The ‘My Science Inquiry’ process and next steps
1.During this Parliament we have sought to continue to widen our external engagement with the public as well as the experts and institutions who are usually involved as witnesses to our inquiries. For example, we:
- Opened up the second half of our oral evidence session for our inquiry, An immigration system that works for Science and Innovation, on 19 June 2018 to take contributions from the public gallery and via Twitter;1
- Held a half-day workshop with stakeholders to gather their input and advice to help us refine our immigration proposals;2
- Held summits with stakeholders on Brexit, science and innovation, and genomics to understand different points of view;
- Taken oral evidence away from Westminster;3
- Produced a teacher’s pack in conjunction with the Parliamentary Education Service for our Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health inquiry—the pack included a lesson plan for both primary and secondary school children and aimed to facilitate a discussion on their thoughts and use of social media;4
- Surveyed children visiting Parliament for our inquiries into the Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health and Energy Drinks;5
- Sourced questions from Twitter to put to the Science Minister in an oral evidence session;6 and
- Held roundtable and outreach events in Westminster and in other parts of the UK for our inquiries into Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health, Energy Drinks, Digital Government and Japanese Knotweed and the built environment.7
2.Our predecessor Committee conducted a ‘My Science Inquiry’ initiative in 2016–2017.8 We held inquiries into Algorithms in decision-making9 and E-cigarettes10 as a result of that initiative. In November 2018 we launched the ‘My Science Inquiry’ process again, which invited the public to suggest potential inquiries for our future work programme.11 Our initiative provided an opportunity for the science and technology community and the general public to alert us to topics deserving greater parliamentary scrutiny. We encouraged members of underrepresented groups to submit a proposal.
3.We asked submitters to describe, in 200 words or a short video, the nature of the issue that might be explored, why it deserved attention, and how Government policy in the area could be developed or improved. The responses were numerous, of a high quality and covered a broad range of potential subjects, spanning both ‘policy for science’ and ‘science for policy’ (how science and evidence is applied in policy-making). We received 86 written and video submissions, all of which are available on our website.12
4.We shortlisted ten submissions on the basis of the potential of the subject matter, and invited those submitters to deliver a five-minute ‘pitch’ to us, in public, on 29 January 2019. We published the transcript as formal evidence, so that their words could reach a wider audience beyond the Committee, and be entered into the permanent parliamentary record.13
5.We have selected four of the ‘My Science Inquiry’ pitches as the basis for new inquiries. In the first instance, we will launch an inquiry into commercial genomics. We hope to launch an inquiry into the impact of science funding policy on equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility within the next twelve months. We have combined two proposals—food security, the environment and crop protection, and organisms obtained by gene editing techniques—into an inquiry into the role of science and technology in addressing challenges to food security and biodiversity. We hope to launch this inquiry within the next 12 months.
6.We also intend to pursue all of the other ideas pitched to us in a range of ways, including highlighting concerns and suggestions to Ministers. We set out below a summary of the ten ideas pitched to us on 29 January and the actions we will take:
- Commercial genomics: Catherine Joynson (Nuffield Council on Bioethics) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into commercial genomics.14 In her pitch Dr Joynson proposed that an inquiry could look at the potential benefits and ethical challenges raised by the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry, as well as the impact of this industry on the NHS and the regulation that it is subject to. We will launch an inquiry into commercial genomics.
- Impact of science funding policy on equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility: Professor Rachel Oliver (University of Cambridge) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into the impact of science funding policy on equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility.15 Professor Oliver’s original submission was supported by 203 individuals. In her pitch she proposed that we gather data on how funding was allocated to identify any biases in funding processes. An inquiry could then explore the extent to which funding, policies, procedures and cultures were affecting diversity in science, and establish why certain funding streams tended to improve or limit diversity. We will launch an inquiry into the impact of science funding policy on equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility, within the next 12 months.
- Organisms obtained by gene editing techniques: Dr Nicola Patron (Earlham Institute) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into the regulation of organisms obtained by different gene editing techniques.16 She suggested that we explore whether there was a case for regulatory divergence from the European Union after the UK has left the EU. We will incorporate this into an inquiry into the role of science and technology in addressing challenges to food security and biodiversity.
- Food security, the environment and crop protection: Professor Toby Bruce (Keele University) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into food security, the environment and crop protection.17 He suggested that an inquiry could look at the tools available to farmers to protect crops against pests, weeds and diseases, how these had changed over time, what changes were needed to ensure food security in the future and research investment in crop protection. We will incorporate this into an inquiry into the role of science and technology in addressing challenges to food security and biodiversity.
