Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 394)
MONDAY 18 MAY 2009
18 MAY 2009 RT
HON LORD
DRAYSON AND
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON
Q380 Mr Boswell: At the other end
of the spectrum, there has been some concern expressed about the
capacity of government departments to carry out their own science
research, which in a sense may be more related to the immediate
purposes of government, or to competitiveness. I think what I
am feeling after is whether you need a more articulated approach
with lots of curiosity-driven at one end, and a bit more development
at the other. Do you see this as a difficulty, and is it something
that you as Science and Innovation Minister can drive and get
changed?
Lord Drayson: Yes, I think this
is an area for concern, that whereas I have expressed my confidence
with regard to the centrally funded science ringfenced budget,
I am concerned about some of the trends which we have seen in
terms of science funding within government departments. I think
this issue was recognised some months ago. We have addressed that
through the mechanism of the new science and innovation Cabinet
sub-committee, which I chair, of which John is a member, where
we have been reviewing departmental plans for research, we are
going through a process whereby we are requiring each government
department to be updating the committee on its future plans, and
we have been in particular addressing a clear deficiency, which
I have highlighted to the Committee previously, around the mechanism
within government for cross-departmental scientific research projects,
and I think we have made some good progress on that.
Q381 Mr Boswell: And you will keep
a degree of transparency on that, within the normal limitations
of government?
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q382 Graham Stringer: If I can just
go back very briefly to Evan's first questions about scientific
controversy and what your reaction was with Professor Nutt, in
a sense I am more concerned about where there is not public controversy,
when the government has used pretend science, and how you intervene
to say, "This really does not have a proper scientific or
evidence base to make future policy". I can give you one
example, possibly others. When the government announced its Every
Child a Reader programme, I cannot quite remember the title, they
did some research which essentially put quite a lot of money into
remedial teaching of literacy, and there were no control groups.
Having put however many million pounds into that in however many
schools, they said after that, the children read better, therefore
we know how to proceed. That is not scientific, without control
groups and comparisons, that is just wasting money on things we
already knew. Not for the children involved, but as the basis
of an experiment. When you see an obvious misuse of science like
that, how do you intervene?
Professor Beddington: Well, it
is an example I am not familiar with, I should say at the outset.
Q383 Graham Stringer: It is in the
literature.
Professor Beddington: Yes, I understand.
I was explaining that I am not familiar with it. I can become
so. I think that where science appears to be done badly, it is
important that I should draw the attention in this case to the
chief scientific adviser in the appropriate department and say,
"This looks to be rather poor". I have not done so,
because I have not looked at it, but I am more than happy to raise
this, and I think the issue is really one that is quite important,
and one of the reasons why it is important, I believe, to have
chief scientific advisers in every department is that where bad
science is done, we can actually raise that issue with the chief
scientific adviser of the relevant department, because that is
where the responsibility lies, but ultimately responsibility lies
with me, but if these things happen, and this particular one I
was not aware of, I think it is important to say this research
is not adequate to justify the policy.
Q384 Graham Stringer: That begs the
question, does it not, what mechanisms have you set up to find
out where there is pretend or bad science going on?
Professor Beddington: One of the
key things we have done is to set up these science reviews of
different departments, and they were rather long ones where we
looked at a lot of examples, and indicated bad or good practice,
and indicated where we were concerned about how scientific advice
was being developed and used. Those reviews are going to be much
quicker now, and I am hoping to cover all of the main departments
within the next two years. So that is one mechanism. I do not
have a mechanism for looking at all science developed in government,
I see that as devolving to the responsibilities of the individual
chief scientific advisers, but I would think if something which,
as you characterise it, is a rather gross omission of sensible
scientific practice, then it needs looking at. It is obviously
in the area of social statistics, and Paul Wiles is the government
chief social science adviser, but he sits on my advisory group,
and it seems to me that is the sort of area where we should actually
be doing it. I certainly would not try to defend the idea, or
use it to defend that there are some areas that we do not have
the time to look at. We have to deal with that.
Graham Stringer: I take it then that
you will look at that.
Dr Gibson: Can you just take two points,
Graham?
