Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
LORD DRAYSON
26 JANUARY 2009
Q1 Chairman: For our second session this
afternoon, could I welcome the Minister, Lord Drayson, for his
first Science Question Time, and just to say for the record that
when a Minister for Science is in the House of Lords, and therefore
we do not in the House of Commons have the opportunity to question
him or her at the despatch box during official Question Time,
we invite the Minister to a Question Time with the appropriate
committee, and we are delighted that not only did Lord Drayson
agree but in fact offered to continue with the Science Question
Time which indeed my predecessor Dr Ian Gibson and Lord Sainsbury
agreed some time ago, so we are very grateful to you for that.
The process is that we let the Minister know the key areas that
we wish to question him on, I will read out the first question,
the Minister gives a brief reply, and then in fact we will question
him from that. I am going to start with question 3, Lord Drayson.
Does innovation, in large and small businesses, have to be a casualty
of the current economic situation?
Lord Drayson: No,
I believe it does not, Chairman. That is based upon my own experience
as having been a science entrepreneur myself, but also what the
data tells us about the way in which other countries have successfully
dealt with difficult economic environments, and how actually continuing
to invest in science and innovation is the way in which companies
can successfully navigate these very difficult times. I believe
that market share is won or lost in a downturn to a far greater
extent than in good times. That presents opportunities for companies
to invest, to maintain and develop their positions. It is important
that they seize that opportunity.
Q2 Chairman: Minister, it has been
for many years now the policy of the British Government, both
in terms of pure research and also in terms of translational research
or moving research through to wealth creation, not to be involved
in picking winners. Do you think the time has come to change that
policy, during this recession, and to become far more clear in
terms of where in fact government funding is going to go in terms
of research and development?
Lord Drayson: I think that we
need to look at the global environment, we need to note that the
countries with whom we are competing have made strategic choices
about the areas in which they believe they are best placed to
focus. They are marshalling their resources in those areas, and
they are often going further than that, they are targeting leading
academics, leading companies in our country, and trying to attract
them to theirs. So we have a global environment where it is not
so much that other countries are picking winners, but they are
making strategic choices about what they regard as areas of priority.
In that environment, I do believe that there is a strong case
for us to say what is the answer to the question of where the
United Kingdom is best placed to compete in the future, based
around an analysis of the strengths which we have, both within
our research base and our industrial base, and recognise that
we have to see a rebalancing of our economy post the credit crunch
and the global economic downturn. I think we need to have a hard-nosed
look at where we have real strategic advantage.
Q3 Chairman: Where is our strategic
advantage?
Lord Drayson: There are a number
of areas. An area which I would point to where the UK has something
that nowhere else in the world has is in the asset of the National
Health Service. The whole world faces the challenge of aging populations
and the almost exponential growth in healthcare costs, so there
is an enormous need for the development of effective modern healthcare.
We in this country are uniquely placed because of the asset which
we have in the NHS. This is something which our whole society
has supported. The patient databases, the expertise that exists
within the NHS provides a unique opportunity for us to not only
develop a world class healthcare system free at the point of use,
but also to develop a real strength in the life sciences, the
development of medical interventions, both pharmaceutical, biotechnology
and medical devices, and in doing so, create a world leadership
position which can then be converted into jobs and exports. Recent
trends, for example, in the way in which in cancer research we
have seen arguably now that the strongest place in the world to
do cancer research is here in the United Kingdom, and the way
in which the general public have consistently supported medical
research charities, and the fantastic partnership that exists
between the NHS, the science base, the work the MRC is doing and
these medical charities, I think that is an example where clarity
around a real strategic strength could be converted into a real
leadership position for the UK.
Q4 Chairman: Minister, just before
I bring Dr Gibson in, in terms of clarity around strategic strengths,
are you actually saying therefore that as Science Minister, you
would be arguing within the cabinet that in research terms, we
should in fact be putting greater resources into these areas like
medicine and life sciences, and in so doing at the expense of
what? Is there a recognition that that would have to come at the
expense of something else?
Lord Drayson: Firstly I would
say that the very nature of science means that you need to have
the underpinning science across the piece, so for example to do
good life science research you still need to have good statisticians,
you still need to have good physics.
Q5 Chairman: But not good medieval
historians.
Lord Drayson: I think we have
to ask ourselves whether or not this competitive environment which
we face requires us to be crystal clear about what is the vision
for this country's future, and how does the research base best
support the development of this country in an economic world which
is going to rely upon us being really quite excellent at the conversion
of science and innovation into wealth. There are areas that I
believe we can be extremely successful in. I think life sciences
and the earth sciences are two areas, for example, which are both
bang smack in the area of huge global growth and opportunity;
they are also areas where the UK has real strength, and areas
which we should capitalise on.
