Memorandum submitted by Professor Andrew
Wallard (FC 01)
1. BACKGROUND
AND THE
CONTEXT OF
MY EVIDENCE
1.1 am the Director of the International
Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), an intergovernmental organization
supported by 54 Member States (which include the UK) and
27 Associates of the General Conference on Weights and Measures.
Our job is to work towards world-wide uniformity of measurements,
to maintain the international system of units (SI) which is the
basis of all measurements, and to coordinate the work of the National
Metrology (measurement) Institutes world-wide. We work in measurements
for physics and engineering with traditional applications in manufacturing
industry and traded products which require measurements to demonstrate
conformity with written standards for trade and to avoid technical
barriers which might come as a result of non-acceptance of measurement
by, for example, regulators. Our responsibilities also extend,
increasingly, to measurements needed for chemical metrology, climate
change, healthcare, etc. The aim is to put as many national measurements
on the same basis and to ensure their traceability to internationally
agreed standards. More details are on our web site www.bipm.org
1.2 As a result, I am very familiar with
the UK's "national measurement system" and the role
of the Government in providing support for research, development
and maintenance of national standards as well as for their comparison
with those of the UK's trading partners.
1.3 My attention has been drawn to the forthcoming
study by the Science and Technology Committee on the impact of
spending cuts on SET and scientific research.
2. SCOPE OF
THE REVIEW
2.1 Whilst I would imagine that the majority
of the Committee's attention would focus on academia and Research
Councils, I believe it is important to draw your attention to
the small, under-rated, but yet hugely economically important
topic of measurement standards.
2.2 Through BIS, the UK currently spends
some £60 million a year on supporting what is loosely
called the "National Measurement System" or NMS. The
majority is spent on maintaining the country's national standards
of measurement and improving them to meet user needs in commerce
and society. Day to day measurements in business, universities,
hospitals and every aspect of the nation's life have to be traced
to national standards if they are to be accurate, reliable and
internationally accepted. Much of the work is at the National
Physical Laboratory which, once having established national standards
which reflect national needs, goes on to provide calibrations
and related services for users in industry, the health service
as well as other bodies which require accurate measurements in
order to achieve their mission. Some of these additional requirements
are mentioned in paragraph 5. National expenditure also includes
support given to a number of specialised laboratories, and the
United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is responsible
for making sure that industrial laboratories do their measurements
correctly and that they are nationally traceable. All these laboratories
and agencies have a degree of private sector involvement in their
management (ranging from fully privatized to being managed under
contract to the BIS) and in my view are the epitomes, amongst
other such laboratories world-wide, of efficiency and effectiveness.
By reputation, the UK is universally acknowledged to be in the
"big three", together with USA and Germany. Within BIS,
the National Measurement Office deals with measurement in the
regulated sector, traditionally known as "weights and measures".
The Office also works to plan the national strategies, and prioritize
the NMS work programmes in all the areas of measurement.
3. THE WRITTEN
SUBMISSION
There are a number of short points I would like
to make to the Committee.
3.1 Awareness and impact of measurement standards
(metrology)
Most people will never have appreciated that
about 6% of GDP depends on making measurements.
3.2 The obvious measurement activity—mature
technologies for the most part—which makes up this remarkable
statistic are in things like petrol pumps or the day to day dimensional
measurements needed to ensure quality and that products fit together
wherever the sub-components are made in the world. Don't, though
be drawn into a false impression that once standards and their
dissemination infrastructures like this are in place, they don't
need to be improved routinely. There is always the need to respond
to demands for better accuracy or product or process innovation
or to new measurements needs even in traditional areas such as
dimensional measurements. Just because there is, say a national
yard or metre doesn't mean that it can stay as it is without being
continually updated and the challenge will, in fact, be for measurements
of very small quantities for nanotechnology. The rule of thumb
is that uncertainies and accuracies need to be halved every decade
to meet what then becomes day to day needs. Developments such
as this take time and patience. They are not usually suitable
for University research where the normal PhD research project
timescales are too short.
