Comments on Industry, culture and agriculture Consultation paper from Scientists for Labour Executive Committee

PROGRESS SO FAR

First Scientists for Labour wishes to express its recognition of the benefits already accruing as a result of a number of initiatives implemented by the Labour government to improve competitiveness and strengthen science and technology, in particular:-

• the £700 million investment for modernising our science base in conjunction with the Wellcome Trustthe establishment of the University Challenge Fund and of NESTA,
• the improvements to the Business Link network,
• the rationalisation of the Enterprise Investment Scheme,
• the positive commitment given to the EU Fifth Framework programme,
• the proposed Independent Food Standards Agency, and
• The support given to IT, and its related training, within schools and libraries.

We welcome too the budget proposal to introduce tax credits for research in the Finance 2000 Bill. However, we hope that the system implemented will be simple and transparent and be structured in a way that encourages industry-academia-government to interact Tax credits have been a feature of US science for some time, but the systems used there are complex, difficult to understand and open to abuse.

The role of the science base: A partial answer to all three questions posed on page 19 about the role of Government in supporting the UK economy would be to invest public funds in basic research. This is taken up at several points throughout the paper, however a rather simplistic view of the relationship between basic research and the economy is adopted, in particular the prevailing view is that the investment in the science base is simply about getting "more good ideas from the science base to market" (p8)

We find merit in a SPRU review prepared for the Treasury (April 1996), "The Relationship Between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance," in which the so-called linear view of innovation is questioned. The report goes beyond the traditional notion of basic research yielding useful information, to seeing scientific knowledge as embedded in individuals and organisations. The report characterises six types of benefit from basic research

• increasing the stock of useful information,
• new instrumentation and methodologies,
• skilled graduates,
• professional networks,
• technological problem solving,
• creation of new firms.

Thus the public funding of science is more about training, building competencies and networks, rather than simply producing novel ideas. There are signs of a greater acceptance of this point of view, (see the 1998 DTI White Paper, Our Competitive Future) and the adoption in this consultation paper of language such as "strengthening the nation's capabilities". Furthermore, innovation cannot be done to command, and so it is important to ensure that not only are scientists given freedom to develop new ideas, but that when something of commercial promise is available there is the expertise in the public/University sector to see that is developed.

In order to meet the Government's goals of building a productive economy Scientists for Labour emphasises the importance of the highest quality of research training at an undergraduate and postgraduate level. This may be seen as more of an "education" matter; but business consistently identifies the provisions of well trained graduates/researchers as the most important benefit of academic research.

The Growth of high technology industries may not follow traditional patterns of industrial growth - i.e. it will gravitate toward Universities rather than sources of cheap labour or energy, raw materials etc. This raises problems for many University towns which lack the transport infrastructure and housing stock to support rapid population growth, or indeed for London which is already expensive, congested and lacks available land near it academic centres. If new jobs are created then people will follow, and so some really serious planning and infrastructure investment issues need to be addressed.

Co-ordination and independence of Governmental science:It is essential that there should be real co-ordination of science policies between sponsoring ministries.-particularly between the DTI(OST) and DEE since the health of the science base ultimately relies on the appropriate nurture of science education. Changes in policy at sponsoring departments can have dramatic effects on Institutions nominally sponsored by other departments e.g. BBSRC Institutes have borne the brunt of sudden shifts of policy at MAFF.

The public will always be suspicious of new technologies, and yet our economy is increasingly dependent on successfully introducing such new technologies. Public acceptance of this will depend on their being a good base of independent scientific advice that they can trust. This means that not only must a lot of science be funded directly through the Government and not industry, but also that attempts to get academic scientists to have more industrial contacts do not result in them being seen to be financially dependent on these contacts. Scientific advice must not be seen to be allied to the interests of the producers at the expense of the consumers. Scientists for Labour supports public funding of research into "regulatory" science, in order to set independent standards and raise issues of concern thus decreasing the dependence on industrially sponsored research. A greater role for the academic societies and institutions might be appropriate here (and elsewhere)- although the Royal Society gets involved in scientific debate, the voice of the other institutions, whose members are in general much closer to the issues in question, is rarely heard. It is reiterated here that although industry can and should be encouraged to play a role in supporting the science base it is essential that government funding should continue to be paramount in supporting creativity and fundamental research.

