Appendix 1: Government response
The Government welcomes the Committee's report and
its focus on the role of science and engineering in government.
The bulk of this document responds to the specific
recommendations contained in the Committee's report. Overall a
clear consensus emerged during the evidence sessions regarding
the importance of science and engineering to effective policymaking,
economic growth and quality of life.
The Government fundamentally agrees with the importance
of putting science and engineering at the heart of government
policy. The Government also agrees with the Committee that progress
has been made in this regard but there is more to be done to ensure
that every decision is based on the best available evidence.
We will maintain high levels of investment in the
research base and fundamental science, and in HE more generally.
This response has been prepared by the Government
Office for Science (GO-Science), with input from the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Department for
Children Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Medicine and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Science and engineering at the heart of government
policy?
1. We were impressed by the Science Minister
and Government Chief Scientific Adviser's frank assessment of
how science and engineering advice is used in Government. We were
pleased to hear that they have taken up those concerns we raised
in the engineering report and that they have an appetite to improve
the use of evidence in policy-making. (Paragraph 24)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the work undertaken by Lord Drayson and Professor Beddington
to champion science and engineering in government, and to embed
science and engineering advice in the process of policy-making.
The Government remains committed to the formulation
and delivery of evidence-based policy. Both the Minister for Science
and Innovation and Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA)
are working with government departments to embed independent science
and engineering advice in the policy-making process.
2. We regret that the Government failed to
answer the core reasons for having Departmental Chief Engineering
Advisers. We urge the Government to give fuller consideration
to our recommendation that "Some departments should have
Departmental Chief Engineering Advisers (DCEAs), some Departmental
Chief Scientific Advisers (DCSAs), and some should have both."
(Paragraph 29)
The Government does not agree that it failed to consider
sufficiently the Committee's recommendation that Chief Engineering
Advisers be appointed to government departments. While the Government
considers the provision of engineering advice necessary and important,
this function is already contained within the remit of the Departmental
Chief Scientific Advisers.
The Government's reasons for not appointing Chief
Engineering Advisers remain as outlined in the Government response
to the Committee's report Engineering: turning ideas into reality:
[…] DCSAs cover both science and engineering
as part of their remits; it is part of this role to ensure that
each department has sufficient expertise and capacity to manage
and use the engineering advice it needs. It is also noteworthy
that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Department for Transport (DfT),
the Department for International Development (DFID)[1]
and Communities and Local Government (CLG) currently have engineers
and/or Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering (FREngs) in
the DCSA role. […] They are not appointed for their personal
specialist expertise (although this may often be valuable), but
rather for their ability to marshal advice from all of the other
specialists, both inside and outside Government, to provide whatever
scientific advice their Department requires across the full spectrum
of science and engineering.
The Government does not therefore accept the case
for separate Chief Engineering Advisers at Government-wide or
departmental levels.
The important thing is that science and engineering
advice is properly reflected in the decision making process, and
on this, as set out above, the Government shares the Committee's
view that while progress is being made, there is more to be done.
Drawing on the Science and Engineering Assurance
exercises, the Science Minister and the GCSA will work with colleagues
on the ED(SI) Cabinet Sub-Committee to establish where in Government
additional engineering resource is needed and how best to provide
it. Within BIS, for example, the CSA is currently reviewing the
process by which the Department ensures science, engineering and
particularly technology advice is used appropriately in policy
development and implementation.
3. The Government had an opportunity at the
last reshuffle to move GO-Science as per our recommendation in
the engineering report. That it did not, was a missed opportunity.
As the Government Chief Scientific Adviser explained, location
matters because it affords daily face-to-face interaction between
colleagues in the same building; and as he further pointed out,
he has only seen the Prime Minster four times in the past year.
We therefore appeal directly to the Prime Minster, who is responsible
for GO-Science, to bring it into the Cabinet Office alongside
the Strategy Unit. (Paragraph 37)
The Prime Minister shares the GCSA's view that GO-Science
is best located within BIS and does not recognise Committee's
assessment of his engagement with the GCSA as 'woefully inadequate'.
The GCSA provides the Prime Minister with advice in a form, and
at a time and level, appropriate to the matter in hand. Neither
the Prime Minister nor the GCSA are convinced by the need for
advice to be routinely delivered in person. However, regular meetings
are now being put in place to ensure that the Prime Minister stays
abreast of all the issues and is made aware of any concerns held
by the GCSA.
As the GCSA points out, the co-location of GO-Science
and BIS facilitates his close working with the Minister for Science
and Innovation and Director General for Science and Research.
The Government would like to assure the Committee, however, that
the GCSA enjoys strong links with departments across Whitehall,
not least with the Cabinet Office. As co-chair of the Scientific
Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), for example, the GCSA attends
Ministerial Civil Contingency Committee (CCC) meetings (within
COBR). Further, the GCSA regularly engages with Sir Gus O'Donnell
(Head of the Home Civil Service), and with Permanent Secretaries
and Chief Scientific Advisers across government.
Similarly, the Committee should be assured that officials
in GO-Science have strong links with officials in No 10, the Cabinet
Office and other government departments.
The Committee comments that the distinction between
GO-Science and its parent department is unclear on occasion (Paragraph
36). This is a helpful observation and one which reinforces the
need for activities already initiated to communicate better the
position of GO-Science as a semi-autonomous unit with a cross-government
remit.