Q6 Dr Harris: Sorry just to press
you on the point, but we have a limited research budget going
through the research councils, and we saw the huge arguments that
there were about some changes in terms of solar terrestrial physics
through STFC, and the huge furore that that actually caused with
some re-adjustment of those budgets. What you appear to be calling
for is a much more significant re-alignment to actually support
these strategic priorities; are we clear that that is what you
are supporting? Because you cannot have it both ways.
Lord Drayson: No, I recognise
that. I am calling for a serious debate about the areas of focus
for this country in the future, and this is not about ministers
making these choices. We do have, I think, a very effective process
based upon both peer review and, for example, initiatives such
as the Technology Strategy Board, but it is about having a debate
about the question, just asking the question. Given that we are
in an environment where other countries are doing this, given
that we see real need to rebalance our economy, we need a diversified
economy, but we need to be clear about what are the key assets
which the United Kingdom has which puts it in a relatively strong
position, and where are those assets best deployed to ensure that
we are playing to our strengths? That is a debate which I know
will cause some interest, but I do think it is one which we need
to have because it is the reality of the environment in which
we operate as a country.
Q7 Dr Gibson: It is like the school
curriculum, I guess, when you talk to people about what is wrong
with the science teaching, the engineering teaching, all that
stuff, physics and maths, you get to the point when you say, "What
would you drop?" And nobody wants to say, "Forget chemistry".
I would, but other people would not say that. Are you tough enough
and is the Cabinet of this country tough enough to actually say,
"We are going to drop this and we are going to go for this"?
Now universities made that decision, because we dealt with the
furore of closing chemistry departments and physics departments
and so on, and those universities have grown, actually. It is
a hard decision to get away from the old world of how science
was taught and how science is practised. Are you tough enough
to do that, really is the question, and what would it be first?
Who has got it coming to them first?
Lord Drayson: Well, there is,
I think, a real need for us to debate this question and to come
to a settled view of what is the long-term vision for the development
of this country in a modern age. The opportunities which exist
for us to exploit this tremendous strength which we have in science
has to be paid for by somebody, and that money comes from us being
a country which is fit enough to be able to pay its way. For that
to happen, we have to be really excellent in these areas of the
future which are going to be the drivers of economic growth. Now
we do have the resources to do it. I believe that if we are smart
in the way in which we make those decisions, then we can grow
this country very effectively even though the environment is very
difficult, but it does require us to make these choices. These
are very difficult choices to make. I do not think it is going
to be helped by people sort of reducing this debate down to headline,
"Ministers pick winners"; that is the easy old rhetoric.
If I think about the decisions which I had to take when I was
in business, if I think about the decisions that I have to take
just in my life, in a business you have to choose what it is you
are going to focus on; in your life you have to choose what it
is you are going to focus on. I think countries do have to choose
what they are going to focus on. But you do have to have a strong
and broad science base to be able to do anything, and so one should
not make the mistake of just taking a thin slice through and saying,
"Okay, we can get rid of all of that because that is not
necessary". We need to recognise that a strong science base
requires strength in these broad fields, but in terms of the balance
of investment, linked to a clear sense of the strategic vision
of where this country can be most successful and grow, I think
that would be hugely added value, because it would also give a
real coherence and alignment to decisions which we make around
industrial policy and around educational policy, and I think we
can look at previous examples of other countries who have done
this very successfully.
Chairman: You have not answered Dr Gibson's
key question.
Q8 Dr Gibson: I do not think he can
really, because it would be hard for him to say, "I am going
to close Oxford University and everything in it, and everybody
from Oxford will go to Cambridge". That is the kind of breadth
of some decisions you have to make, because scientists accumulate
round each other. People go to where excellence is. In all the
discussions we have had in the last hour, you have not said anything
about that. For example, my favourite university is Dundee. Phil
Cohen got a lot of good people to go there, and it has just exploded,
because people went there because of the work he did. I think
that happens in Oxford and Cambridge and elsewhere, and you cannot
do that everywhere. There are only a limited number of excellent
scientists, and they will always gravitate where other people
are. It is not quite like football teams yet, but it is a bit,
with RAE exercises now. People gravitate to certain places. So
other places might have to close their biology or whatever because
you cannot have two places in East Anglia doing biology, you only
need one.
Lord Drayson: So if I am right
in understanding the question, are you asking me, do I believe
that there would need to be more concentration?
Q9 Dr Gibson: Yes.
Lord Drayson: Yes, I do believe
there would need to be.
Q10 Chairman: Ian Gibson's question
which I thought he was asking originally was: do you have the
bottle to lead this debate?
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q11 Chairman: Right. Thank you very
much indeed.
Lord Drayson: It is a bit late
now if I have not.
