Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON
5 NOVEMBER 2008
Q260 Chairman: For the record, that
was a long pause?
Professor Beddington: You can
record it as a long pause. To be honest, I have not looked at
this, Dr Harris. I should do. I am happy to look at it and come
back and answer your question. I have not thought about that or
looked at it in any detail in the nine months I have been in the
job. I am more than happy to do so and come back with a response.
Q261 Dr Harris: May I say that I
approve of that answer. It is much better to say that than to
do what politicians sometimes do, which is waffle. Let us just
take the general case. You have an advisory committee, and in
this case an advisory committee with the police there and engaged.
It is not just a scientific-based committee; it is looking at
all the evidence of harms, including social harms, with police
input. It made a clear recommendation in 2002, which was accepted.
It was asked to look at it again in 2005 and advised that it should
remain Class C, and the Home Secretary advised that. It was looked
at again recently and they said, "Keep it in Class C",
and yet the Government's policy is to put it in Class B. Is that
a triumph for evidence-based policy making? You have an advisory
committee; it makes a recommendation three times. In the absence
of any other obvious source of scientific—using the term
broadly—advice, the Government does something else.
Professor Beddington: Science
can provide advice, and I would emphasis that this is not an area
I have looked at all. I hear what you say and I am more than happy
to come back to you with a more detailed response, but scientific
evidence is just one part of the decision process. One should
look at scientific evidence; one should assess it; and then you
should also look at other factors, economic and social, in making
that decision.
Q262 Dr Harris: We would all agree
that you can make a decision that is not based on the scientific
evidence because there are other factors, but you would not then
describe that as evidence-based?
Professor Beddington: Oh, I think
it depends on what the other factors are. If the other factors
are economic and there is an evidence base, if there is a practicality
which is problematic, I would say that is also evidence based.
I do not think you can say that science is the only evidence that
you can actually use.
Q263 Dr Harris: One of the questions
it is reasonable to ask, if that is still described as an evidence-based
policy, is: where is the published data on these other quasi scientific
issues and where is the capability to judge evidence, even if
it is not strictly scientific, and see if they are following that
advice?
Professor Beddington: Yes. I would
not disagree with that.
Q264 Dr Harris: In December you told
us that your impression was that the Government does not always
succeed in forming evidence-based policy. What do you see as your
role in identifying, firstly, a problem where it is not evidence-based;
and, secondly, where something is not evidence-based but is claimed
to be evidence-based? One could argue that is even worse because
that is misrepresenting something. Does GO-Science have a role
in doing that? Is there any active work in looking at that?
Professor Beddington: There is
a number of areas where one has to be concerned about whether
evidence is being used properly and whether scientific evidence
is being used. I would not single out anything specific that has
worried me in the last nine months, Dr Harris.
Q265 Dr Harris: Have you done an
audit of evidence-based policy or are you not doing that because
nothing has been drawn to your attention?
Professor Beddington: No, in the
areas of policy that I have looked at in the nine months I have
been in the job, I have not seen anything that has worried me.
I think the exception would probably be the one that we have already
discussed at some length. I thought that the evidence base on
biofuels was potentially significantly problematic. I think the
way in which that was subsequently treated seemed to me to be
entirely appropriate. There have been other areas where this may
be the case. That was the one that I would single out where I
have been most involved in the last year.
Q266 Dr Turner: Again, when you came
to this committee in December, you gave us an admirable pledge
to build up the morale and expertise of the science and engineering
profession in government, perhaps implying that it needed that
sort of support in a wider context. PR is not an unimportant part
of doing that morale-building. What progress do you think you
have been able to make in the last nine months?
Professor Beddington: In answer
to Dr Iddon's question, I have answered that in terms of trying
to build this community of interests and I would focus on that.
I also think the way that I brought together the chief scientific
advisers into what is a genuine collegiate community has helped.
That spins off down within the individual departments, so I think
that has been helpful. To the extent that one uses PR to affect
the morale, I do not think I have really done that. I have been
focusing on individual issues as I felt they were important. It
may well be that I should think a little harder about how to do
that. I saw this network of interest in science and engineering
as one where it would be really an excellent opportunity to get
the message out. I will use it at the first conference we are
having in the news notice. I will certainly look to see whether
there are other things that we can do after that. It is important.
Q267 Dr Turner: It is just that as
politicians we know that you can work your butt off but if no-one
knows that you are doing it, it is not doing you any good. How
do you see your role as Head of the Science and Engineering Profession
in Government developing in the future? Will you be taking any
responsibly for promoting social science?
Professor Beddington: I refer
now to a general analysis in government. The Government's Chief
Social Science Adviser is Paul Wiles, who is also Chief Scientific
Adviser at the Home Office. The Heads of Analysis Group has on
it essentially the chief economists, the Chief Social Science
Researcher, the Chief Operations Researcher, and there is one
other who I do not recall at the moment, plus myself as Chief
Scientific Adviser. We meet pretty regularly as a group. The aim
of that group in part is to promote analysis across government
and the use of analysis. In response to your predecessor committee,
the Government committed to have a chief analyst on the departmental
boards. One of the actions of this group was to go out—and
information is still coming in—and ask if that has been
done in a department and, if not, why not? That is work in progress.
