Examination of Witnesses (Question 40-53)
LORD DRAYSON
AND PROFESSOR
JOHN BEDDINGTON
14 OCTOBER 2009
Q40 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Lord Drayson, when we looked at space about three years
ago now and we considered the issue of an agency, we supported
the Government's view about not creating an agency. One of the
reasons for it was about budgets, the fact that the amount of
money which the UK spends on space outside its commitments to
European Space Agency is relatively small and the departmental
spend on space, particularly in terms of earth's observation for
climate in departments like Defra, was getting smaller. How would
you square that with an agency—an agency in name only, which
does not have, as you have quite rightly said, a central budget?
Where is that budget going to come from? Because it is woefully
small at the moment.
Lord Drayson: I accept, Chairman,
your concerns about the linkage between the size of budget and
the identification of where budget is going to come from, and
the clarity, therefore, for the future. The advantage potentially
of an agency is that it will provide at whatever level of budget
is determined, greater clarity about future direction and priority
and allocation of funding than the lack of an agency presents
at present. We are still going through issues today where we are
having to spend an awful lot of time negotiating between departments
within government to get clarity, and, frankly, the world moves
on faster than the system's ability to make these decisions. I
am very pleased that at last we had a decision on Pirbright—another
example of where it takes far, far too long. That is what I think
would be the added value of an agency in the particular area of
space research.
Q41 Dr Iddon: First, I should declare
that I am a member of the University and Colleges Union, and I
have another registered interest that is connected to these questions.
The University and Colleges Union are currently reporting that
there is likely to be a loss of around 6,000 jobs across the HE
and FE sectors, with the majority of those jobs being lost in
research-intensive departments. Leeds University, for example,
is undergoing a major restructuring which will shed scores of
jobs and the Imperial College Department of Medicine here in London
is undergoing a restructuring which will shed a similar number
of jobs. This is very worrying. Are you picking up that research
oriented departments are going to be badly affected? What is the
Government doing to try to prevent loss of jobs in the R&D
sector in universities?
Lord Drayson: The Government is
maintaining the investment in science. The Government has shown,
both by its track record and by what the Government have said
from the Prime Minister down, that it remains committed to increasing
investment in science, maintenance of the science ring fence,
but that I believe is central to the Government's policy. The
management of individual university institutions—they are
independent—is a matter for them, but of course I monitor
very carefully what is happening within the research community
and if I felt that there was a serious diminution taking place,
then I would be concerned.
Q42 Dr Iddon: Are you being advised
by any university in the country that they are expecting to lose
jobs in the science and technology sectors?
Lord Drayson: We have a competitive
system within our universities. Therefore there are winners and
losers in that system in terms of individual departments, on the
basis of the relative successes of those institutions, both in
terms of being successful in the planning of grants from Government
but, also, in terms of being successful in being able to generate
income from research grants from other sources, charitable funding
and industry. But if one looks at the overall metrics in terms
of the scale, the level of investment, the strength of scientific
research base in this country, it continues to be extremely healthy.
There are examples of institutions and departments that are going
through contraction, but if you look at the overall picture, what
I as Science Minister am most concerned about is the recent data
which shows that the UK continues to be the most productive scientific
nation in the G8—the strength/the breadth of our research
base. We must not be complacent, but I think we have a very healthy
picture and we should not be misled by feeling that if there is
something happening in a particular university/a particular department
this is indicative of a broader national problem. I do not believe
it is. Science in this country is extremely strong right now.
Professor Beddington: It really
is so important, and Lord Drayson has referred to it, that from
the highest level down there is a major commitment to the ring
fence of the science budget. Within that obviously, as Lord Drayson
has said, there will be winners and losers, and some departments
and some universities will be more successful than others. The
real defence is that fact of the ring fence on the science budget
and therefore what goes into the university sector by research
grants. That is so important.
Q43 Dr Iddon: I take your point,
Professor Beddington, but it worries me that I have a report in
front of me that Leeds University is likely to shed 60 jobs in
biological science alone—a subject which is obviously dear
to your heart. Anyhow, Chairman, we might return to this subject
in future when the position is a little more clear.
