Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON
5 NOVEMBER 2008
Q240 Chairman: Could I say, in response
to the comment you very usefully made to Des Turner about producing
a GO-Science annual report, that of greater interest to our committee
and the point that Des was making very strongly is this issue
of a report which talks about science across government. Will
that be included within your annual report or will that be a separate
submission? What this committee is interested in is in fact that
whole issue of where science fits across government and what is
happening. Can we have that commitment from you?
Professor Beddington: There will
be some commentary on it; it is not an enormous report and so
to do this comprehensively is more complicated. Can I focus on
some of the things we are doing? For example, we have this year
brought out a report on the review of science in the Department
of Health, which is comprehensive and published separately. We
are in the process of doing a review of the Food Standards Agency.
These are the detailed reports that actually give you a detailed
level of how we believe science is being done in a particular
department.
Q241 Mr Boswell: Clearly there are
two approaches to this: one is a global one through a GO-Science
annual report; the other is a distributed reporting on science
in the Department. Do you see that business about encouraging
departments to have their own chief scientists and reporting coherently
on their work as being an alternative, a complement, or how does
it relate?
Professor Beddington: I think
it is a complement. Chief scientific advisers within departments
obviously will report to their own individual Permanent Secretary
and they do not report to me, so that they have responsibilities
within the department. I think the role of for example the science
reviews is to go in and challenge whilst that science is being
done and it can be critical or not of how the chief scientific
adviser in the department has been operating within that department.
Q242 Dr Iddon: John, there are a
few notable exceptions for departments that still do not have
chief scientific advisers; dare I mention the Treasury. Are you
going to pursue the line that all important state departments
should have a CSA?
Professor Beddington: I believe
that is the line. I would say that we have had some reasonable
successes. Culture, Media and Sport has now appointed a Chief
Scientific Adviser, which was something that my predecessor I
know struggled long and hard to achieve. Also the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office have decided to appoint a Chief Scientific
Adviser, which I think is a very important step. You have singled
out the Treasury which does not have one. Yes, I think it is important
to examine that issue, but I have been reasonably pleased by the
way in which when I engage with departments and have dealt with
these issues there is an openness to have chief scientific advisers
which I had not expected. I thought there was going to be a great
deal of resistance. I would say that the fact that the Foreign
Office now has a Chief Scientific Adviser, or will be appointing
one shortly, is an achievement, and DCMS has actually appointed
one, whom I met last week.
Q243 Dr Iddon: Going back to the
departmental individual science reviews, these have been welcomed,
but this committee has been critical of how slowly they have been
produced. Is there any way we can speed up that process? Can they
be done independently of government by appointing outside agencies
to do them and, more importantly, when they have been produced
with the recommendations in them, are you pursuing those recommendations
to see that individual departments are not ignoring these reports?
Professor Beddington: I will answer
your question in three portions. First of all, the speed of the
reviews: I absolutely agree that they were ludicrous in my view.
I took part in the one on Defra and it seemed to be going on forever.
I think I had two grandchildren in the interval while that report
was operating! I was aware of this. Very soon after coming in,
I commissioned a review of reviews in co-operation with the Heads
of Analysis Group, which is led by Nick Macpherson of the Treasury.
We commissioned a consultant, Peter Cleasby, to come forward with
recommendations on what was good and what was bad about the previous
practice and to make recommendations about the future. The answer
is that he has come forward with proposals which the Heads of
Analysis Group have accepted and which I accept, too. The new
reviews will be significantly shorter, maximum three months; they
will be conducted in a completely different way from other reviews.
They will be jointly owned by the Permanent Secretary of the department
concerned and myself, and they will be driven at a very high level.
There will be an immediate going in to look and see what are the
key issue and if some things worry us, then we would start to
look at those in more detail. The idea is to go in—I would
not call it a quick and dirty look—and have a quick and
very detailed look at the way in which science is used in government.
The pattern of reviews which we would then plan to start early
in 2009 should mean that we will be able to get a lot more done;
we will be using consultants to help us and we will be using a
much higher level of professional input into these reviews. I
think that is the right way to go. That is the answer to the first
question. In terms of the follow-up, yes, we are doing follow-ups.
At the moment, on the Defra review, which I sat on as part of
the panel because at the time I was chairing Defra's Science Advisory
Council, we are following up with Defra to see how the recommendations
are moving. In fact, before the end of this month, I have a meeting
with Bob Watson, Chris Gaskell who chairs the Science Advisory
Council and Watson's Head of Science, Miles Parker, to follow
up those recommendations. That is important. The one that I inherited
from Sir David King was the one on the Department of Health, which
has now been published. Reasonably, they are taking some while
to respond.
Q244 Dr Iddon: At one time we used
to have a Scientific Civil Service. That was a long time ago.
David King, during his period as the chief CSA, was rather critical
that scientists have become buried within the Civil Service, and
did not admit they had science degrees. When we interviewed you
just after your appointment, you said you had not detected this
anti-science feeling in the Civil Service. Has that become apparent
to you yet or do you think Sir David was wrong?