3.3 In order to maintain their competitiveness,
companies continually have to exploit better measurement to do
better in the market place. For example, the Airbus wings can
only be made in the UK and fitted together with the fuselage in
France because of a very sophisticated measurement technology
in the UK. Rolls Royce engines demand the finest measurement tolerances
and have continually to be upgraded to improve efficiency and
make sure that they compete with General Electric and others.
3.4 Other measurement work covers the relatively
esoteric such as creating the next generation of "clocks"
for initiatives like the European Galileo programme—as well
as maintaining national time scale (the "Pips") and
ensuring it is consistent with the world mean. Surrey Satellite
Systems were helped to be awarded the recent high prestige Galileo
contracts because they can access the best measurements in the
word. In other areas, measurement impacts directly on all of us
who, for example, need dosimetry treatment for cancer. Metrology
ensures that the patient receives the correct dose by calibrating
standards in hospitals against UK national standards, which are
themselves compared with those in other countries so that if treatment
is needed abroad, the patient can be confident that the metrology
is correct.
3.5 This is classic "public good"
support and fully reflects market failures as no one user organization
would take on the responsibility on behalf of all other users.
Cuts would raise the very real prospect of damage to a unique
and vital element of the nation's infrastructure. Cutting the
"here and now" would lead to increases in costs to industry
or to companies being forced to try to find a solution to their
needs elsewhere. Cutting development work, for which users have
already been identified, would mean that there would be no measurement
infrastructure or expertise on which to draw. There is a wealth
of examples that touch on the day to day economic life of the
country: cuts would put all that in peril.
4. THE EXTENT
OF ANY
DAMAGE FROM
CUTS
4.1 Maintaining current services is a no
brainer—it has to be done but where would the UK be without
a measurement infrastructure on which to rely for the future?
Developing and proving a new standard takes time to create confidence
in its accuracy. UK is up with the best, but in this game, as
elsewhere, reputations matter and cuts will damage the essential
new developments as well as international collaboration.
4.2 Frankly, this could not have come at
a potentially more damaging time. The UK has led—no-one
doubts this—a major European collaboration programme which
has resulted in a cost shared programme. It will, I believe, lead
to a sharing out of responsibilities in due course: the UK may,
for example, hold the temperature standards for Europe, Germany
may be responsible for lighting: France for some electrical measurements.
This the first time in the world that such an ambitious and thoughtful
programme will be mounted. If there are cuts, then the UK "50%"
will not be available and all the hard work of the last 10 years
will be jeopardised.
4.3 And every aspect of science relies on
measurements—that's what scientists do every day of the
week and without an accepted infrastructure that addresses new
challenges as well as underpins existing activity, UK scientists
would be unable to compare their results with those made elsewhere.
Measurement leads innovations: of nearly all the recent science
Nobel prizes in physics, the first application is a measurement
one or the subject has been developed by metrologists. President
Obama's Secretary of State for Energy used to be a leading laser
metrologist. Here's what he had to say about measurement and new
science:
"Accurate measurement is at the heart
of physics, and in my experience new physics begins at the next
decimal place".
Under his influence and that of other US Departments
of State, huge investments are being made in measurement related
topics …climate change, new industries, biosciences
and health care and others such as those illustrated in this submission.
The USA, despite its own economic difficulties, is not stinting
on upping its game.