Ideas into products/processes The document implies that the 'entrepreneurial individual with vision' is the scientist him- or herself. However scientists are generally more likely to be risk-averse than risk-takers - even an apparent scientific leap in the dark is usually based on careful consideration of preceding work. Therefore the implication that the scientist with a marketable idea will tear of his lab coat and start hustling like Richard Branson is naive. We know that a few have attempted to go down this road (notably in biotechnology) but they are the exceptions. In many cases the pressures of academia and RAE are sufficient to discourage a foray into the risky fields of commerce. While we recognise that the government has made tremendous efforts(ecpecially in the recent Budget) to support technology transfer this problem at the interface between academia and start-up(and between ministries) will need to be alleviated before a really effective transfer of technology is acheived.

There is a need to carry out basic research aimed at establishing why new technologies and inventions, invented in Britain, do not get the support they need to be developed into processes and products within the U.K. To blame 'under investment' for the short comings in UK's productivity problem is an over simplification. Cultural divisions between the arts and sciences lie at the centre of the problem and severely inhibit communication, particularly between the scientific inventors and those in commerce who make the investment decisions. More immediate action is necessary to counteract these divisions and build bridges. Foresight could help by establishing forums, involving academia, industry, politicians and commerce, where technical and non-technical people alike can confront some of the issues thrown up by science and the new technologies.

Pre-16 in Schools : Science has a unappealing image with many school students, and is perceived as being difficult. Science is seen as creating rather than solving the worlds problems. Even following revision the National Curriculum in science remains too restrictive. Many pre NC GCSE syllabuses had vocational components and options that could respond to regional and local needs. We need to return to this position to make science more interesting. GNVQ has been suggested as an alternative vocational route but its use is exceptional and the assessment procedure is onerous on teachers and students alike. The one great step forward in the last decade is Double Award Science for all. This has opened many doors for students who would not have chosen a range of science subjects. However a lack of equipment and technician time, a shortage of laboratories and large classes all encourage unadventurous methods of science teaching.

Post 16 in Schools: We welcome the announcement this week of the broadening of the syllabus in the first year of A level study. The new Dearing horizontal slice AS level will also encourage more students to study science post 16, and it will also enable students who are weaker A level students to gain a qualification.. We would suggest that concentrated real science experience should be available to all students studying Science This could take the form of visits from industrial and academic scientists as well as direct external interactions. The development of science (and other) networks between schools,academia and industry would be extremely valuable in this context Another option would be to utilise the Science Centres which are being established in some areas and to support outreach teams in visiting schools.It should also be noted that before LMS Education Authorities were able to fund such initiatives directly but the local pressures on schools are now making such resourcing moire difficult. A brief study of A level subject results will show that science A levels are harder than other subjects.thus the average A level student would gain A level chemistry two grades lower than the average of all other subjects. These figures contribute to the feeling among 16 year olds choosing their post 16 options that science is difficult.

Media Perception: Most school students have a very limited understanding of the range of scientific disciplines and the range of scientific opportunities. The Institutes of Biology, Chemistry and Physics and other professional bodies do provide attractive and interesting information about working scientists. More has to be done to improve the perception of science as contributing solutions to humanities problems rather than creating the problems themselves. Issues such as nuclear waste, GMO, BSE, and pollution are all perceived as failures of science and scientists. The Institute of Engineers provide an example where much has been done to try to raise the public perception of their profession. This is an area where the government could make much greater use of professional bodies.

Students pick up a lot of their science from TV advertising. This and many other sections of the media are notorious for bad science. Is it possible to encourage accuracy and fair coverage? TV media projects like Local Heroes with Adam Hart Davies provide positive science image of current and historical figures and provides the thrill of discovery. Can more be done to use existing positive science images? Also scientists need to the get a fair press in the medical research and health issues sector. This is hugely media friendly but all too often advances are perceived as being due to the medical profession rather than scientists. If the link was made more strongly that breakthroughs were due to scientists working in tandem with medical professionals, then the perception might begin to change

Unfortunately the answers don't appear to be simple and require root and branch reform of the "career structure" from primary school onwards and a major PR initiative to convince the public that scientists are working to help improve people's lives and are part of general society. Even if we can persuade young people to make career choices potentially leading down a scientific path, too many fail to continue and we need to ensure that the best young scientists are encouraged at every stage to follow a scientific career.

