2 Key themes from Parliament 2010-2015
Foundations for the effective
use of science in government
9. The means through which scientific advice and
evidence most effectively informs policymaking has been a recurring
theme of our work during this Parliament. Despite some progress,
there are still improvements to be made across government, in
particular regarding the scientific advice structures in government
and the use of evidence in policymaking.
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE STRUCTURES
10. The need for effective scientific advice structures
in government and the provision of well-informed, accurate and
timely scientific advice and evidence in policymaking has been
evident in many of our inquiries. The annexes of this Report touch
on a number of areas for improvement in this regard. We see a
need to strengthen the scientific advice infrastructure across
Government.
11. In our reports, we have supported the conclusions
of predecessor committees that the Government Office for Science
would be more effective if it were located in the Cabinet Office.
We have seen several instances where a stronger voice from the
centre of government would have had a more powerful influence
than is possible from a department within BIS.[7]
12. We have considered the role of Chief Scientific
Advisers (CSA) both within departments and as a network of advice
across government. We have found that policy is often adversely
impacted if a department does not have a CSA in post;[8]
if it does not fully involve the CSA in all policy changes to
ensure that they are informed by effective scientific advice and
evidence;[9] if CSAs and
senior officials cannot dedicate sufficient time to their science
brief;[10] and when practices
for appointing CSAs do not ensure that the most suitable person
is offered the role.[11]
13. CSAs are often supported within departments by
a system of advisory councils and committees that allow departments
to draw in expertise from external science authorities. These
councils and committees should adhere to standard guidance from
the Government Office for Science on composition, conduct and
transparency. It has been illuminating to discover the diversity
with which such bodies are used across departments, not always
to the benefit of evidence-based policy. We noted several Ministers
were unclear as to the difference between these bodies and the
role which these bodies should play.[12]
14. We were particularly concerned by the arrangements
in the Department of Health where the situation is made more complex
by the historic position of Chief Medical Officer (CMO). Health
is an obvious area in which science must inform frontline policy
decisions, but Ministers demonstrated to us that they were unclear
of how that policy and advice should interact.[13]
Dame Sally Davies, the current CMO and CSA for the Department
of Health, is doing an excellent job of bringing health-related
science issues to the public arena and ensuring their consideration.
However, we have concerns that combining the two positions has
the potential to blur the line between an advocate of policy and
an independent adviser with a remit to challenge policy. We have
made recommendations on this matter in our annex dealing with
the Department of Health.
15. At European Union level, we expressed our concern
to Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission,
at the delay in appointing a chief scientific adviser,[14]
and later expressed our relief that there had not been a decision
to abolish the post.[15]
We were encouraged that Mr Juncker had sought advice on what options
were open to him "to better institutionalise future independent
scientific advice to the Commission, based on the experience made
in all Member States".[16]
16. How the
President receives independent scientific advice with respect
to EU legislation may be of interest to our successor Committee.
THE USE OF EVIDENCE IN POLICYMAKING
17. We have been a strong advocate for robust scientific
evidence being the basis for government policy. Despite a recent
trend toward the greater use of evidence in policymaking, in certain
instances, Ministers have not been able to demonstrate the use
of scientific advice or evidence in important policy areas. This
has been most visible in the Department for Education and the
Home Office and we have expressed concerns about the position
of the CSA in both departments.[17]
We have not conducted an inquiry into how scientific advice and
policy is utilised across the whole of government but it is a
theme our successor committee may wish to remain vigilant to during
the next Parliament. Our
successor committee may wish to consider such an inquiry early
in the next Parliament given that it may require an extended piece
of work that becomes less tenable as the Parliament progresses.
Delivering science and scientific
advice
18. Even with optimised scientific advice structures
in government and the consistent and robust use of evidence in
policymaking, scientific advice and evidence can only be used
if the necessary delivery mechanisms are in place. Over the course
of this Parliament, we have become concerned that two essential
components to the delivery of science have been significantly
eroded, namely public spending on science and research and the
integrity of our scientific infrastructure.