- Ensuring secure digital innovation: Dr Emma Williams (University of Bristol) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into secure digital innovation.18 She explained that an inquiry could explore whether the UK should introduce regulation focused on improving the security of consumer ‘smart products’; and, if so, how best this regulation should be designed in order effectively to meet the needs of both consumers and product innovators. Due to pressures on our forward programme we are unable to currently commit to launching this inquiry within the next 12 months. However, we will retain it as a priority on our list of possible future inquiries. In the meantime, the Committee will write to Ministers on the issues raised in the pitch.
- Wearable technology: Dr Jyotsna Vohra (Cancer Research UK) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into wearable technology.19 Dr Vohra suggested that an inquiry could look at: how to harness the knowledge from wearable technology (such as Fitbit and applications such as MyFitnessPal); how these technologies could facilitate behaviour change; and how to use these technologies to inform policies that will help to reduce the incidence of preventable cancers and obesity. We will write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to seek information on the issues raised in the pitch and to explore what, if any, action the Government plans to take.
- Plan S and Open Access: Dr Robert Massey (Royal Astronomical Society) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into Plan S and Open Access.20 He told us that Plan S requires that, from 2020, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms. Dr Massey proposed that the Committee should hold an inquiry into the implementation of Plan S in the UK and the role of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in this process. We had already corresponded with the Minister on this matter.21 Following this pitch, we will write to the Chief Executive of UKRI about its review of Open Access and the steps they are taking to ensure that a range of stakeholder views inform the review’s findings.
- Microbiome research and applications: Dr Chris Brown (Society for Applied Microbiology) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into microbiome research and its applications.22 Specifically, he suggested that the Committee might wish to explore the potential benefit of a national microbiome roadmap and whether it could help to identify the key opportunities for growth, determine ways to coordinate funding, accelerate innovation, stimulate the early adoption of technology, and consider the case for regulation of microbiome research and innovation. We will write to Ministers on whether the UK should have a microbiome roadmap and what lessons we can learn from actions taken by international partners in this area.
- Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) guidance on science advice in policymaking: James Tooze (Campaign for Science and Engineering) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into GCSA guidance on science advice in policymaking.23 In particular, he suggested that we should review the uptake of and adherence to the GCSA’s guidelines on the use of science by different Government departments, including how that advice is sought and applied. We already hold an evidence session at least once a year with the GCSA, Sir Patrick Vallance. When Sir Patrick appears before us next we will question him on these matters. We will also look into how scientific advice is being sought and applied when we conduct inquiries looking at the evidence base for Government policies.
- What are the likely climate change impacts on health and productivity in the UK: Dr Gesche Huebner (UCL Energy Institute) suggested that we should hold an inquiry into the impact of climate change on health and productivity in the UK.24 In her pitch she explained that such an inquiry could explore: where Government funding should be directed to fill knowledge gaps on this issue; changes and futureproofing of standards and regulations; metrics for collecting data to inform policy in this area; and how health benefits were costed into Government calculations and policies intended to mitigate climate change. We will write to the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth to explore these issues and to understand what actions the Government could take to address the concerns raised.
7.We are grateful for all the written and video submissions we received, and will seek to incorporate the ideas contained in them in our work where possible. We have also sent details of all of the submissions we received, not just those that were shortlisted to present their ideas to us, to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for possible use in their briefing papers for parliamentarians.25
1 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2017–19, An immigration system that works for science and innovation, HC 1061, para 6
2 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2017–19, An immigration system that works for science and innovation, HC 1061, para 6
3 See, for example, “National Quantum Technologies Programme examined”, Science and Technology Committee announcement, 27 June 2018
4 Science and Technology Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health, HC 822, para 7
5 See, for example, Science and Technology Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health, HC 822, ‘Annex 3’ and Science and Technology Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Energy drinks and children, HC 821, ‘Annex’.
6 See tweet from the Science and Technology Committee Twitter account (@CommonsSTC) on 28 November 2018
7 Science and Technology Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health, HC 822, paras 6–8; Science and Technology Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Energy drinks and children, HC 821, para 5. See also, for example, tweets from the Science and Technology Committee Twitter account (@CommonsSTC) on 22 January 2019 and 24 January 2019
8 Science and Technology Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2016–17, Future programme: ‘My Science Inquiry’, HC 859
9 Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2017–19, Algorithms in decision-making, HC 351
10 Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2017–19, E-cigarettes, HC 505
11 “Committee calls for ideas from the public”, Science and Technology Committee announcement, 12 November 2018
12 See ‘My Science Inquiry’ publications on the Committee’s website
13 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 29 January 2019, HC (2017–19) 1716
21 See letter from the Chair to the Science Minister, dated 24 October 2018, and the Science Minister’s response, dated 11 December 2018, relating to UK Research and Innovation Review of Open Access
25 ‘POST publications’, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, accessed 6 February 2019
Published: 27 February 2019