Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
PROFESSOR STERLING
FRENG
13 JULY 2009
Q40 Graham Stringer: In a number
of inquiries we have asked Science Ministers and the Government
whether there should be a regional strand to investment in scientific
facilities, and we are not clear yet where the Government stands.
When it comes to Daresbury they say they support Daresbury, but
they also say they support the Excellence Principle and they will
send money to where the most excellent science is going to be
done and not take into account the regional criterion. That seems
to us to be a contradiction. Where do you stand on that? Do you
think there is a contradiction between running Daresbury and the
Excellence Principle?
Professor Sterling: No, I am not
aware that non-excellent research is being supported at Daresbury,
quite the reverse in fact, my briefing tells me that there is
excellent work being done there. I would see that in the context
of national decisions judged excellent not on a regional basis
but on a national basis, and therefore where it is is secondary
to the excellence of the research which is going on. I could not
but fail to understand the regional dimension and the importance
of Daresbury to the North West, and if that were to close the
effect it would have, so I do understand there is another political
dimension to how it operates, but I think it would be risky for
the STFC to be starting to take into account regional politics
as overriding scientific merit. I think that would be difficult.
Of course there will be grey areas, where there are activities
for example which are not purely scientific, which might be technology
transfer which are going on near to the laboratory, and that strikes
me as entirely appropriate and where the Regional Development
Agency is no doubt already putting funds into that activity. So
it becomes one of partnership. I sit on an RDA board, as you have
seen, the West Midlands RDA called Advantage West Midlands, and
there we are always looking for activities which are nationally
recognised, or preferably internationally recognised, where the
region can join in the backing of those for the benefit of the
region. What we do not argue for on AWM is for special treatment
for the region when there is already another national activity
alongside it, so we try to partner with the organisation which
is already adjudged to be nationally important.
Q41 Graham Stringer: Do you not feel
there is a role sometimes with a facility or university which
needs extra support to get them up to standard, to increase the
quality of the work they are doing, and that that should be a
criterion? It is slightly different from a regional criterion
but it is in the same category.
Professor Sterling: Yes, I can
see that in relation to the development of researchers and graduates
where a lot has been written about the need to produce more science
graduates and science engineering graduates, and I can fully see
there is a regional dimension to that because the statistics clearly
show that graduates tend to stay in the region from which they
graduate more so than to move elsewhere. So there is an advantage
to a region to have graduate production in that area. So thinking
particularly in relation to STFC, it would be postgraduate education
where the graduates who come out of universities with masters
degrees will be very useful to a regional economy. Something we
have been looking at in the West Midlands is how to retain more
graduates and postgraduates in our areas for the benefit of the
economy. So it is perfectly reasonable for research councils to
be asked as part of their training remit which they have to consider
the effects of graduates and postgraduates and how their funding
policies can aid that.
Q42 Chairman: Can I add a quick rider
to that? The point Graham Stringer was making was not really about
undergraduates and even masters, what we are talking about is
the placing of large facilities which by definition then create
a critical mass. We do not, and I think perhaps I might contradict
my colleagues, as a Committee understand how you can create critical
mass without a facility, because it is the facility that then
attracts the scientific excellence in order to be able to generate
it. You are going to be the chairman of a research council which
has at its heart large facilities, and I think the question we
would like to ask is do you see in the placing of future large
facilities the need to take a regional dimension? Because otherwise
everything is going to be in the golden triangle, is it not?
Professor Sterling: Yes, and coming
from an area outside the golden triangle, I am interested in the
question you ask. But the heart of it still has to be the scientific
merit of the proposal. Where, shall we say, there were Regional
Development Agency funds which were being put towards a project
which the Council was also interested in, inevitably that would
influence the decision, that if the science was equal between
two proposals and an RDA in one area was proposing to come into
partnership in that area and an RDA in a competing area was not,
then I think that would be a legitimate influence on where the
facility was located.
Q43 Chairman: But that facility is
at a very low level, is it not? When you are talking about facilities
the size of the Diamond Light Source or ISIS, you really are not
talking about the marginal funds which RDAs would put in making
any difference, are you? Really?