Q385 Graham Stringer: When the Committee
was in the United States, we asked the questions that we had been
asking the government for some time about regional science policy,
whether there should be, as part of the grant allocation to scientific
bodies, an understanding about poverty or deprivation in the region
they are going to, whether that was relevant. The government has
come back each time and said we allocate money according to the
Haldane principle. What we found in the United States was a completely
different system, where they had a block of money that they gave
to the scientific elitist states, the Massachusetts and Californias
of this world, and then another block of money, nearly as large,
which they gave to those states that had universities doing scientific
research, but were not the Harvards and Caltechs of this world.
Would the government relook at considering the Haldane principle
against that evidence?
Lord Drayson: No, I think is the
direct answer to that question. I think that when one looks at
the productivity of UK research and the strength of science in
the UK, considering the size of our country, the resources which
we put into it, we believe that the principle of funding the best
possible science, excellence in science, wherever it is regionally,
is the fundamental pillar which has led us to the very strong
science base that we have. So changing our policy in the way in
which you suggest, whilst recognising that that is the way in
which the United States, for example, pursues it, that is not,
we believe, the right way to go for the UK.
Q386 Graham Stringer: But do you
not think that in those circumstances, and we have had this debate
before, I do not want to push it too far, you are just intensifying
the concentration of excellent research in the south-east triangle
of London, Oxford and Cambridge, the golden triangle, at the expense
of the rest of the country, where there is good research done,
but it gets increasingly difficult to compete with ever increasing
amounts of money going into scientific research in those three
areas?
Lord Drayson: I recognise the
concerns, and as you say, this is something which has been part
of national debate around science for some considerable time.
I believe that we as a country cannot really afford to be competing
internally within the United Kingdom. We are competing internationally,
we need to generate the strongest possible research communities
based around excellence here in the United Kingdom, and the way
in which we have seen excellence prosper within our universities,
the fact that we have such a disproportionately large number of
universities in the top ten, for example, in terms of global rankings,
reflects the effectiveness of our policy.
Q387 Graham Stringer: In debate with
the Committee about the Haldane principle, John Denham in April
2008 said that one of the safeguards of guardians of the independence
of science and academic freedom was the research councils. Professor
David Edgerton when he came to the Committee said he thought that
was curious, and did not really believe it was the job of the
research councils, that independence and academic freedom came
from academic societies, universities and individual academics.
The job of the research councils was to allocate funding. Do you
not think, when there is debate both about the regional allocation
of funding and what the Haldane principle means in the allocation
of funds, that government should not take another look at the
Haldane principle, and have an open debate and discussion about
it?
Lord Drayson: I think that there
has been considerable debate about the Haldane principle, the
mechanism by which this government, in the context of other government
policies, makes decisions about allocations of science funding,
but I agree with the point that academic freedom is also in the
hands of the learned societies, academics themselves. But I do
believe, and my experience as Science Minister certainly reinforces
that belief, that the independence of the research councils are
an important contributor to this, and therefore the so-called
Haldane principle is alive and well and effective in these changing
economic circumstances. The fact that we have gone from a period
of very high growth to one which is presenting the country with
really quite significant but different challenges, and that we
are confident that the principle by which research funding allocations
have been made remains effective in that, I think speaks to the
effectiveness of these principles.
Q388 Dr Gibson: The last question
is about the science and society consultation. I seem to have
spent years listening to all of this. Is there anything different
coming out of it or is it just money down the drain in your opinion?
What have we learnt about the recent consultations?
Lord Drayson: I think the most
interesting new information from this consultation is the general
view that there is a greater role for Government, and I would
say that is probably counterintuitive, and therefore surprising,
but that is indeed the feedback. In other words, the community
whilst, absolutely as one would expect, sharing the need to develop
a scientifically literate society and raising the profile of science
made the case pretty clearly that there was an expectation that
Government would be more involved in ensuring co-ordination and
some consolidation of activities. I would say the primary feedback,
which we are and will be acting upon, is to try and get greater
synergy between the myriad of schemes that exist to promote science
and develop a scientifically literate society. We have had the
example of that in terms of the Big Bang Fair promoting science
and engineering to young people. We are encouraging a number of
different organisations to work together which had been separately
trying to promote science and engineering to children at school
and I would say this is going to be, if you like, the overriding
theme of the output from the science and society consultation.
Q389 Dr Harris: Professor Beddington,
when you have been with us before we have talked about the role
you may play in scrutinising the scientific rigour of other departments,
as you know. I just wanted to come back to your and my favourite
topic, which is homeopathy. Do you think it is right that homeopathic
treatments for which there is no evidence that they are effective
should be allowed to claim that they are effective and have that
claim approved by none other than the MHRA which is responsible
on a fact-based judgment, it says, for ensuring that "We
license safe" obviously, I do not think there is any question
about homeopathy there, "and effective medicines"? What
is going on?