In terms of social science, Paul Wiles, the Chief Scientific Adviser
to the Home Office, a social scientist, sits on the chief scientific
advisers group that I have been describing and plays a major role
in it. I think the recognition that certainly I see out in the
departments is that social science and biological and physical
sciences have equally important roles in solving problems. I have
no concerns about that. When I was at Defra chairing their Science
Advisory Council, we were constantly recommending to Defra that
they really do need to expand their social science base, and I
think to an extent that has been done. There has been some achievement
there. The review of Defra that was done by Sir David made those
recommendations and in the follow-up we were hoping to see that
that had been addressed. That is incredibly important across all
sorts of areas, and so I am completely relaxed. The other thing
I would comment on is that in achieving chief scientific advisers
in some of these other departments, in DCMS in particular they
appointed as their Chief Scientific Adviser a social scientist,
in fact a health economist. Paul Wiles by background is a criminologist.
Q268 Dr Turner: We are taking a particular
interest in engineering at the moment and especially in relation
to government. Engineers do not have as high a profile as they
might do, I am sure you would agree. Are you taking any practical
steps or what practical steps are needed, do you think, to enhance
the profile of engineers?
Professor Beddington: It is very
clear that engineering has an enormously important part to play
in government. From early on I engaged with the Royal Academy
of Engineering and I have met a number of the individual components
of that: civil engineers, electrical engineers and so on. I have
been to meetings with their board and given lectures and discussed
this. In fact, there is an organisation which I chair called the
Global Science and Innovation Forum. Historically that did not
have a member from the Royal Academy of Engineering. We have invited
that body and it has accepted and is now a member. In terms of
the way in which engineering is treated within government, again
I refer to this network of chief scientific advisers. We do have
a number of Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering and engineers
who are chief scientific advisers. I single out Mark Welland,
who is the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Ministry of Defence.
I was involved with his recruitment. He is a Fellow of the Royal
Academy of Engineering as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Gordon Conway is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Brian Collins is an engineer. Michael Kelly is an engineer. In
terms of their representation at the highest level in science,
I think the engineers are there, but we cannot be complacent.
There are real issues to engage with the engineers and bring them
into this forum. That is my active agenda; I think it is important
and I have been working with it. We have put in a fair bit of
evidence to your engineering discussions. We are happy to discuss
that at that time, if you would like, Dr Turner.
Q269 Dr Turner: Finally, coming down
to training, are you doing anything to promote apprenticeships
within the government using the government as an employer to advance
skills training?
Professor Beddington: I have not
done anything on that.
Q270 Mr Boswell: I have some quick
questions on Foresight. Are you going to make any changes in the
way it operates?
Professor Beddington: Yes. The
one change I have made is in the way in which Foresight chooses
its topics. I feel that is really important because it was not
clear to me how the choice of topics evolved, as it were. When
I arrived, I set up an advisory committee for Foresight, which
looked at a long list of about 20 projects and came forward with
a recommendation. I happened to chair that committee; Jeremy Heywood,
who was then in the Cabinet Office, was due to chair it but could
not on the day and so I chaired it. We came forward with two new
projects as recommendations. One was on the future of food and
farming, which is starting this month. The second one under discussion
is migration. Those are two of the key issues that came up. This
advisory group is meeting in December to look at reviewing how
Foresight has been operating and also to look at the future projects.
Q271 Mr Boswell: To use an analogy
from the world of pharmaceuticals, you are concerned about your
pipeline?
Professor Beddington: Yes, I am.
I think Foresight has been a tremendous success. I alluded earlier
on to the Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project. We have one coming
out on the sustainable energy environment in buildings later this
month or early in December. I think the obesity one was a similar
success. At the moment in the pipeline we have one on land use;
that started this summer and it is well under way. The one on
food in farming is starting now. We are actively discussing whether
we should do one on migration. We are looking for others to put
into the pipeline. Typically projects have been relatively long,
of the order of a year and a half or so. One of the things that
I have been pushing is that perhaps we should think about doing,
as it were, a number of relatively shorter Foresight studies.
We have a number under consideration at the moment.
Q272 Mr Boswell: That is really helpful.
I am thinking aloud as it were. There was over a year between
the publication on obesity and then the one on mental capital
and wellbeing, which you mentioned. There are some cognate issues
and some social science and human issues as well. Is that a bit
of a long gap?
Professor Beddington: I have not
really thought of it that way, I am afraid. When I walked in the
door in January the obesity project had just happened and then
there was a natural timescale for the report on mental capital
and wellbeing. I did not start either of them. They were started
under my predecessor. I think it is an interesting question. I
will reflect on that. What I do feel is important, and I can claim
no credit for this in the sense that this was set up by my predecessor,
is to set up a part of the Foresight group which is entirely dealing
with follow-up. I was in Washington last month. I attended a meeting
jointly between the Foresight team and the American Army Corp
of Engineers looking at the Foresight study on flooding. The Foresight
people are also actively working in Shanghai on flooding issues
in that river basin. That follow-up seems to be working really
well. Similarly with the obesity project, the Department of Health
has taken the lead on that follow-up but we have a follow-up team
working with the Department of Health on taking the obesity agenda
completely across government.