Chairman: Nobody is listening, Minister,
so you are all right.
Q12 Ian Stewart: This is very interesting,
and it is good to hear the grasp that you have, Minister, of some
of these issues. But let me just tell you that when this committee
went to China and Japan recently, late last year, and met with
the highest level to look at how they deal with encouraging young
people into engineering, one of the things that they were very
excited about was that "innovation" was in the name
of this new department. Now it struck me as quite strange that
they were so exercised by this in a positive way, but they were
genuinely exercised that the British government had the sense
to put the name "innovation" in there. You have given
us today quite a clear view of your thinking and your approach
to this, but we have a situation where that prioritisation that
you are seeking the debate about, with the complications that
we have had in discussion earlier about Haldane and all the rest
of it, you have a situation where the allocation of resources
becomes problematic, because the CBI have reported a downturn
in business contribution to research and development. Now should
the government therefore be taking up that slack increasingly,
and if it does think that it should take up that slack, how are
you doing that? And is it sustainable?
Lord Drayson: It is not going
to be possible; it is not right either, I do not believe, in circumstances
where businesses have taken the decision to cut back on their
R&D investment, for the government to step in and replace
that, because it is of a qualitatively different nature. I think
I have to say quite clearly that I believe it is a mistake for
businesses to do that. You are effectively eating your own seed
corn if you do that within a business. Businesses can get to the
point, I recognise—I have managed a business through two
recessions myself, I know how difficult the pressures can be,
and so it may be that individual businesses are under huge amounts
of pressure, and therefore, they see that is an area in which
they can cut back, but in my experience, businesses have two jobs
in a downturn that they really have to do. One is to survive,
and two is to really position themselves so they can grow when
the upturn comes, and that is why it is very important that that
investment is made. What government needs to do is maintain and
develop its investment in the science base and innovation to ensure
that it is doing everything it can to create an environment whereby
those businesses that do make that investment are able to realise
the maximum return from it, so that winners can emerge from that,
and making sure that the government does not cut back at all on
the science budget during the downturn. I am very strongly making
the point that it is key to our future success that we maintain
our science investment, and that is certainly what I am going
to be pushing for.
Q13 Ian Stewart: If you are successful
in that argument with business, and get them to increase their
contribution towards research and development, would that leave
government free to do more in the implementation side, and should
government do more in the implementation side?
Lord Drayson: No, I do not think
it will have that effect. I think the two are complementary. I
think there is a very important role for the government to invest
with the private sector research, and the process of innovation,
what we have talked about. I think that we need to look at interventions
which do a better job of overcoming this bottleneck which we have
identified in terms of the size of science based businesses which
we develop. The answer to that is in part government procurement
policies, because that can have a big impact, so we are making
some changes to that, but I think it is really down to business
to make the investments that they need and for government to make
the investments that it should in the infrastructure in our universities
and in our research.
Q14 Dr Harris: In terms of the radical
proposition that you have made, it has further implications, of
course you are aware, for other government policy, because one
of the things about the current system is that change in universities
happens slowly as peer review slowly shifts on the basis of the
work and innovation. If you want to have a large shift in funding
priorities, you have to plan the workforce in those priorities,
to build up one and to run some down. I would like to ask you
to agree whether you think that requires some lead-in time, so
how quickly do you think this can be done if it is agreed across
government; and secondly, does it not mean you cannot leave higher
education to a demand led market, you have to say, we are going
to need to double the number of biologists, at the expense of
these people who want to do these new fangled things that are
popular with students but are no good for your vision about what
this country needs?
Lord Drayson: We do need to recognise
that we have significant shortages in skills, at all levels within
science and engineering. That is something which we are seeing
as a picture which is not just unique to us but to other Western
countries too. We need to do a better job in part of addressing
the misperception that exists in young people in terms of the
development of a career within science. We see from our public
attitudes research that they really like the way science is being
taught at school, but they do not see how science is the basis
of a good career, whereas on the other hand, the data clearly
shows that there is going to be a huge demand in certain of these
sectors which I have highlighted for just these sorts of people
with very well paid jobs, with really good career progression
prospects. So what we do have to do is do a better of job of making
sure—for example, when we look at the climate change area,
we have made a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions by
80% by 2050, we are going to have to go to effectively zero based
electricity generation, that is going to require a significant
investment in infrastructure, it is going to require a significant
demand in the engineers, the scientists that are able to deliver
that. We need to be training and developing these people. So,
therefore, having the strategic clarity about those areas in which
we are going to need that capacity, not being put in a position
where by default we have to import that infrastructure, because
we do not have it located in the UK, I think you are absolutely
right, this is part of the picture. Other government departments
too will need to be part of this debate, identifying these areas
where—
Q15 Dr Harris: So you will have to
tell universities you are not going to fund any more media studies
because you want them to recruit, and this will filter through
to sixth forms hopefully so they will pick the right subjects,
you are going to fund this, you are not going to fund that. Universities
are not going to be independent to play the market as they wish
because the UK has certain priorities that have to be met and
we are funding higher education.