4. We are reassured to hear that Professor
Beddington will take steps to look at the MHRA's decision to licence
homeopathic products as well as the wider issue of the purchasing
of homeopathy by the NHS. We hope that he will be able to bring
scientific evidence to the centre of this complex policy issue.
(Paragraph 42)
The GCSA is concerned that the licensing of homeopathic
remedies might be taken to imply clinical efficacy. He wrote to
the MHRA requesting clarification on the licensing of homeopathic
products. The information the GCSA received from the MHRA is summarised
below.
Homeopathic medicinal products are included in the
scope of European Directives and the Medicines Act 1968. Under
current licensing arrangements, homeopathic products either: have
Product Licences of Right (PLRs); have been granted certificates
under the Simplified Scheme; or have been granted homeopathic
marketing authorizations under the National Rules Scheme.
PLRs are licences issued to all products on the market
at the time that the Medicines Act 1968 was implemented in 1971.
Legislation requires PLRs to be reviewed over a 7 year period
from 01 September 2006 (as a result of introducing the National
Rules Scheme).
The Simplified Scheme for homeopathic medicinal products
was introduced in 1992 under European Directive 92/73/EC. The
scheme is regarded as simplified because there is no requirement
in the Directive for data to demonstrate clinical efficacy and
the eligibility criteria confer a certain reassurance on safety.
The Simplified Scheme does not permit therapeutic indications
to be stated on the product label.
In 2006, the UK introduced the National Rules Scheme
allowing the marketing of homeopathic products under European
Directive 2001/83. Directive 2001/83/EEC, as amended, is specific
to homeopathic products and recognises the principles and characteristics
of homoeopathy as practised within the individual Member States.
Only products which are indicated for the relief of minor symptoms
and minor conditions in humans are eligible for a homeopathic
marketing authorization under the scheme. For these purposes,
minor symptoms are those which can ordinarily and with reasonable
safety be relieved or treated without the supervision or intervention
of a doctor. Additional warnings appear on the packaging instructing
the patient to seek medical help if symptoms do not improve.
The National Rules Scheme does not endorse clinical
efficacy of homeopathic products, as clinical efficacy is understood
in the context of conventional pharmaceutical medicines. Rather,
it addresses previous inconsistencies in the marketing of homeopathic
products in the UK. Previously, for example, manufacturers with
Product Licences of Right (PLRs) were able to market a wider range
of product dosage forms and dilutions—and give indications—whereas
manufacturers with registration certificates for the same products
under the Simplified Scheme were not necessarily permitted to
include any therapeutic use on the labelling.
Arnica Pillules have been available on the UK market
as a homeopathic medicinal product without indications for many
years. The Nelson's arnica product is the only product to be authorised
under the National Rules scheme to date. In accordance with the
requirements of the National Rules Scheme, the applicant submitted
a dossier demonstrating the safety and quality of the product
as well as information on the usage of the product within the
UK homeopathic tradition for the indications sought. Safety
and quality are monitored during the life cycle of the product
in similar terms to pharmaceutical medicines with full marketing
authorisations. The product packaging for arnica has undergone
full user testing to ensure that the most important key messages
for safe use of the product are conveyed to the consumer in a
user-friendly manner.
The GCSA would like to reassure the Committee that
product licenses granted do not indicate clinical endorsement
for any treatment, but provide a regulatory context in relation
to product safety. He is persuaded that a system able to regulate
claims made in marketing homeopathic products is potentially of
benefit, but recognises that this does not address the issue of
individuals taking medicines that are of no clinical benefit.
He will monitor current arrangements and watch for any evidence
that such a scheme unduly encourages the use of such remedies
in place of more appropriate medical treatment.
On the purchasing of homeopathic medicines by the
NHS, the GCSA has been in contact with the Chief Medical Officer
(CMO) to discuss this matter. The CMO indicated that the cost
of homeopathic prescriptions dispensed by the NHS represented
a very small proportion of the total drugs bill. The Committee
should be assured that discussions between the Department of Health
and the GCSA on this matter are ongoing, having only been recently
interrupted as a result of priority work on the Government's response
to swine flu.
5. We call on the DCSF Chief Scientific Adviser
to explain what advice she provided, if any, on the Every Child
literacy and numeracy programmes and report it to the House. (Paragraph
47)
DCSF is committed to evidence-based policy-making
and the effective use of scientific advice. The current DCSF CSA,
Carole Willis, joined the department in August 2008, and so was
not in post when many of the Every Child literacy and numeracy
programme decisions were taken. However, she has a specific remit
to ensure that robust evidence and analysis is used consistently
across the department in its policy development. The CSA chairs
the Department's Research Approvals Committee, which scrutinises
all research and evaluation proposals to test their scientific
rigour before funding is approved. The CSA also chairs the Policy
Evaluation Group (which investigated and approved the evaluation
of the "Every Child a Reader" initiative earlier in
the year) and oversees development and delivery of the Department's
Analysis and Evidence Strategy (published on 20th July 2009).
The CSA advises Ministers on the content of the forward
looking research programme and the scientific integrity and validity
of research and evaluation. She actively challenges the department
on the evidence base for its policies, and sits on several of
the department's decision making Boards. More generally, the DCSF
analytical community work on behalf of the CSA to ensure that
evidence underpins policy development decisions across the department.