Professor Sterling: Well, the
RDA budget that I am involved in is £340 million a year,
and AWM has put in £80 million over four years into partnership
between the Universities of Birmingham and Warwick. That is significant
to the two universities concerned, I can assure you, and I think
significant within the country. I suppose I am not used yet to
the number of noughts on the end of the budgets we are talking
about here, but I would have thought £80 million was a significant
sum.
Chairman: Thank you for that. It is an
area which we are concerned about. I know Dr Iddon in particular
is very concerned about the RDA science budgets. I will have to
suspend the sitting for ten minutes now. We have one more group
of questions.
The Committee suspended from 5.08 pm to 5.20
pm for a division in the House
Chairman: Over to you, Evan.
Q44 Dr Harris: Do you work for the
Government in your new role?
Professor Sterling: No, I work
for the Council. I am Chairman of the Council, appointed by the
Government. I guess the money comes from the Government originally
but I would see myself as independent.
Q45 Dr Harris: So if a Minister outside
of the normal rules comes up with a suggestion which you, and
indeed your Council for that matter, do not think is a sensible
use of STFC resources, and this is outside the CSR discussions
or the Budget allocation discussions, would you feel in any way
constrained given that you were appointed independently? You do
not owe anything to a minister, do you, for your job?
Professor Sterling: I am effectively
appointed by the Minister and this is approved by the Prime Minister,
as I understand it.
Q46 Dr Harris: The Code of Practice
of the Commission for Public Appointments?
Professor Sterling: That is the
Nolan process?
Q47 Dr Harris: That is right. Forget
my previous question, let us just clarify this: could the Minister
have vetoed your appointment?
Professor Sterling: I believe
that to be the case, although I do not know for certain.
Q48 Dr Harris: Does the fact he did
not veto that appointment mean you are in some way less independent
than you would have been if you had been appointed by the same
process but without a ministerial veto?
Professor Sterling: I would not
feel it to be inhibiting in the way you suggest.
Q49 Dr Harris: Coming back to my
question before, if the Minister came up with an idea which you
and your Council felt was not the best use of your resources,
would you feel in any way constrained about pointing that out?
Professor Sterling: No. I would
not just point it out, I would try to explain the rationale for
the difference of opinion to be able to justify the difference.
STFC must be able to justify all the decisions it takes, it cannot
just do things on a whim.
Q50 Dr Harris: Looking at this issue
of strategic priorities which came up, which some people might
say was a suggestion which came from somewhere, what was your
view on that? Let me phrase it more particularly. Lord Drayson
and others said it is time we concentrated in research terms on
those areas where we are good—I am paraphrasing—and
areas where there is a likely return. Were you attracted by that?
Professor Sterling: Separate from
this process, as an engineer, I would always be prejudiced to
look for the return on investment, but in the context of STFC
that return is going to be long-term, it is scientific knowledge
which may not necessarily, even in the short to medium term, lead
to a direct financial return, but nevertheless can be very worthwhile
doing.
Q51 Dr Harris: Do you think we should
be doing something different? I think everyone agrees with what
you have just said.
Professor Sterling: I think what
he was signalling was actually looking at the way in which Government
spends its money and to make sure that that benefit is there in
one way or another, rather than doing something because it has
always been funded in the past. I am not suggesting the STFC has
done that, but a critical appraisal of where research funding
is going seems to me to be an entirely appropriate process, and
to ask oneself what are the benefits of that research is a necessary
question which should be asked.
Q52 Dr Harris: To ask yourself the
question and answer it, "Who are the winners here?"
Professor Sterling: The winners
are going to be the best science. If the process is working the
best proposals will have come to the top, and they will have been
adjudged by the community itself as well as, if it is major strategic
things, by the STFC.
Q53 Dr Harris: I am still confused
because there are two options, are there not? You are saying the
normal process, which you hope is good, could always be improved
by peer review and identifying the best science, but the Government
do not say, "Carry on as you are" in this debate. The
question was, "Do what you are doing but try and identify
those areas which are likely to bring a return and/or where we
are strong?"
Professor Sterling: I do not see
a particular threat to STFC in that approach because, from what
I have already read, I can see justification and returns on what
STFC has actually been doing. Direct examples of where research
which was funded through STFC and its predecessor is leading through
to commercial exploitation in a reasonably short timescale. I
would not want to see that set as a direct requirement for every
piece of funded research, but analysing what has happened in the
past seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
Chairman: I am going to have to call
a halt again because we have a second division.