5. MEASUREMENT UNDERPINS
ALL THE
CURRENT GREAT
CHALLENGES
5.1 Measurement underpins much of what
the Government has stated as its key policy objectives, and which
are broadly cross-party. For example,
— climate change is moving to measurements
based on international standards (I am actually currently collaborating
with the World Meteorological Organization to put the international
structures in place from which the UK and others will base their
measurements). The Deputy Director is a total convert. "How",
he said, "can you take decisions when large uncertainties
exist in measurements related to climate change" and that
(without measurements) "we don't know how to achieve the
desired level of accuracy". UK metrologists are just about
the best in the world in this area.This is a relatively new area
where investments are being made and cuts would weaken, if not
loose entirely, an ability to continue to make a world-leading
impact and to sustain the UK's reputation in the area, let alone
enable the UK'sindustrial and economic interests to be appropriately
protected in the ensuing debates. The next step is the measurement
element in the carbon economy and traceability in carbon trading
which will mean that all operate from the same quality and accuracy
of measurement. The economic impact, the sums of money, and the
impact on competitiveness and the "level playing field"
will be huge
— health, especially the measurements made
on, for example, cholesterol or other hospital measurements are
coming into the ambit of the NMS as the clinical community realises
that only by making accurate, reliable measurements can clinical
diagnoses be correctly based. The World Health Organization accepts
that biological standards like the activity of insulin have to
be traceable to the International system of Units rather than
subjective assessments in vivo. This was unheard of five years
ago. Once this is done, progress will accelerate and the NMS must
respond or the UK drug and pharmaceutical industry will be at
a competitive disadvantage. Sports drug testing comes into the
same category—and is being developed for the London Olympics
with the World Anti Doping Agency;
— trade benefits because there is a system,
accepted by countries which represent about 95% of the world trade,
that recognises the accuracy of measurements made nationally.
There are numerous case studies of savings of many millions of
pounds because companies don't have to re-test for exports. In
this system, the world's experts get together to assess each others'
measurement capabilities and so agree to accept tests and measurements
made in the something like 40% of world trade that requires compliance
with specification standards; and
— new technologies depend on measurements
for knowing what is what. For example, legislation in nanotechnology
will, sooner or later, require measurements on, for example, particle
size. This is not easy but places like the NPL are world-leaders.
6. ECONOMIC IMPACT
6.1 Unfortunately measurement is largely
taken for granted, as the NMS works well and it is very rare that
there are errors. The consequence is that metrology lacks the
glamour of, and attention given to, particle physics, genome programmes
or astronomy. Yet the economic impact of the UK's investment—modest
in relation to those in most other developed countries—is
enormous in public expenditure terms. There are many many studies,
which date from the days of the DTI, and which show that, for
example:
— the £60 million investment
leads to national economic benefits of about £5 billion;
— a Canadian study found an eight-fold
benefit from public investments; and
— a recent European study showed that investments
produced a rapid rate of return of 3:1 from investments at
the European level.
There are also a number of UK and US studies
which demonstrate rates of return of between 10 and 30 to
1.
6.2 These rates of return—even given
a degree of professional scepticism from politicians or economists
—are amongst the highest from any sort of public investment:
the irony is why there is not talk of an increase rather than
a decrease in the spending.
6.3 Whatever is said and done, there can
be no doubt whatsoever that the return achieved from support of
measurement science and technology is demonstrable, immediate,
sustained and creates an economic and social impact now. The paradox
is that the UK is benefiting from a good level of support in the
past. It's not as much as in some other countries, but UK is amongst
the top three in this business- although rapidly now challenged
by Japan, Korea and China as the Asian economies ramp up this
support. All developed and especially developing countries realise
that they have to have these infrastructures to trade, protect
their environment and to be a player on the world scene. As a
response, UNIDO has several hundred million dollars earmarked
for investments in measurement infrastructure. I recently met
with the Secretary General and his Deputy Director responsible
for sustainable development and who said that " UNIDO doesn't
do enough to help developing countries who have no choice to show
compliance with measurements if they want to trade in the world".
If this is true of the developing world, it is significantly more
important for an economy like the UK which is hugely dependent
on technically competitive exports.
6.4 The good news is that these are—sustained
benefits delivered on a day to day basis, rather than promised
for the future. It really is "jam today". These are
not wistful academic hopes of a possible application; they are
real benefits being ploughed into the economy and sustaining economic
development everywhere. So pulling back makes no sense. They would
hurt UK industry, slow down innovation in new technologies and
mean that the UK would not be able to work in the leading edge
groups dealing with the measurements related to the Great Grand
Challenges, to our way of life, and to industrial development
and growth.
I am very happy to amplify my remarks to the
Committee should it so desire.
Professor Andrew Wallard
Director, International Bureau of Weights and Measures
January 2010
|