There are 210 professional analysts within the Department (economists,
operational researchers, social researchers and statisticians)
which provides DCSF with a solid analytical base.
The Department is providing specific support on literacy
and numeracy to an increasing number of local authorities and
schools in England, targeted on greatest need. These are focussed
through the following intervention programmes: Every Child a Reader
(ECaR), Every Child a Writer (ECaW), Every Child Counts (ECC)
and Every Child a Talker (ECaT). The ECaR programme was piloted
between 2005 and 2008 and, informed by findings from a range of
academic research and analysis, is being rolled out nationally
on an incremental basis. The other initiatives are being piloted
or rolled out incrementally, with advice from DCSF analysts, in
order to build a strong evidence base for future decisions about
funding. The CSA has ensured that ECaR, ECC and ECaW undergo a
rigorous evaluation process, and is in the process of exploring
how ECaT should be evaluated, and the lessons learned. DSCF analysts
will ensure that the results are used to inform the future of
these programmes. DCSF would welcome the opportunity to provide
the committee with full details on the evidence base and evaluation
activity if they wish.
6. We agree with Professor Beddington that
Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers should have devolved responsibility
for the quality of scientific advice in each department. On that
basis, it is crucial that each DCSA has a tight grip on their
departmental remits and have sufficient support so that problem
policy areas can be identified and dealt with. The DCSA must challenge
policy-makers to demonstrate clear evidence to support policy
or to acknowledge that no such evidence exists. The GCSA needs
to be advised by DCSAs of those instances where DCSAs have been
overruled on such matters; and we further recommend that he publishes
these in his annual report. (Paragraph 48)
The Government is confident in the ability of its
Chief Scientific Advisers effectively support and challenge policy-making
in their home departments. As the Committee rightly acknowledges,
however, science and engineering evidence will only ever be one
of the factors that influences the form and focus of government
policy.
It is the Government's view that the full range of
evidence used to inform policy-making should be made publicly
available whenever possible. Given this will encompass science
and engineering advice received, the Government is not persuaded
of the need to publish details of occasions when departmental
policy outputs have or have not fully reflected the Chief Scientists'
advice.
The Government's commitment to transparent policy-making
is described in the Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy-making:
In line with the Freedom of Information Act, there
should be a presumption at every stage towards openness and transparency
in the publication of expert advice. Departments should also ensure
their procedures for obtaining advice are open and transparent.
It is good practice to publish the underpinning evidence for a
new policy decision, particularly as part of an accompanying press
release. […] When publishing the evidence the analysis and
judgment that went into it, any important omissions in the data,
should be clearly documented and identified as such. This should
be done in a way that is meaningful to the non-expert.
7. Strong consideration should be given to
increasing the number of departments that have Science Advisory
Councils with a departmental remit. The Department of Health,
the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department
for Transport are obvious 'top-of-the-list' candidates, with the
latter two in particular needing high quality engineering advice.
(Paragraph 54)
The GCSA has made public his view that government
departments benefit from having an SA Council, and that he is
exploring the potential establishment of SA Councils across a
broader range of government departments.
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for
this agenda, and is pleased to report that, since the Committee
started its inquiry, DCMS has announced plans to introduce such
an advisory structure.
The potential to embed the model of an SA Council
across government departments was considered at the September
meeting of the Chief Scientific Advisors Committee (CSAC). Officials
in GO-Science will be acting on the outputs of this meeting to
progress this programme of work.
8. SAC members should not be criticised for
publishing scientific papers or making statements as professionals,
independent of their role as Government advisers. (Paragraph 64)
The Government agrees that the independence of science
advisers is critical. It was precisely for this reason that the
GCSA wrote to then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to express concern
over her criticism, in Parliament, of Professor Nutt (Chairman
of ACMD) with regard to an article he published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
Since the then-Home Secretary's criticism of Professor
Nutt, at least one SA Council, DefraSAC, has recruited a number
of new members. As Professor Gaskell (Chair of DefraSAC) informed
the Committee, applications were received from a large number
of high calibre candidates.
The Government is not complacent, however, and as
part of its annual monitoring of the health and functioning of
SACs, all SACs, and their sponsor Chief Scientific Adviser, have
been asked to report on succession planning and issues faced or
identified in recruiting new members. Responses to this year's
exercise are currently being collated and will be considered at
the December meeting of the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee.
The Government would be happy to report the findings of this exercise
to the Committee.
9. It is important to safeguard the independence
of the advisory system. In situations where the independence of
a SAC chairman or member is or might be threatened for political
reasons, support should be offered by the DCSA and/or the GCSA.
(Paragraph 67)
10. We welcome the steps taken by the GCSA
to deal with one incident that occurred between the Chairman of
the ACMD and the Home Secretary. Further steps that should have
been taken are: (1) the GSCA should have written or spoken to
the Chairman of the ACMD, letting him know that support was being
provided; (2) the correspondence between the GCSA and the Home
Secretary should have been published immediately so that other
SAC Chairmen and the public (including the science community)
could see that support was being offered; and (3) the GCSA should
have provided public support for the Chairman of the ACMD and
for his right to publish. (Paragraph 68)
The Government is committed to the provision of independent
scientific advice, and to supporting the mechanisms and structures
by which this advice is delivered. This is evidenced by its ongoing
work to embed science and engineering advice in policy-making
processes across government (through the appointment of CSAs and
establishment of SA Councils, for example).
