APPENDIX 2: LETTER TO MR IAN PEARSON
MP, MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, DIUS, FROM THE
CLERK
At a meeting on Thursday 20 November, the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee considered the Government
response to its recent report on systematics and taxonomy. The
Committee has asked me to thank you for the response and also
for your role in its co-ordination.
Whilst there were some aspects of the Government
response which the Committee welcomed (for example, the provision
of a financial contribution towards the costs of assimilating
the CABI fungal reference collection at RBG, Kew), there were
others about which the Committee has asked me to write to you
for further explanation:
The Committee was disappointed by the Government's
refusal to accept the recommendation (7.26) that the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills should take responsibility
as lead Government department for systematic biology. In para
6.18 of the Committee's report, the Committee gives evidence-based
reasons for its recommendation. Although, as you say, it may not
be uncommon for different aspects of a scientific field to be
spread across departments, the Committee had taken the view that
in this particular instance there were reasons why this diffuse
approach was not working in the best interests of the health of
the discipline. The Committee would welcome a more detailed consideration
of its reasoning in para 6.18 and, further, given your reference
to "effective coordination among departments" in your
answer to recommendation 7.26, an account of the mechanisms by
which this coordination is achieved and monitored.
With regard to the paragraph in the introduction
to the Government response listing the departments and bodies
on behalf of which DIUS was acting, the Committee would welcome
an explanation as to why the Scottish Government was not also
consulted given the importance of RBG, Edinburgh as one of the
leading taxonomic institutions in the United Kingdom.
The Committee would welcome information about the
governance of science within DIUS more generally.
The Committee was disappointed that, despite the
evidence set out in paras 5.4 and 5.5 of the report, NERC was
unwilling to accept the points raised concerning mixed signals
and the willingness of NERC to fund classical taxonomy (recommendation
7.19).
The Committee looks forward to your reply to this
letter early in the new year.
15 December 2008
| 