SPENDING AND RESEARCH
19. Throughout this Parliament our work has been
set against a backdrop of challenging public finances. Although
we welcomed the Government's announcement of one-off additional
funding for The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, shortly before our
evidence session on the subject, and there have been a number
of welcome announcements by the Government on capital spending,
we have seen reductions in science budgets affect science facilities
(for example in astronomy and particle physics),[18]
research within government departments (for example in the Department
for Education),[19] and
potentially threaten the existence of the British Antarctic Survey.
We are conscious that the
challenging financial landscape is likely to persist for a number
of years and, in light of the Government's Science and Innovation
Strategy and spending review 2015 settlements, our successor committee
may wish to take a more detailed look at the effects on science
and technology of constrained public finances across all government
departments as well as challenging the curious definition of 'science'
in that strategy.
SCIENTIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE
20. We have been concerned by the reductions in public
funding for important scientific infrastructure, to the extent
that the country's long-term scientific capability may be undermined.
Funding for The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,[20]
astronomy and particle physics facilities,[21]
public sector research establishments,[22]
the National Schools Observatory[23]
and the ownership and governance structure of The National Oceanography
Centre, the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the British
Geological Survey[24]
are just some examples of risks to scientific infrastructure that
we have encountered during this Parliament. Additionally, we have
found that a lack of long-term funding for fundamental (data building
and conservation) research poses risks to our 'infrastructure
of knowledge', an issue we encountered particularly in respect
of marine science.[25]
21. Given continuing
spending constraints, we expect that this will be an ongoing issue
during the next Parliament.
'Spreading the word' and the future
of science
22. For the effective public use and future of science,
science should not operate in a government, policymaking or science
community 'silo'. Our work has repeatedly brought to light the
fact that the Government has much work still to do to utilise
innovative technology in the public sector, to communicate effectively
scientific issues to the public and to develop the scientists
and engineers of the future.
INNOVATION AND PROCUREMENT
23. The Government has laid the foundations of an
improved national innovation structure during this Parliament.
Innovate UK, Catapult Centres, the British Business Bank and the
Small Business Research Initiative should all contribute to scientific
and technological innovations and growth which would strengthen
and grow the country's science base. We have heard evidence of
public sector procurement practices, for example in the National
Health Service, not necessarily complementing these initiatives.
Given public sector procurement power, and the knock-on benefits
this can have for investment into innovative businesses, we concluded
that government departments could do more to procure from and
reward innovative companies, not least those that have benefited
from public support.[26]
A better understanding of the impact of Catapult centres is needed,
both in terms of them driving innovation and, importantly, their
impact on the availability of longer term financing. We consider
this again in paragraphs 43 to 46 of this Report.
THE COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE
24. We have published several reports[27]
that have examined the need for appropriate and effective communication
of science to the public to ensure that they are sufficiently
well-informed to judge government policy. In those reports, we
discussed the varying roles that will be played by the media,
scientists and higher education, all of whom have a responsibility
to communicate science to the public. There is significant improvement
to be made in this area and the Government has a central role
to play in ensuring that the public can find well-written, accessible,
authoritative and objective information.[28]
Sir Mark Walport, the current Chief Government Scientific Adviser,
has told us on several occasions that science is not a democracy[29]
but science can be politicised and, if it is, then both science
and the scientists that provide advice are much less valuable
to government in the delivery of evidence-based policy.
25. The role
of Government in leading national debate on issues such as climate
change and genetically modified crops will be undermined if it
cannot point to transparent, authoritative and independent science
that the public can trust.
THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS
26. A frequent concern has been that the next generation
of scientists are not being as well supported or provided for
as they should be.[30]
The state of school science facilities,[31]
reforms to practical science examinations and vocational qualifications,[32]
the skills and number of science teachers, the conditions of laboratory
technicians,[33] careers
advice[34] and the underrepresentation
of women and minority groups in science careers[35]
are ongoing challenges to be overcome if the country is to reach
its full potential in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
in the future.
27. We were encouraged to hear from Nick Gibb MP,
Minister of State for School Reform, that the number of pupils
studying science A-Levels has increased under this Government.[36]
However, that alone will not fulfil the Government's aspiration
that the country's future be based on a knowledge economy with
high quality science and engineering at its core.