Professor Beddington: What is
going on at the moment is, first of all, I did write to the Chief
Medical Officer about this indicating that I was concerned there
was a misunderstanding between the Committee and I that you appeared
to think in some comment that I was defending the use of homeopathy,
which I was not, and I hope that has been clarified. I indicated
to the Chief Medical Officer that I had real concerns that homeopathy
which had no scientific justification of its mechanisms was being
used. He wrote back to me to indicate that he believed this was
a decision to be taken by individual health authorities and individual
physicians. He indicated to me the scale of the problem—and
I cannot quote the exact figures—was something of the order
that in 2007 the cost of homeopathic medicines to the National
Health Service was about £390,000. Clearly that massively
underestimates the amount that is being spent by individuals,
but in terms of a cost to the National Health Service and their
bill it is £390,000 in £8.4 billion or something of
that sort. Subsequent to that I have taken this issue up with
the Director General who is dealing with these matters, Professor
Harper, to say can we explore this further, and we have had one
meeting on this issue. If we had not then had swine flu arrive
we would be continuing to follow this through. I am also in the
process of reading Trick or Treatment by Singh and Ernst,
which I am thoroughly enjoying, and am looking at these issues.
There are some difficulties, but I certainly recognise that this
is an issue I should look at that.
Q390 Dr Harris: I am grateful for
that but my question was about the MHRA issuing a licensing for
Arnica and the label will now read: "A homeopathic medical
product used within the homeopathic tradition for symptomatic
relief of sprains, muscular aches, bruising or swelling after
contusions". Professor Ernst, who wrote that book, published
a trial—it may have been a systematic review—in 2003
that showed no benefit from Arnica in the prevention of pain and
bruising after surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome, but with more
adverse events in the Arnica group, if you can believe it, than
in the placebo. Yet there is an MHRA stamp saying this has an
indication "for the symptomatic relief of sprains, muscular
aches, bruising or swelling after contusions". What is the
MHRA now? This is not about the NHS now; it is just about giving
advice to consumers, vulnerable consumers, people with pain and
bruising. What is the MHRA now, is it a marketing aid to the homeopathic
industry?
Professor Beddington: I do not
know. I was not aware of this particular instance that you have
cited but I will look at it.
Q391 Dr Harris: I will send you the
details. Can I just say that the first reader's comment to the
Pulse article from an advocate of homeopathy says: "The
age of homeopathy has arrived. The higher vibration of homeopathics
resonates with new information and knowledge of quantum physics
and the nature of water". It must be a happy day for the
MHRA to have that endorsement.
Professor Beddington: I think
you will expect my comments to be along the lines of your own.
Q392 Dr Gibson: Let us move on a
little to think about scrutiny on behalf of the public again.
Do you think there is a need for a parliamentary scrutiny of science
and engineering across departments? I know you have organisations
looking at this, but I guess many of us think we are missing out
on these areas by having DIUS doing many different things. Do
you think we need a science and technology scrutiny committee
again? What is your experience? In both the Commons and the Lords
they both did play their part.
Lord Drayson: The House of Lords
has a Science and Technology Committee that does an excellent
job. The scrutiny of science and engineering and technology within
Government is incredibly important and becoming only more important
in the future, but matters relating to the way in which that is
put in place by the House of Commons is not a matter for me to
comment on.
Q393 Dr Gibson: Do you think there
is a dimension missing in this without proper overall parliamentary
scrutiny in the Commons as well as in the Lords? Do you think
we suffer for it?
Lord Drayson: I have not had an
experience in my six months as Science Minister to lead me to
that conclusion.
Q394 Dr Gibson: Are we doing a good
enough job for public accountability? Dr Harris has mentioned
that homeopathy is getting away with treason.
Professor Beddington: Certainly
I have not found this Committee a pushover in the sense that I
feel when I come before this Committee you ask me sensible, pertinent
and, on occasion, quite difficult questions. Whether, in fact,
the brief of the Committee, which goes significantly wider than
science and technology, constrains you, I cannot judge that I
am afraid. I have only experienced this since I actually arrived.
Dr Gibson: I think that concludes this
session. Thank you both very much indeed for giving us your time.
|