Lord Drayson: It is important
that the research community maintains its expectation from the
Government that the Government will maintain its investment in
science, the maintenance of the science ring fence and the maintenance
of the trajectory within the ten-year framework. The Government
could not be clearer in its commitment from the Prime Minister
downwards of its commitment to science and, therefore, it is that
on which the scientific community should focus and take some confidence
from.
Q44 Dr Iddon: To turn to another
aspect of funding of universities, that of full economic costs
[FEC], this Committee has supported the principle of FEC, and
it will approach 100%, I gather, in the next financial year, 2010.
However, there are certain worrying features about FEC that are
reaching me. I have talked to a number of academics in different
disciplines over the summer and visited a number of departments
and the scientists are rather concerned about what the university
is doing with the money that comes via full economic costing for
research and development in the universities. I know there have
been some recent reports looking at these concerns. Can either
of you bring us up to date with the current position regarding
full economic costing?
Lord Drayson: Perhaps I could
kick off, Chairman. The RCUK carried out a review of FEC very
recently and the outcome of that review was generally positive.
There is a general consensus that the move towards full economic
costing is a move which was required. We are going through a transition,
a period of change, and, therefore, as that change takes place
there are going to be issues which are going to be thrown up which
will have to be addressed and we will have to see how the whole
thing settles down. But the feedback we are getting at the moment
is that this is a process which, overall, is leading to a positive
change. However, Chairman, if the Committee has specific examples
of the areas of concern you mention, I would be grateful to receive
them and I will follow them up.
Q45 Dr Iddon: The area of concern
we are picking up is that the money might not be being spent by
the universities on the infrastructure which supports a well-founded
laboratory or workshop—which I think was the original intention—and
that the universities are diverting this money into other areas
of their expenditure. I take your point that the recent report
seems to indicate something different.
Lord Drayson: If there are specific
examples, I would be happy to look at them.
Q46 Dr Iddon: Thank you very much.
Professor Beddington: I do not
have much to add. Universities do have a degree of autonomy and
they can think about the portfolio of how they get research money
in. Some of it will be with full economic costing; other charitable
ones will not. In a sense, it is their business to balance this
and make things work. The move to full economic costing was really
so important, because the infrastructure within universities had
declined, the laboratory quality had declined. It was very generally
welcomed, even though it arguably leads to some diminution in
the overall research volume being done. We were looking at a situation
where the quality of laboratory and the quality of the environment
was decreasing, and full economic costing is a way of addressing
that.
Lord Drayson: One concern that
did come out during this review was that the community felt that
there was a need for greater transparency.
Q47 Dr Iddon: Yes.
Lord Drayson: We welcome that.
There is a working group which is now charged with monitoring
that and providing feedback. In the light of that, if there are
opportunities for us to shine a focus on any particular area of
concern in that move towards greater transparency, we would be
happy to do it.
Q48 Dr Iddon: The other criticism
of FEC that I am picking up, from industry this time, is that
it has significantly raised the amount of money that industry
has to put into the universities to support research projects
and there is some indication, that I am picking up at least, that
certain industries now are preferring to invest across Europe
rather than in Britain. I have a report here from one company
that says that to invest in research in Britain is roughly double
investing in research in some Continental universities. Are you
picking up that criticism about how full economic costs has affected
the research funding?
Lord Drayson: The businesses that
invest in scientific research in Britain get better quality research,
frankly. International comparisons with UK science show that the
productivity of our science is the best in the G8. Historically,
the lack of full economic costing meant that the universities
were not able to generate sufficient return to be able to maintain
and develop the quality of the facilities. Therefore, moving to
full economic costing, which is requiring additional contribution
from industry, is absolutely the right thing. My sense is that
those companies that value very high quality research, the type
of research which is done in the UK, recognise this, and I do
not feel that we should compete with other countries on the basis
of price. We should fully cost our research in this country. We
should do so taking into account the need to maintain the best
quality facilities. We should absolutely focus. The policies which
we have in the UK of quality within science, of high quality within
science, is the right one and I think that will lead to continued
investment from industry. I think we are seeing that.