The Committee can be assured that the GCSA will take
steps to support SAC Chairs and SAC members should he believe
that their independence is being impinged upon. The Government
does not, however consider it likely that instances of this occurring
will be widespread or accept that the GCSA should routinely publish
correspondence with SAC chairs, SAC members or Ministers. On the
issue of public support, the GCSA will decide on the most effective
action for dealing with any discord between the advice offered
by SACs and the development of government policy.
11. The Government should seek specialist
advice prior to making policy decisions, early in the policy-making
process. Clearly the Government should be free to reject the advice
of its SACs, since scientific evidence is only one factor—albeit
a very important one—in policy decisions: Advisers advise,
Ministers decide. However, when the Government does take a different
policy decision to that recommended by a SAC, it should make clear
its reasons for doing so. (Paragraph 69)
The Committee correctly identifies that science (and
engineering) evidence is only one of the factors that Ministers
take into account when reaching a policy decision. As outlined
in the Government's response to Recommendation 6 of this report,
the Government has a long-held view that the evidence-base for
any policy decision should be made publicly available and that,
when the decision runs contrary to independent advice received
(irrespective of the advisory structure), the reasons for rejecting
this advice be outlined.
Guidance on when to seek expert science and engineering
advice, and to publish this advice, is provided in the Government's
Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy-making. The
Government is currently acting to update this document and will
be launching a public consultation on the guidelines later this
year. The Government would welcome consultation input from the
Committee.
12. We conclude that there would be value
in being clear in the Code of Practice as to what 'independence'
means. Members of Science Advisory Committees are likely to represent
the views of their constituencies; what is important is that they
have no conflict of interest with Government. Therefore, in the
case of Science Advisory Committees, 'independence' should mean
'independence from Government'. (Paragraph 73)
The Government agrees that when used in relation
to SACs, 'independence' should mean independent of government.
This is reflected in the current version of the Code of Practice
for Scientific Advisory Committees which states that: 'committee's
advice […] should be seen as independent of government'.
The Government will ensure that the independence
of SACs from government is clearly reflected in the updated Guidelines
on Scientific Analysis in Policy-making.
13. We agree that SACs should recruit members
based on competencies. However, we are concerned that dropping
the term 'lay' removes an expectation that specialist advisory
councils should have non-specialist members. Additionally, we
are not convinced by the argument that scientists from one subject
are necessarily a 'lay' person in another scientific area. Whether
or not they are called 'lay members', non-specialists do have
a lot to offer specialist committees. The presumption should be
that SACs have lay/non-specialist members. (Paragraph 78)
The Government agrees that non-specialist members
can add value to the functioning of a SAC, and would advocate
that every SAC consider the inclusion of a 'lay' member amongst
its membership. However, the balance of specialist and non-specialist
members on a given SAC will reflect the role and remit of the
Committee in question. That said, the Committee may be interested
to note that—in November 2009—GO-Science will be holding
an event for SAC members across government to discuss the role
of non-specialist members, and how best to support their development
and working.
The Government can report that the majority of SACs
do count non-specialists among their membership. The precise balance
of specialist and non-specialist members varies considerably,
however. For example, the Forensic Science Advisory Council reports
having 11 non-specialist members and 4 specialist members; the
Advisory Committee on Packaging reports 2 non-specialist members;
and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment
has only expert members. The diversity of SACs' membership only
serves to highlight the degree to which the optimal structure
of a given Committee will reflect the nature of the issue on which
it advises.
14. We support the Code of Practice's emphasis
on the importance of publishing documents relating to the work
of science advisory committees. We would prefer a slightly different
emphasis on open meetings. Rather than recommending that SACs
"should aim to hold open meetings on a regular basis",
we suggest that SACs "should aim to hold the majority of
their meetings in public, making use of new media wherever possible".
(Paragraph 82)
A majority of SACs now hold one meeting in public
each year, with a broad range of SACs meeting in public on a regular
basis. This is indicative of a general move to greater transparency,
with a number of SACs routinely advertising meeting dates on their
websites and providing online access to meeting agenda, papers
and minutes and SAC reports (Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs; Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition; and the Advisory
Committee on Hazardous Substances, for example). The Committee
may be interested to note that the Human Genetics Commission makes
audio recordings of their meetings available to the public.
15. We can see the logic and agree that it
is important that SAC advice should be presented to Ministers
in advance of publication, giving them sufficient time to consider
a response. However, it is also clear that SAC advice should,
when it is given to Ministers, be final advice, and not a launching
pad for debate. On this basis, we recommend that the process of
SACs providing evidence to Ministers should be as transparent
as possible. SAC evidence that is presented to Ministers should
subsequently be published in unaltered form, along with the date
on which the evidence was presented to Ministers and the details
of any requests for alterations or clarifications of the evidence.
(Paragraph 84)
It is the longstanding view of Government that all
independent advice it receives be made publicly available as a
matter of routine. This view is clearly laid out in the Government's
Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy-making (see
the Government's response to Recommendation 6 of this report),
and, as set out below, in the Code of Practice for Science Advisory
Committees (CoPSAC):
Advice should normally be made public by the scientific
advisory committee at the time it is given or as soon as reasonably
practicable thereafter. Where there are circumstances which justify
giving advice in private, committees should consider whether the
advice could be made public after a suitable time interval has
passed. If so, they should publish the advice as soon as is reasonably
practicable. Reasons for privacy should be consistent with the
principles of Freedom of Information legislation [page 21].
