Science and TechnologyWritten evidence from Dr Julian Huppert, Member of Parliament for Cambridge

I have the great privilege of representing BAS, and am familiar with the excellent work that it does. I have visited it and spoken to people about their activities both before and since being elected there. I hope the committee are already fully aware of the essential role it plays in doing fundamental science, and in critical environmental research.

I am extremely concerned about the proposals that are being made by NERC. It is already extremely clear that these proposals are damaging the reputation of BAS, locally and internationally, and is having very damaging effects on morale there, especially when coupled with the recently announced redundancy program.

I have been struck by the depth of resistance shown to this since the consultation was announced, not just among those directly affected at BAS (where there is extremely strong concern), but also among companies, NGOs and private individuals around Cambridge. A surprisingly large number of these have approached me unprompted to express their concern if the BAS presence, focus and brand were to be diluted.

While I understand the benefits of closer working between NOC and BAS, and between BAS and the University of Cambridge (which is underway in any case), I have now reached the firm conclusion that these proposals are a mistake, and run the risk of causing significant damage to the UK’s quality of research and international reputation in this area. I am not persuaded that the case made by NERC so far is strong enough to go ahead with this proposal.

It seems particularly shortsighted to push ahead with these proposals in the year of the Centenary of Scott’s death, and when because of the passage of the Antarctica Bill through Parliament, there will be especial Parliamentary scrutiny of this issue.

I have responded formally to the NERC consultation, and hope that they will look at the weight of opinion and abandon their proposals.

That consultation paper was very thin, and almost completely lacking in evidence for the proposed changes. I would expect more background and evidence for a RC consultation.

It was also lacking in vision and aims. For example, no reference was made to the fact that BAS works with a huge range of NGOs, especially in the conservation area. A focus on “human well-being, the national interest and the UK economy” neglects entirely a critical part of the purpose of these activities. The NGO community is concerned—one representative told me the changes would be “a huge loss”.

Cambridge is the home (among many other things) to the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, which includes organisations such as Birdlife International, Fauna & Flora International, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and The International Union for Conservation of Nature; key international partners for this work. The downgrading of BAS that would result from these proposals would harm these links, rather than furthering them as the document suggests is the aim.

With regard to the ships merger, there have been I believe four studies in the past of this issue. In 1999 they concluded “That the BAS fleet continue to be managed as an integral component of the whole BAS operation as at present.” In 2003 they wanted to ensure NERC “retains the current integrated nature of BAS ship operations”. In 2009 a recommendation was “Existing ship-related organisational structures and governance arrangements within NOCS and BAS should remain as currently”. The 201112 study has yet to report. As against this there is nothing I have seen to support the merger.

Given the harms to British science and reputation that would occur, I hope that the Select Committee will make it clear to NERC that they should abandon the proposals for a merger.

October 2012