Q273 Mr Boswell: In a sense, that
anticipates my thought process. On one of the rare occasions when
you were let loose, or you let yourself loose, on the media you
tussled with John Humphrys recently and he used a rather rude
word. He said the findings were "Pollyanna". What is
the value-added? Clearly you think he is wrong but tell us why.
Professor Beddington: I have not
listened in a masochistic way to the recordings of my discussions
with John Humphrys but I felt he accepted that they were not Pollyanna.
The point I made to him at the time was that if you are using
a bio-marker or some sort of assessment that indicates that an
individual has a high probability of developing dementia in later
life and you find that at age 55, what do you do? The so-called
Pollyanna recommendations that have come out are well-founded
empirically and show that they do have the ability to alleviate
and improve on any subsequent dementia. I challenged him with
that. My memory of the event was that he accepted that. I think
mental capital and wellbeing is enormously important. It has posed
the question to government by saying: Interventions occur at different
levels during the life course and they are important, so intervening
to stop children having dyslexia or dyscalculia can mean a benefit
at the school age; it will mean a benefit subsequently. For example,
a very high proportion of prisoners have either dyscalculia or
dyslexia and so intervention is a benefit subsequently. It is
a benefit in employment and it is a benefit in old age. One of
the indications of improvement in subsequent dementia is actually
to learn something. Intervention just at the age of three or four
has life course benefits. It presents a problem for government
because you are investing at one level and benefiting at another
some ten years later. There are many other examples of that study
and it is interesting. There will be a pause after the launch
and then I will be taking that forward at high levels of government.
I hope to bring it to the attention of Cabinet. I will shortly
be talking to the Group of Permanent Secretaries about just that
report.
Q274 Mr Boswell: That seems to me,
if I may say, a very robust reply. Thank you. Can I say a word
more about this? I put in my own notes, "When does foresight
turn into hindsight?", and you did talk about your retrospective
teams looking, as it were, at actioning foresight reports. On
the other hand, we have heard from my colleague, Dr Harris, in
relation to drugs. Foresight produced a separate study some time
ago, I think before your time, on brain science addiction and
drugs. You did not feel yourself able today to take a firm view
on that. I am not expecting you to have everything back, but can
you at least give us the assurance that you yourself will take
some hands-on in the management of what for shorthand I will call
the hindsight programme, as it were, when it has been reported
to government and when, reasonably enough, you are concerned about
the implementation and dissemination of this?
Professor Beddington: I see entirely
my role as running the Foresight programme. Foresight is not going
to be much use to government if, in fact, it just reports and
the report is shelved and no action is taken from it. I sit, for
example, on the work on the follow-up to obesity. I attend the
committee meetings, which are chaired by myself and the Department
of Health, so I have very active involvement. Going back a long
way, for example, taking the Foresight Report on drugs, it is
some while ago but it is a thing that we will be reviewing actively,
what I should possibly explain is that the group that we have
is not just hindsight, it is actually trying to generate government
response.
Q275 Mr Boswell: Of course.
Professor Beddington: So it is
not a purely passive thing, it is actually saying: these are the
recommendations; this is what should be done; can we organise
these particular departments to meet together. It is proactive
as well.
Q276 Mr Boswell: That is helpful.
Finally, just to wrap this up, presumably it is not only a government
response but in certain of these complex issues like obesity it
will be a multi-factorial response involving the private sector
and even individuals. Are you monitoring that bit as well and
can give advice to it?
Professor Beddington: Yes, I think
the linking into, for example, industry in particular retailers
is part of the activities that we are looking at. So, yes, and
organisations like the Food Standard Agency sit on the body that
is actually taking obesity work forward.
Mr Boswell: Thank you. That is helpful.
Q277 Dr Harris: To what extent should
public opinion directly drive research avenues in the public sector?
Professor Beddington: I always
seem to pause just after your questions, Dr Harris.
Q278 Chairman: Very wise, I might
say.
Professor Beddington: I take it
a pause will be noted! To a certain extent, I think. There is
a sort of principle, really the Haldane principle, which says
to what extent governments should be driving the research agenda
as government, and to an extent I think that some form of similar
principle should drive public opinion. I think, if public opinion
is saying work should not be done in a certain area, what is the
evidence base for it, I think that one needs to take it into account
via the political process. To say that banning some particular
form of activity because it is either highly unsafe or distasteful,
and so on, seems to be part of the political process which takes
into account public opinion. On the other hand, the degree of
interference of government in the detail of research activity
seems to be accepted by government in terms of the Haldane principle,
and that seems to be one that is worth defending.
Q279 Dr Harris: So if Parliament,
taking into account, presumably, since we have to, public opinion,
thinks something is okay to research, then do you think it is
right that government should take into account public opinion
on top of that at some point in the process?
Professor Beddington: I am sorry,
I do not understand the question.
| 