16. We recommend that a small press office
be set up within the Government Office for Science, to serve the
press needs of GO-Science and all the Science Advisory Committees
across Government. (Paragraph 86)
GO-Science receives press office support from BIS,
with the GCSA and GO-Science being served by a dedicated press
officer. BIS press office and GO-Science are soon to be co-located,
and the Government does not consider a separate GO-Science press
office to be warranted.
It is the Government's view that there is not a 'one
size fits all' approach to be taken to the provision of media
support to SACs. In general, SACs receive press office support
from their sponsor department. Government departments and SACs
have close working relationships, and the provision of press office
support to SACs by their sponsor department is not contentious.
On the rare occasion that a SAC has requested independent
media support this has been arranged. The Government is therefore
of the view that, as is current practice, the precise nature of
support required by a SAC should be discussed on a case-by-case
basis.
17. Shuffling the body responsible for providing
cross-departmental science and engineering advice from one department
to another and then back again within the space of two years is
the opposite of 'putting science and engineering at the heart
of Government policy'. It reduces science and engineering advice
to, at best, a peripheral policy concern, and, at worst, a political
bargaining chip. If science and engineering are to be successfully
placed at the heart of policy, as the Government is keen to do,
two things need to happen. First, the Government Office for Science
(and Engineering, as we would have it) should have a stable home.
We believe that this should be the Cabinet Office: the heart of
Government. Second, there needs to be a Government Chief Engineer
and a Government Chief Scientist, who are responsible for cross-departmental
advice and coordination, freeing up the Government Chief Scientific
(and Engineering) Adviser to advise the Prime Minister more closely
and to act as a public figurehead for science and engineering
in the United Kingdom. (Paragraph 88)
The Government rejects the Committee's assertion
that the body responsible for providing cross-departmental science
and engineering advice (now GO-Science) has been 'shuffled about'
over recent years. The GCSA and the office that supports this
role have been continuously co-located with the department responsible
for the Science Budget since 1995. The Government believes this
is the optimal location for the GCSA and GO-Science and refers
the Committee to its response on Recommendations 2 & 3.
Debating strategic priorities and the Haldane
Principle
18. We are left wondering what this strategic
priorities debate was about and whether it has led to a major
shift in Government policy. We are in favour of a discussion about
how best to focus research funds so that the UK gets maximum reward
from its investment, but the lesson to be learned is that the
Government should be clear in its own mind about the format and
goals of a debate before launching it. (Paragraph 105)
25. In the case of the strategic-priorities
debate, the benefits of a fast-moving process have been countered
by a lack of coherence. Launching the debate with a Green Paper
or something similar would have given a focus to the debate that
was sorely lacking. We acknowledge that this would have elongated
the timeframe for the debate, but since the intention was always
for an on-going debate, this should not have been seen as a problem.
(Paragraph 133)
The Government welcomes the Committee's acceptance
that it should set the over-arching strategic priorities for research
funding. However, Government does not set priorities in isolation:
there is continuing dialogue between Government, Research Councils,
learned societies, research users, and the research community
about the strategic priorities for research funding. This consultation
takes account of changing circumstances. Such discussions have
in the past informed cross-council programmes such as those set
up following the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government
has already committed to consult more extensively in the runup
to the next Science and Research Budget allocation. The debate
that Lord Drayson launched earlier this year was set clearly in
the context of that continuing process. It was timely in light
of the turbulent economic climate, for at least two reasons: science
and research will have a key role driving the economy through
and out of recession, and it is more important than ever that
every pound of taxpayer's money is used as effectively as possible.
This timeliness was the reason for the rapid and flexible approach
taken to the debate, rather than a more formal approach such as
a Green Paper.
19. Past experience of failing to accurately
'pick winners' has led to a risk-averse executive. The belief
that 'sectors will pick themselves' is misplaced and when proactive
interventions by Government are not forthcoming, potentially successful
industries that germinate in the UK, blossom elsewhere. Choosing
to support one sector over another will be difficult. The Government
should develop clear and agreed methodologies for determining
priorities and acceptability of risk. (Paragraph 109)
The Committee is right to point out the challenges
for Government in making targeted interventions to help the economy
of the future. The Government laid out in detail its approach
to this challenging and important task in the policy statement
Building Britain's Future - New Industry, New Jobs, published
on 20th April 2009.
20. If the Government is to develop clear
and agreed methodologies for identifying areas of high priority,
these must also be effective in identifying areas of low priority.
Further, the Government should not prevaricate on this issue:
if it decides to prioritise some areas of research it should come
clean about which areas of research will see reduced investment.
(Paragraph 111)
The Government does not agree with the Committee
that it is necessary or desirable for the Government itself to
specify which areas of research will receive lower levels of funding.
Each Research Council decides independently how best to deliver
excellent research in priority areas, while retaining a broad
base of excellent research. They base their approach on the needs
and views of their varied research communities and the businesses
and public bodies with which they work.
26. Any debate on strategic science funding
should be put in the wider context of the role of science and
engineering in the economic and social wellbeing of the UK. The
2004 ten-year science and innovation framework was successful
in focussing attention on the importance of science and innovation.