28. We recommend that our successor Committee
keep a watching eye on science qualifications and how schools
and universities develop the scientists and engineers we so desperately
need.
Conclusion
29. Despite
the Government officially advocating the importance of scientific
advice and evidence as a key input in the policymaking process,
our work during this Parliament has demonstrated, on a number
of occasions, that this is not always reflected in Government
practice. The use of scientific research and analysis in policymaking
is generally understood and practised by certain departments,
for example the Department of Health and the Department for Business,
Innovation & Skills. However other departments, notably the
Department for Education, the Department for Environment, Food
& Rural Affairs and the Home Office, appear either not to
appreciate the value of scientific advice and evidence in policymaking
or simply do not have the capability, experience or processes
in place to utilise it. This remains of great concern to us.
7 For example, see the Department for Business, Innovation
& Skills annex to this Report (p24) and Science and Technology
Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2013-14, Government horizon scanning,
HC703, para 39-40 Back
8
For example, at times the Department for Education did not have
a Chief Scientific Adviser in post during reforms of A-Level practical
science examinations Back
9
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education,
HC 665, paras 91-92; Science and Technology Committee, Seventh
Report of Session 2010-12, The Forensic Science Service, HC 855,
para 171 Back
10
Oral evidence taken on 10 November 2014, HC (2014-15) 640, Q15-16
[Dr Leunig] Back
11
Oral evidence taken on 10 November 2014, HC (2014-15) 640, Q4
[Dr Leunig]; Letter to the Chair of the Science and Technology
Committee from the Permanent Secretary, Department for Education
and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Government Office
for Science, 16 December 2014 Back
12
See Annex 5, Department of Health, scientific advice structures Back
13
See Annex 5, Department of Health, scientific advice structures Back
14
Letter to the President of the European Commission from the Chair
of the Science and Technology Committee, 20 November 2014 Back
15
Letter to the President of the European Commission from the Chair
of the Science and Technology Committee, 2 March 2015 Back
16
Letter to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee from
the President of the European Commission, 16 January 2015 Back
17
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education,
HC 665, paras 91-92; Science and Technology Committee, Seventh
Report of Session 2010-12, The Forensic Science Service, HC 855,
para 171 Back
18
Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12,
Astronomy and particle physics, HC806 Back
19
Q76 [Nick Gibb] Back
20
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2014-15,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, HC 866 Back
21
Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12,
Astronomy and particle physics, HC 806 Back
22
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2012-13,
Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research,
HC 348, paras 131-137 Back
23
Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12,
Astronomy and particle physics, HC 806, paras 117-121 Back
24
Natural Environment Research Council, 'NERC considers charitable status for new ownership model in two of its research centres',
accessed 26 January 2015 Back
25
Science and Technology Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2012-13,
Marine science, HC 727, paras 13-16 and paras 41-43 Back
26
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2012-13,
Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research,
HC 348, paras 138-174 Back
27
Communicating climate science, National health screening,
Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies, Malware
and cyber crime, Advanced genetic techniques for crop improvement:
regulation, risk and precaution and Risk perception and
energy infrastructure Back
28
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2013-14,
Communicating climate science, HC 254, paras 105-110 Back
29
For example, Oral evidence taken on 6 November 2013, HC (2013-14)
254, Q440 [Prof Walport] Back
30
Science and Technology Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010-12,
Practical experiments in school science lessons and science field trips,
HC 1060-I; Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of
Session 2012-13, Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education,
HC 665; Back
31
'A message from Andrew Miller MP, Chair of Science and Technology Select Committee, to Nick Gibb MP, Minister for School Reform. Filmed at the Science Museum, London',
26 November 2014 Back
32
Science and Technology Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010-12,
Practical experiments in school science lessons and science field trips,
HC 1060-I Back
33
Science and Technology Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010-12,
Practical experiments in school science lessons and science field trips,
HC 1060-I, paras 65-69 Back
34
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education,
HC 665, paras 70-78 Back
35
Science and Technology Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2013-14,
Women in scientific careers, HC 701 Back
36
Q37 Back
|