Professor Beddington: Can I answer
by explaining what I have actually been doing because I am Head
of the Science and Engineering Profession in Government as a whole?
I think when I appeared before this committee in December last
year I raised this issue and said that I thought this was a role
that I had to take very seriously and think about how to take
it forward. What I found very early on was that it was very difficult
to identify the complete community of scientists and engineers
within government. Some work in policy areas, some work in laboratories.
The laboratory ones are fairly easy to identify; the others are
rather more cryptic. What I have done, and I am reasonably pleased
with how this initiative is going, is to set up a Science and
Engineering Community of Interest. We have done that by publicising
this on the intranets of the various departments and we ask people
who are scientists and engineers whether they work in laboratories
or whether they work in policy to register their interest in doing
that and become involved in this. We have an annual conference,
which is going to be regular. The first conference is scheduled
for January. We have had about 1300, now I think about 1400, individuals
who have indicated they want to be involved, pretty much split
between science and engineers. We have a regular newsletter that
goes out to them asking for them to comment on the key issues.
The conference will take place at least annually. I think the
success of that will mean that that community will expand. I have
also talked to Prospect about these ideas when I met with them,
and they seemed to find this attractive. The feedback we are getting
from those who in a sense voted with their feet or touched the
right button on their computer is that they welcome this. At the
conference, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, will be
speaking to this group. I have asked Lord Drayson and I hope that
he will be speaking to it. We will have key hot topics on science
and engineering in government. We will also ask about the issues
to which you alluded, about the way in which science and engineering
is thought about in government in policy. I am really encouraged
by this. In terms of the concern about the jargon "science
is on tap not on top", which is one of the ways I have heard
this phrase, I have not really encountered that. I think, within
the areas that I have worked closely, it seems to me that if you
have scientists and engineers in the policy areas, they have almost
an added value. Certainly in talking to colleagues who are in
the sorts of jobs that I had five or six years ago, there was
a definite concern that individuals would avoid being classified
as a scientist or an engineer because they thought that would
affect their promotion. I do not perceive that now. I think things
have moved on from that. I hope that this network that I have
set up will enhance that.
Q245 Chairman: Do you know how many
scientists and engineers there are in the Civil Service?
Professor Beddington: No, I do
not. I posed that question when I walked in the door, Chairman.
The answer is: it is difficult to tell. The information is not
available in any detail to be able to do it. Some departments
have it well; other departments do not.
Q246 Chairman: Everybody must have
lodged an application form somewhere in that super computer, or
have all those been lost?
Professor Beddington: All I can
say is that when I asked if we could identify all the scientists
and engineers in government, the answer was, "no, we could
not at the present". Some departments can. I think, for example,
the MoD has very detailed records; other departments do not. There
are scientists and engineers, so you have to question, for example,
the definition of a scientist. Is it somebody who took a degree
in biology some 30 years ago and who has been working in policy
ever since, or is it in fact somebody who is an active scientist?
I think we can identify active scientists but information on those
from the scientific community who are working in government but
at policy levels and are not overtly scientists is not available,
but we are working on it. It is very important.
Q247 Chairman: When will you have
that information?
Professor Beddington: I do not
know.
Q248 Chairman: You are a brilliant
scientist. You ought to be able to sort that little problem out.
Professor Beddington: I make no
promises on this, Chairman.
Q249 Dr Iddon: David Sainsbury suggested
in his recent report, and I quote him, that there should be a
"more robust mechanism ... to identify and protect departmental
R&D budgets". Have those mechanisms been put in place
yet to protect those R&D budgets in state departments?
Professor Beddington: It is a
difficult time, clearly. To the extent that this has happened
within government only in the Department of Health is there a
genuine ring-fence on the R&D budget, and that was following
the Cooksey Report, other departments are more or less ring-fencing
their budgets, but this is clearly important. One of the areas
that I am working on at the moment, looking into the future, is
I am meeting with the chief scientific advisers to look at the
R&D budget priorities for the next spending round. We do not
know when that is going to happen. We have already had a couple
of meetings about this. We are meeting with the Research Council's
chief executives on Monday to discuss where the cross-departmental
and Research Council priorities are. Clearly it is important.
My aim, and I think it will also be the aim of Lord Drayson, will
be to argue the case that R&D is essential in departmental
budgets, that when times are hard it is not R&D that should
be squeezed. Achieving ring-fencing throughout government has
not been achieved yet. I think would be the ideal solution and
one I would work towards, but that is not going to be an easy
task.
Q250 Dr Iddon: This committee was
rather concerned to see, in answer to a parliamentary question
published on 7 October, that the 2007-08 expenditure on R&D
will be lower than the previous year for DIUS, OSI, the Home Office
and DCSF. I suppose you are aware of that answer to the parliamentary
question.
Professor Beddington: Yes.
Q251 Dr Iddon: Does that not seem
surprising in view of the increase in the science budget in general?