We now suggest that the UK needs a 'national science and engineering
strategy'. The Government should spend the last two-years of the
ten-year framework (2012 and 2013) reviewing the science and innovation
framework and consulting on a new strategy that will set out the
direction of travel for science and engineering within UK plc
from 2014 until 2024. (Paragraph 137)
Halfway through the existing ten year Science
and Innovation investment framework 2004-2014, the Government
considers that this Framework continues to be appropriate, and
substantial progress has been made in achieving the aims set out
five years ago. It welcomes the Committee's view that the Framework
has been successful. There have continued to be annual reports
about further progress, and the Innovation Nation White Paper
last year was a further major step forward. The Government agrees
that further evolution will be desirable.
23. It is unlikely that the Science and Society
consultation will contribute substantially to "a new strategy
for the UK": most of what has been said was either predictable
or already government policy. However, we will watch the work
of the Expert Groups with interest. (Paragraph 126)
Government welcomes the Committee's interest in the
Science and Society work and would encourage widespread engagement
with the relevant Expert Groups. Whilst the initial findings of
the Science and Society Strategy consultation did not reveal pressure
for radical change, it did confirm, at a national level and with
the significant support of the vast majority of stakeholders,
a collective agreement to the priorities set out in the consultation.
Perhaps more significantly, it confirmed a willingness by a wide
number of organisations and influential individuals to come together
to provide increased momentum and co-ordination of activities.
The consultation revealed that the focus of science and society
is continually shifting and it was therefore timely to review
the science and society commitments in the Science and Innovation
Investment Framework: 2004-2014.
The externally-led Expert Groups have been charged
with appraising critically the science and society landscape,
and with testing the responses and key issues which arose from
the consultation. They will develop long-term delivery plans to
address the most important issues. Government Departments, Agencies
and NDPBs are represented on the groups and are fully committed
to the process.
24. We welcome the Government's commitment
to consultation. It would be helpful if the Government was clearer
about the reasons for each consultation and what was at stake.
This would make the process more worthwhile for all concerned
and would remove the feeling of 'box-ticking' that so often accompanies
consultations. (Paragraph 132)
The Government accepts the importance of clarity
of aims in consultation, but feels the best way to achieve this
in practice depends on the nature of the consultation. What is
important is that, as John Hutton is quoted in the Committee's
report, the consultation is "targeted at, and easily accessible
to, those with a clear interest in the policy in question".
The Science and Society consultation was a substantial formal
consultation open to the public. It complied with the Cabinet
Office Code of Practice on Consultation, from which John Hutton's
quote is taken, and used not only the basic minimum principles
for conducting effective Government consultations but new innovative
deliberative engagement techniques which are already an increasing
part of the science and society portfolio.
The debate on strategic priorities was not a formal
public consultation but was intended to be flexible and responsive,
and to engage expert stakeholders who were already very familiar
with the issues at stake: this allowed the debate to proceed in
a much more informal manner. The nature of each consultation is
always tailored to its audience and aims, in compliance with the
Code of Practice.
21. The Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills should consider long-term investment returns when it
considers strategic priorities in international partnerships.
(Paragraph 114)
The Government agrees. The UK has for a considerable
time sought to develop international partnerships that can help
bring returns in both the shorter and longer terms. The UK's membership
of CERN, which dates back to the 1950s, is just one example of
this approach, which the Government intends to continue.
22. Curiosity-driven research is a key component
of a successful knowledge-economy. We strongly endorse the view
that increased focus in applied research and industrial follow-through
should not be at the expense of blue-skies research, which is
one of the UK's greatest strengths. (Paragraph 117)
The Government agrees with the Committee that expanding
the frontiers of knowledge continues to be of vital importance
in its own right, as well as being key to the UK's future economic
and social success. The Science and Research Budget will continue
to fund such research driven by the curiosity of top quality researchers.
29. To conclude, we are in favour of the idea
that researchers are best placed to make detailed funding decisions
on the one hand and, in principle, we support the Government to
set the over-arching strategic direction on the other. However,
it is necessary for the Government to spell out the relationship
between these two notions for a broader funding principle to be
of any use. (Paragraph 157)
35. We have already given our support for
a more strategic approach to setting priorities in science funding,
specifically at the applied end of the spectrum. Considering this
issue in the context of the Haldane Principle highlights the need
for a new approach to science funding that incorporates the good
elements of Haldane in relation to basic science, but does not
hinder a more mission-driven approach to get the full benefits
of applied science and engineering. (Paragraph 185)
The Government is clear that the Haldane Principle
remains the correct basis for governing the allocation of science
and research funding. It welcomes the Committee's acceptance of
key aspects of the Haldane Principle: that researchers are best
placed to make detailed funding decisions on the one hand and
that Government should set the over-arching strategic direction.
Far from hindering the ability to do both blue-skies
and challenge-driven research, the Haldane Principle facilitates
it. For example, the Research Councils have responded to the strategic
challenges, identified by Government, of environmental change,
ageing, global security and sustainable energy with cross-council
research programmes that include blue-skies and directed research.
Under this approach, the UK research base is the most productive
in the G8 (and twice as productive as that of the USA), the UK's
research performance is second only to the USA while university
income from business and external sources has reached its highest
level ever.