Q49 Chairman: Finally, Lord Drayson,
you led this Committee up to the top of the mountain, with great
excitement just over a year ago, when you started your debate
about the strategic priorities, and we were very enthusiastic
to get involved in that debate. You seem to have led us down the
other side of the hill, and that debate has gone away. Where do
you stand at this moment in terms of that very interesting debate
you began about strategic priorities and where does the Government
stand on it now?
Lord Drayson: I am interested,
Chairman, to get that pretty direct feedback on how the Committee
sees it.
Q50 Chairman: I call it the Jenson
Button factor.
Lord Drayson: Hey, it is not over
for Jenson Button, okay! We all have very high hopes for the remainder
of the season. With hindsight it has been interesting how I have
struggled to properly communicate to the science community what
I was aiming to achieve with this debate and focus, where still
just recently there have been commentaries in the press which
have suggested that I have been attacking investment in fundamental,
pure research. That disappoints me. What I said, what I have always
said, is that investment in fundamental pure research is an absolute
requirement which we will maintain. My discussion about the need
for focus in terms of those areas where the UK has real strength,
in the context of what are the hot, important areas within science,
is not a question about pure versus applied research; it is about
what areas of science are likely to be the ones which are going
to have the greatest contribution from the UK science community.
In terms of, as you have described it, Chairman, taking people
up the hill, I feel that in our journey together up that hill
there was a very productive debate which took place about which
of the areas within science are likely to be those which are going
to have the greatest contribution and the UK's place within them.
The way in which the research councils, the scientific community,
the press, political debated happened over the summer, in the
context of us going through some really important questions about
the strengths and weaknesses of the United Kingdom overall, its
place in the world, I think has been very healthy. The level of
debate around scientific issues which has been taking place in
the media recently is stronger now than it has been for sometime.
The success we have had in the Science: So what? campaign,
the debate that took place about focus, has all led to a greater
development of collective understanding of what are the big issues
within science at the moment which have put us in a really good
position to come up with the right policies, with consensus and
support from the science community.
Q51 Chairman: That dichotomy between
fundamental and applied science is as polarised now as when you
began the debate.
Lord Drayson: That is because
certain commentators and, frankly, certain scientists have tried
to frame the debate in those terms because they are concerned
that their particular area is under pressure. Those people who
see themselves as applied scientists have used the side of the
argument to support applied science and those who have seen themselves
as pure fundamental scientists have used the argument for their
side. I do ask you to go back and read what I said. It is on the
record. I did not say that we should take money from pure fundamental
research and switch it into applied research. I said that history
tells us that only by maintaining our investment in pure fundamental
research do we maintain a broad science base. The serendipity
of science leads to the key breakthroughs and discoveries. I really
ask people to read again what it was I said. The fact that these
issues, as you say, are still polarised shows how important it
is for me to continue to talk about this and for this and Committee
and others to discuss it and how important it is for me to carry
on saying what I have said.
Q52 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Professor Beddington, you said you had three points at the beginning
and I said, very kindly, that we would get around to the third
one and we have about three minutes for you to tell us your third
point.
Professor Beddington: The third
point was really addressing some of the comments that you had
made and Lord Drayson has answered in terms of your recommendations
about engineering in government. It is really important that there
is an increasing empowerment of chief scientific advisers, many
of whom are engineers as well, so that they can have the opportunity
early on to challenge and raise policy. One of the things that
I wanted to share with you is that we have put together a group
to do just that in looking at the issue of the Severn Barrage—a
major issue which is going to be with us for many years. We have
put together a group of chief scientific advisers, plus engineering
and other experts from outside, to do a proper review of the way
that work is being taken forward. We will be meeting regularly
on that. That is a good example of the way in which we can use
the community of chief scientific advisers. The other point, which
is complementary to that, is that you may have noticed that President
Barroso in his speech to the European Parliament indicated his
intention to appoint a chief scientific adviser and review the
way science advice operates in Europe. That is something I very
much welcome because I think this is an issue that has real potential
for improving scientific co-operation throughout Europe.
Q53 Chairman: On that note I would
like to thank you very much indeed, Professor Beddington and Lord
Drayson. As ever, it has been a really worthwhile and interesting
session.
Lord Drayson: Thank you. It is
absolutely brilliant to be here in front of the new Science and
Technology Committee.
|
