there are others in other areas.
Q77 Chairman: Lord Krebs, you have
the last word.
Professor Lord Krebs: In answer
to the question of who should decide, is it the scientists or
is the people who are applying the science, I think it has to
be a mixture of both. It is partly about the new ideas coming
forward and partly about how they can be applied.
Chairman: On that note could we thank
very much indeed Professor Lord John Krebs, Professor Lord Martin
Rees, Professor David Fisk and Professor Julia King. Thank you
very much indeed for coming to us this morning.
| 