27. The 2009 Budget Research Council savings
have had an impact on the way that Research Councils allocate
their funds. While this cannot be regarded as dictating 'detailed
decisions', it is not 'over-arching strategy' either; it is somewhere
in between. (Paragraph 155)
28. These 'savings' are in reality a strategic
influencing of research funding streams. Whether or not it is
the right thing to do is open to debate. But, either way, the
Government should communicate clearly what it is doing and not
label them as something they are not. (Paragraph 156)
The Government does not recognise the Committee's
account of the process by which Research Councils made commitments
to greater efficiency savings as part of Budget 2009.
As part of the preparations for Budget 2009, all
Departments sought to identify where further efficiency savings
could be made, in addition to those already committed to as part
of the CSR2007 settlement. After discussion with the Research
Councils on the level of savings that was feasible, the then Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills announced that the Research
Councils had committed to make an additional £106 million
of efficiency savings by 2010/11. The Research Councils decided
both how these savings should be made, and how the funding thereby
generated would be best used.
HM Treasury agreed that, given the importance of
science and research, the £106 million generated by these
efficiency savings should be retained within the Science and Research
ringfence. This was in contrast to most parts of Government, from
which efficiency savings had to be passed back to HM Treasury.
Research Councils then had to decide how to allocate
this £106 million. They consulted with the research community,
including at a public conference in April, on the priorities for
allocating this money. They subsequently announced these priorities
on 18th May.
The Research Councils decided how the initial efficiency
savings should be made, and later decided what the priorities
should be for allocating the resulting money, once HM Treasury
had agreed to its being retained. So while the Government agrees
that "the 2009 Budget Research Council savings have had an
impact on the way that Research Councils allocate their funds",
this is as a result of decisions taken by Research Councils in
consultation with the research community, not by Government. In
accordance with the Haldane Principle, the Government did not
determine what specific research should be funded: Research Councils
and researchers did.
30. Research Councils are not, and never have
been, the 'guardians of the independence of science'. That responsibility
has historically lain, and should remain, with the learned societies,
universities and individual academics. (Paragraph 159)
Research Councils have a important role to play in
ensuring that specific decisions about which projects and researchers
are funded are at arm's length from Government. They therefore
do guard the independence of scientific research. The Government
agrees that important roles in relation to independence are also
played by the learned societies, universities and individual academics.
The Government values and supports the autonomy of universities,
and the independent perspective provided by the learned societies.
31. The Government's refusal to give us confidential
access to papers relevant to this inquiry is unacceptable. Without
seeing the Science Budget Allocation letters, we are forced to
speculate that the Government has exerted inappropriate influence
over the Research Councils. However, we have been unable to confirm
or deny this suspicion because of the Government's contempt for
Parliamentary scrutiny. (Paragraph 165)
Far from having contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny,
Government welcomes and engages with it. In particular, the close
and regular attention paid by the Committee to issues surrounding
research funding is important and valuable to Government.
There has been no inappropriate influence exerted
over the Research Councils. The Government published details of
the allocation of the Science and Research Budget in December
2007, and the Research Councils published their detailed Delivery
Plans. As has been explained to the Committee, the purpose of
not disclosing the process between Government and the Research
Councils leading up to spending decisions is to promote candid
discussion and robust appraisal of options. Contemporary disclosure
of such discussion, or the knowledge that they would be subject
to specific scrutiny, would inhibit effective preparation of advice
to Ministers.
32. Logically, the Government cannot support
both the Excellence and Haldane Principles in their current form
and be responsible for promoting science and
engineering as a means of economic recovery and growth in the
regions. The time is ripe for an unambiguous rationalisation of
the two concepts. Researchers, industry, regional and national
policy makers and the public have a right to know on what basis
research funding is distributed both nationally and regionally;
the rationale for funding decisions should be transparent and
rigorous. The Government should adjust the framework for research
funding and regional development so that it does not contain internal
contradictions. (Paragraph 173)
33. Science and engineering are crucial to
the economic wellbeing of every region in the UK, and development
strategies that have supported and made use of science and engineering
have proven successful. In the consideration of UK science policy,
it is essential that the regional dimension is clearly and publicly
set out. It is important that the Government is able to communicate
its role in regional development and in science policy, and especially
the relationship between the two. It will only be able to do this
if it resolves the conflict between its regional policies and
the Haldane Principle. (Paragraph 176)
As the Committee acknowledges in its report, the
Government has been clear and consistent that
"Public funding of research at a national level,
through the Research Councils and funding bodies, is dedicated
to supporting excellent research, irrespective of its UK location.
The 'excellence principle' is fundamental to safeguarding the
international standing and scientific credibility of the UK science
and research and supporting an excellent, diverse, expanding and
dynamic science base, providing value for money for public investment."[2]
The Committee succinctly explains that this "is
a good thing because it keeps science competitive and sends the
money where it is most likely to produce the best results."
This principle was stated in the Science and Innovation investment
framework 2004-2014 and on subsequent occasions, and remains
in place.
The Government sees no contradiction between this
principle and recognition of the reality that science and innovation
are key factors in economic development. Funding is allocated
to universities and research institutes on the basis of excellence,
This funding enables researchers to contribute to the economic
development of the regions in which their research happens to
be located as well as to the UK more widely, but the funding is
not provided with regional development in mind The Government
sees no conflict between the allocation of research funding on
the basis of excellence according to the Haldane Principle, and
the work of the Regional Development Agencies in promoting economic
development in their respective regions.