Lord Drayson: Well, we are right
at the start of this debate. How do you come up with effective
means to get that balance between market demand, how do you ensure
that people are motivated to want to choose those areas for which
there is the greatest demand from employers at the moment, we
have a mismatch, in that people are choosing to learn to do things
for which there is not as much demand as there are in others.
Is that a lack of information on their part which is leading them
to make those decisions? Is there a market failure—
Q16 Dr Harris: It can happen, can
it not?
Lord Drayson: It would not be
the first time. These are exactly, I think, the questions which
we need to answer. We start off by asking the question: do we
need to prioritise? What would prioritisation look like? I think
it would be actually good for the country to get a clear sense
of what it is we think we can lead the world in over the next
10 years. I feel really quite optimistic about it. I have mentioned
one particular area, I sincerely believe we could be the world's
best at life sciences if we really put our minds to it.
Q17 Graham Stringer: You mentioned
the commitment of this government, and we assume governments in
the future, to reduce carbon dioxide emission by 80%, and I think
when this committee has looked at alternative energy sources,
while the headline policy has been, "We do not pick winners",
when we have looked at it, actually, there are sufficient incentives
there for wind power and other alternative energy sources, so
that the government are trying to pick winners, and I think with
some fairly bizarre consequences. What I would like you to explain
to the committee is how, when you look at reducing carbon dioxide,
you would choose between investing in a new hydrogen infrastructure,
as opposed to having petrol for cars, wind power, tidal power;
or whether, when you were arguing in Cabinet, it would not be
better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer just said, "We
will go for a carbon tax and let the market decide". How
will you argue that out? I think it is a very exciting debate.
Lord Drayson: I think that the
realities of modern society mean that you cannot leave these things
just to the market. As an example, the decisions that need to
be made about electricity generation are massively influenced
by planning decisions, so therefore, making a decision as to what
is going to be the mix of electricity generation sources over
the next 50 years has to take into account the realities of the
UK geography. From that one would conclude that tidal power, which
is something which geographically we are well set up for, is going
to be a big piece, offshore wind in part because the nature of
the country, it is our weather, but also, and here we can take
into account the regional and historical capacity of the country,
the fact that we have real strength in marine engineering from
our offshore industry, so therefore offshore wind power is likely
to be an important component. We are a small country, highly densely
populated, therefore onshore wind power is more challenging. So
just in that paragraph I have given you a sense of where you would
be developing a clear sense of priority, based upon decisions
which take into account both the realities of the science of geography,
meteorology and our industrial infrastructure.
Q18 Chairman: We are not going to
be able to get through our three things, so with the committee's
indulgence, I am going to drop thing number one, because thing
number two really follows on from this debate. So could I ask
you: what changes have taken place to response mode funding formats
across research councils and how have these impacted on the research
community?
Lord Drayson: We are committed
to both forms of funding clearly. There is a trend towards larger
project funding, consistently placed over a period of time, and
this is something which we expect to continue, in fact something
which we encourage. We do think that creating an environment where
researchers feel there is this stability over a period of time,
where they have a sense that that is an area which is going to
be supported, there is going to be a critical mass of funding,
leads to effective and efficient research, and that is something
which we applaud.
Q19 Chairman: Minister, research
under response mode funding, and a great deal of what you have
talked about in our earlier session, and indeed in this session,
is really about this pull-through, and, if you like, creating
wealth from the research base. Yet if you looked at the Russell
Group's research that they did in terms of, if you like, the wealth
created from basic research rather than translational research,
their evidence indicated there was significantly greater return
coming out of blue skies research than anything else, and yet
the indication and the direction of travel which we have had earlier
in this discussion is that we are going to have greater direction
in terms of those areas in which we want to see research take
place. Do you not see that there is a sort of problem there?
Lord Drayson: Yes, I do. I think
that this is what makes science so fascinating, because science
by its very nature is unpredictable. You are dealing at the frontiers
of knowledge, there is a serendipity to scientific discoveries
which is unpredictable, so therefore, you are faced with the challenge,
as you have put your finger on, Chairman, of saying, okay, this
is an area—if you were taking a strategic view that the
UK either has a real strength or is an area of strategic importance
in the future, so therefore requiring you to be more directive,
but at the same time, history tells you that some of the most
important breakthroughs come through investment in the blue sky,
the pure research, which by its very nature is not directed. So
this is why this is really difficult to get right. Nonetheless,
I do think it is something which we need to try and do.
|