Professor Beddington: I think
in the case of DIUS my understanding is that the DIUS science
spend in terms of research councils has actually gone up; this
is internal within DIUS. Within the Home Office it is quite difficult
to assess the scientific spend. The statistics kept by the Home
Office do not clearly characterise what is science and what is
not. The way that you can compile these figures is slightly convoluted
by looking up the reports of various directors and allocating
science to that. In consequence, it is really quite difficult
to monitor and indeed ring-fence this sort of science budget.
It is something I have been taking up with Paul Wiles, the Home
Office Chief Scientific Adviser. This is work in progress. I think,
in terms of the overall science budget, my concerns are that we
try to preserve it as much as possible.
Q252 Dr Iddon: Finally, obviously
we are in what looks like the beginning of a recession now. We
do not know how long it is going to last. Would you agree with
the committee that keeping up the expenditure, if not increasing
the expenditure, on R&D is more important at this moment in
time than possibly in the past?
Professor Beddington: I certainly
agree that it is essential to keep up the R&D spend. We are
looking to the future. In difficult economic times, cutting R&D
budgets I think would be extremely unwise. We have to recognise
there are real difficulties out there. That is why I have put
together the Group of Chief Scientific Advisers to look and explore
what the absolutely key priorities are, so that we speak essentially
as one voice on this. I think that is important when looking into
the future. When it happens, we do not know, and of course, as
you say, we have no idea how long a recession is likely to last.
It is a tough time and one has to recognise that. If we are in
a situation where we are cutting, we have to preserve the key
priorities. Obviously the overall aim would be to preserve the
gross budget, but within the gross budget you still have priorities
and that is what we are trying to address.
Q253 Dr Harris: Professor Beddington,
in our recent report on Biosecurity in UK Research Laboratories
we identified that and detailed in that report examples of core
cross-departmental co-ordination. Have you had a chance yet to
look into either that example or any other examples and make a
difference in terms of improving that? In other words, are you
identifying any areas proactively where you fear there may be
a problem rather than, as we did, and everyone did after Pirbright,
afterwards trying to find out what went wrong?
Professor Beddington: I think
Pirbright is a good case. There is an active discussion between
DIUS really on behalf of the BBSRC and Defra. We are looking towards
solutions to the Pirbright organisation, to think about appropriate
new build which would address the biosecurity issues. This is
important. This is work in progress and looking at biosecurity
across government is going to be really important, whether in
animal labs, hospital labs or wherever.
Q254 Dr Harris: Are there any other
areas separate from that where you are trying to identify poor
co-ordination across government departments before there is a
problem in order proactively to solve it, or is that not a stream
of work you are doing at the moment?
Professor Beddington: The area
that I have been looking at in terms of biosecurity is—
Q255 Dr Harris: Not biosecurity:
I meant any area other than biosecurity where there is a report
with recommendations that the Government is responding to, any
other areas of government co-ordination that you are looking into
proactively to avoid the sorts of problems we saw at Pirbright—not
in biosecurity but in any other area?
Professor Beddington: The one
area where I was concerned and have been involved fairly closely
is in the co-ordination of scientific work to deal with the counter-terrorism
issue, particularly in the CBRN and novel explosive areas. One
of the things I did was set up a sub-committee of my core group
of chief scientific advisers to meet and discuss the issues about
how science feeds into the counter-terrorism agenda, linking in
closely with the board. For obvious reasons I cannot go into a
great deal of detail here but that is one area where I did feel
that we needed to be proactive and where work needed to be done.
Q256 Dr Harris: You co-chair the
Council for Science and Technology. Would you say that is useful?
Professor Beddington: It is an
extraordinarily impressive body.
Q257 Chairman: But is it useful?
Professor Beddington: Sorry, Chairman.
I will try to keep my answers more to the point. It is an impressive
body. I think it is useful. It has just come up with a report
shortly to be published on the way in which government uses the
academic world to provide advice. In the USA and in a number of
our competitor countries, academics are used much more in government.
I would say in parenthesis that they are used much more in industry.
This report, which is coming out shortly from the CST, is going
to John Denham with a series of suggestions about the way in which
this movement between academia and government could be significantly
improved. They have come out with that report. They are in the
process of doing a report on innovation in the water industry,
which is due to report shortly. They are doing extremely useful
work.
Q258 Dr Harris: You say that, and
obviously I think I am doing useful work, but you would expect
me to have some form of evaluation that could then be looked at
to see whether that was true. In what way do you evaluate the
usefulness? What are your metrics for evaluating the usefulness
of something you are engaged in yourself? I know a lot of the
work that has gone through was before you were there, so I am
not talking about your involvement. How can someone independently
judge? Is there a way of tracking through whether recommendations
have been accepted?
Professor Beddington: Are you
asking about the CST in particular or generally?
Q259 Dr Harris: Yes.
Professor Beddington: In the CST
in particular, as far as I am aware, that has not been done. I
think it is a reasonable suggestion. I think I will talk to my
co-chair about it.
Dr Harris: Would you describe the Government's
policy on upgrading cannabis classification as evidence-based?
| 