Careers: The need for a proper and attractive career structure for scientists is of fundamantal importance if the science base is to be maintained and it is suggested that a a concerted effort should be made in co-operation with the professional bodies to provide a practical solution.(Scientists for Labour made some points on this question in their submission to the Dearing Committee).A number of scientific career paths (but clearly not all) are either not available or promotion restricted if individuals do not have a PhD and it is clearly at this stage that decisions on recruitment are paramount. and it is crucial to encourage top graduates to embark on a PhD in order to drive the science base. Unfortunately more and more graduates are turning their back on this option, particularly through the traditional Research Council funded studentship option. In 1998-99 a staggering 15% of EPSRC studentships weren't filled and the others were not far behind. The knock on effect is that University departments are filling these places with anyone who fulfils the criteria and can be made to sign on the dotted line. Not the best way to ensure a quality science base and also not the way to ensure that the candidate embarking on a PhD is committed to it. There appear to be three main reasons for this crisis:

1). Students are now graduating with considerable debts. The NUS suggests the mean debt is approximately £4-5k. For science graduates who may have a high level of timetabled teaching, debt could be greater

2). Although the basic stipend for a research student has been significantly increased by the

government to £6455 this works out at £3.10 per hour based on a 40 hour week and we all know that the best students work considerably more than that. This value is well below the minimum wage and assumes that the PhD can be completed in 3 years. If not, the student is faced with working for nothing. Their peers who have choosen to get a job as a graduate could be earning at least three times as much.A number of organisations are addressing these problems. For instance the Wellcome trust supports students at £12k p.a., nearly twice the research council rate. This is creating a two tier system that the Research Councils need to address. Furthermore, the Wellcome have introduced a fully funded four year scheme which provides an initial year for general and more structured training, which can be taken as a masters if the student wishes to drop out after that time. The specific research project follows in the subsequent years. This idea is supported by the UK Life Sciences Committee.and seems well worth following up(perhaps even at the expense of reducing the number of studentships)

3). Once having obtained a PhD the University based career structure and pay levels are not inviting. Years spent on short term contracts, often with the odd month "unpaid" break is hardly attractive. With salaries starting at less than £16,000 after perhaps 7 years training and rising to just £20k after five years work it is not surprising that very many potentially talented scientists end up in other walks of life.

Quality of life issues have a science angle as well which has been overlooked here. Improved health care, safety testing, pollution control, environmental study etc may not ever make money but will do a great deal for people’s quality of life. There needs to be explicit acknowledgement of the importance of science in the government's role as "the consumer's champion" (p22) and its role in helping protect the environment.

In any analysis it is often the case that distinctions are over emphasised. However, we feel that it is important to draw attention to the false separation of wealth creation from quality of life. How wealth is created has a large impact on our quality of life and this is particularly obvious with regard to the environment. We should work to develop a broader understanding of wealth at the same time as considering how to build the productive economy viz considering the interests of the consumers and the quality of life in the workplace and the environment.

Scientists for Labour recognises the importance of the Foresight Exercise, and we welcome the more inclusive approach being taken by the Government. The introduction of Education, Skills and Training and Sustainable Development as underpinning themes is a very positive step in widening the scope of the exercise, as is the addition of three thematic panels on the ageing population, crime, and manufacturing in 2020. We would also like to call for an element of direct citizen participation: new technologies must be acceptable to the public. Government's involvement in science and technology must have as its objective the improvement of the quality of life of "the many and not just the few". The methodologies for this could resemble the Citizens Juries developed by IPPR for consideration of Health Policy, which would build on the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology held in 1994, and the one to be held this year on Nuclear Waste. It could also be seen as an extension of the current public consultation on the bio-sciences being carried out by the DTI.

1) Scientists for Labour welcomes the substantial progress made by the government in investment into the science base.

2) We would draw attention to the crucial role of maintaining public resourcing of fundamental and creative research.

3) We note that scientific and technical factors will increasingly influence policy accross departments and that even more efforts should be made to to ensure that there there is effective co-ordination between departments on these issues.

4) We are very concerned about the poor perception of science and technology by the public in general and its effect on the growth of knowledge based industries. We would urge that steps be taken at all levels to ensure that there is an attractive and rewarding career structure as one means of dealing with this problem.