The Committee suspended from 5.25 pm to 5.32
pm for a division in the House
Chairman: Dr Harris, you were in mid-flow.
Q54 Dr Harris: We were having an
exchange about the question of strategic priorities and let us
deal with an example in your own area. Let us say within STFC
the Government said, "Rather than simply go on the basis
of the best science, which of course you try to do already, we
would like you to give additional priority in terms of your funding,
and possibly in terms of other funding modalities, to that technology
which—and I am paraphrasing the Minister now—has more
easily identifiable economic returns and/or is one of the areas
where we are likely to be in the top two in the world. That might
not coincide with simply the best science because it might be
an isolated best science where we could never be among the top
two in the world. So if you accept the premise of my question,
what would your response to that be if that request persists or
emerges?
Professor Sterling: Inevitably
the Government funds the activities of all the research councils,
so one way or another it has a way of ensuring its wishes are
carried out. It is up to STFC to make sure the consequences of
any such action are fully understood by the Minister or the Government.
If, once one has explained the impact that that decision will
have, the consequences of it, the Government still wishes to direct
the research councils to do that, then the Government is the paymaster.
Q55 Dr Harris: I happen to agree
with you, as it happens, but I am trying to establish what sort
of argument you would use or be prepared to see used by your Council
against such an approach. Do you see drawbacks in it despite being
an engineer?
Professor Sterling: I think I
would listen to the argument because the Minister would not have
proposed it unless they had good grounds for doing so. So if the
Council did not agree with it, then we would have to marshal strong
reasons why not, and if they were not accepted then eventually
one has to accept the Government can actually cut off the money
supply if you do not agree.
Q56 Dr Harris: I admire your faith
in politicians because the Minister might have a particular predilection
for Martian exploration, just because they are a human-being—not
the Martians, the Minister—and they might be interested
in that, or manned space flight, because they are interested in
it. That is not a good reason.
Professor Sterling: I have no
doubt that this House will actually be party to that decision
if it was something of that magnitude. I cannot imagine politicians
whose constituents might be affected being silent on such an issue.
If the whole political community, as represented by the Government
and all of the Opposition MPs, are minded to do that, it would
be very difficult for the STFC to stand in the way of doing that
and just to say, "The science is not good enough." The
Government eventually would find a route for funding it. I am
conscious of who the paymaster is in this process and if we cannot
win the argument, then we should not actually be doing the—
Q57 Dr Harris: What I was trying
to get at was what sort of argument you would put, and I was concerned
to hear that because it was put it must have good reasons behind
it. There are plenty of things which happen in this House, and
occasionally in laboratories, which are bad ideas, put forward
for no good reason.
Professor Sterling: If they were
such bad ideas, we would have exposed the flaws in the argument,
because I do not believe that, with the media scrutiny which goes
on these days, it is possible for a really bad idea which is not
supported other than by the Minister, in the scenario which you
suggest, to actually hold sway. I do not think he would be able
to do that.
Q58 Dr Harris: What if the stakes
were higher and the Minister had, let us say, a good argument
this time, backed up by good reasons, which had some political
support—although I do not think you are ever in a position
when these things come out to a vote in the House or a referendum
in the country—and that was that we are going to cut STFC's
budget because it is not immediate enough in terms of economic
return, we are going to give 50 per cent to another research country,
or other research councils? Do you think you would put up an even
stronger fight than the one you have just talked about?
Professor Sterling: I jolly well
hope we would. With dramatic cuts in funding, we would have failed
to justify the research we were already supporting, and that would
be a consequence not just for the STFC Council but the whole research
community. Then effectively major politics comes into play, does
it not, because it is then an argument which is being put to the
country as to the importance of a particular piece of research,
and influencing MPs in that process is a critical part. There
I would expect we would be targeting Members of Parliament to
explain to them why what was being proposed was not the right
way forward.
Q59 Dr Harris: Let us take manned
space flight. Do you have a view on whether that is a sensible
use of your resources, given I understand Lord Drayson has indicated
he would like to see the UK support that again?
Professor Sterling: It strikes
me, and this is an uninformed view, I hasten to add, that a lot
has been achieved without using manned space flight. The remote
probes have done an awful lot but I am off territory that I feel
comfortable with, so I do not think I can go any further than
telling you my personal prejudices.
| 