The Committee refers to Lord Drayson's evidence in
which he acknowledged the regional impact of strategic decisions
about the location of major pieces of infrastructure. In this
evidence, he was referring specifically to the few occasions in
which Ministerial involvement is required, rather than the generality
of research funding. The published criteria used for the Large
Facilities Capital Fund (which is used to provide additional funding
for most larger public research infrastructure projects) are clear
that "the opportunities that are opened up for knowledge
or technology transfer and innovation" is one factor used
in making this type of decision, albeit one factor amongst fourteen.
However, as Lord Drayson made clear in his evidence, when taking
these and all decisions about research funding "the excellence…is
what comes first".
34. The relationships between the Government
and the research bodies that it funds should be both explicit
and transparent. We recommend that the different streams of research
funding are mapped and the nature of the contract between Government
and the research bodies described. (Paragraph 181)
36. The time has come for a new framework
to replace the Haldane Principle (however it is understood) that
adds transparency and rigour to the relationship between Government
and the research community. It is important that the diversity
of relationships between Government and the various bodies it
funds to do research are included under a broad set of principles.
We recommend that the Council for Science and Technology be commissioned
to carry out this work. (Paragraph 188)
There are many different types of relationships between
the various Government Departments and research organisations,
and as the Committee points out, "it would be inappropriate
for the same relationship to exist between each of these organisations
and Government". Government is not aware of any instances
in which the formal nature of the relationship is unclear. The
Government does not plan further work to map and describe the
overall relationship between Government and research bodies.
In the original Haldane Report, a clear distinction
is drawn between "research work for general use", in
which Ministers should not take a detailed involvement (this now
includes funding via the Science and Research Budget following
the Haldane Principle), and research carried out for the benefit
of specific Departments. Haldane writes "many Departments
must retain under their own control a distinctive organisation
for the prosecution of specific forms of research." The Government
still agrees that Departments should retain control over the distinctive
organisation of research for their own purposes. As for the Science
and Research Budget, Government is clear that the Haldane principle
remains the correct framework to govern that highly successful
set of relationships, and the previous Secretary of State John
Denham set out clearly in his speech at the Royal Academy of Engineering
on 29 April 2008 how the Haldane principle applies in a modern
context.
Science and Engineering Scrutiny
37. Changes to the science and engineering
scrutiny programme to make reviews shorter and mandatory are welcome.
We recommend that there should be regular and constructive liaison
between the newly formed Science and Technology Committee and
the Science and Engineering Assurance team. (Paragraph 194)
We welcome the Committee's interest in our Science
and Engineering Assurance (SEA) programme. The SEA reviews are
designed to provide information and assurance to both the GCSA
and Departmental Permanent Secretaries on the state of management
and use of science in Government.
The Committee has asked Professor Beddington to appear
as an early witness in the new S&T Committee work programme.
This would be the first opportunity for Professor Beddington to
update the Committee on the progress of the review programme.
Further updates could be provided at future evidence sessions.
While it may not be appropriate to discuss the emerging
findings of on-going SEA reviews with the Committee we would be
pleased to make reports of departmental reviews available to the
committee on publication.
38. We would like to thank all those who made
strong representation to the Leader of the House on our behalf.
We also recognise the responsibility that derives from a consensus
in Parliament and the science and engineering community that science
and technology scrutiny matters. We will strive to make the work
of the new Committee—which is essential for the democratic
scrutiny of science, engineering and technology—relevant,
rigorous and transparent. (Paragraph 207)
39. The current arrangement for the future
Science and Technology Committee is the best that could be achieved
following the machinery of Government changes. We suggest that
following the general election the committee responsible for science,
engineering and technology policy should be called the Science,
Engineering and Technology Committee. (Paragraph 210)
40. We suggest that the Science, Engineering
and Technology Committee should revert to its original 11 members
with a quorum of three. (Paragraph 212)
41. To avoid complications related to the
lines of departmental responsibility and future machinery of Government
changes, we suggest that following the next general election the
Science, Engineering and Technology Committee should be installed
as a free-standing committee with a cross-departmental remit for
science and engineering including research budgets across Government.
(Paragraph 214)
The Government welcomes the re-establishment of the
House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, a move
Lord Drayson and Professor Beddington have publicly supported.
As outlined in the response to Recommendation 31, the Government
values Parliamentary scrutiny and has appreciated the work of
the IUSS Select Committee.
The Government notes the Committee's suggestions
for changes to the name, membership and remit of the Committee
and agrees with the Committee's view that any further significant
changes of this kind would be better carried out at the beginning
of the next Parliament.
Conclusion
42. We close this inquiry by urging the Government
to raise its game. When it turns its attention to updating the
Science Framework, we recommend that the Government consult widely
with a view to producing a successor ten-year science and engineering
strategy that is both tangible and ambitious. We suggest that
built into this strategy-in the spirit of scientific and engineering
endeavour-should be an assessment of what benefits, if any, are
delivered by putting science and engineering at the heart of Government
policy. (Paragraph 216)
As we hope is made clear above, the Government agrees
with the Committee on the importance of science and engineering
to the development and delivery of government policy. On the issue
of updating the Science Framework, we refer the Committee to the
response to Recommendation 26.
1 To note that since the Government responded to the
Committee's report Engineering: turning ideas into reality,
due to a change of postholder it is no longer the case that the
DfID DCSA has an engineering background. Back
2
Quoted from 10 Year Framework Back
| 
