This snapshot taken on 26/07/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleThe British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) Annual Festival of Science |
 |
|
| (Click picture for biography) | |
Building on Success Delighted to be here so soon after my appointment as Minister for Science. I have long taken interest in many areas of science and technology and in particular the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Some of you may recall that I contributed to the 1992 BA Festival in a session on teaching technology in schools. I regard the BA Festival, as a key opportunity in the year for communicating the excitement and importance of science to the young, the public, the media, opinion formers and MPs. Government commitment to science and technology In this country we have an excellent science and engineering base. The figures are very clear. With 1% of the world?s population, we undertake 5% of the world?s research, output 8% of the publications and receive 9% of the citations. The Chief Scientfic Adviser, Sir Robert May?s, analysis also shows that the base is extremely cost effective. However, we have been neglecting its infrastructure in recent years, and possibly part of our success has been achieved by consuming the seed corn. This was the clear and urgent message, as far as research was concerned, of the Dearing Report on the future of higher education. The first priority of this Government is to maintain the excellence of the science and engineering base, and the Comprehensive Spending Review has reversed the neglect of recent years. The base will benefit from a total of £1 billion additional Government funds over the next three years, plus the unprecedented public private partnership with the Wellcome Trust who are to contribute £0.4 billion, making a total of £1.4 billion. You will be learning more about this from Sir John Cadogan later this afternoon, but briefly:
The Government contribution alone has the result, in real terms, of increasing the 2001-02 Science Budget by some 15% above its level this year. In percentage terms an increase that equals or surpasses all other areas of public finance, including education and health. Why has the Government afforded the science and engineering base such a high priority? There are after all many other deserving calls on public funds. The main reason is the underpinning role of the SEB to an increasing number of opportunities and problems facing the UK, coupled with its potential for contributing to solving world-wide problems notably health and environment, and of particular importance, to solving problems specific to developing countries. To maintain the excellence of the science base, it is not enough simply to provide more funds, we need also to develop the knowledge, skills and research capability of those within it. Much of its acknowledged strength lies in the constant supply of young doctoral students and post doctoral researchers. This requires us to:
As an immediate outcome of the CSR, the minimum stipend for PhD studentships through the Research Councils has been increased by £1,000 over and above the adjustment for inflation. I look forward to continuing efforts by the universities and research funders to strengthen careers guidance at the doctoral and post doctoral level, building on existing initiatives in research training and in the management of post doctoral staff. Finally, in this connection it is important to flag up not just the issue of attracting more women into the physical sciences and engineering, but also to retaining them over the longer term through enlightened personnel policies throughout industry and the public sector including universities. This, like many other issues, could fill a speech on its own. I should like to draw your attention to the OST?s Development Unit for Women?s stand - Promoting SET for Women, which can be found in the Science Communicator?s Forum in the Bute Building, where you can obtain more information. I have two other major priorities. The first of these priorities is to improve our systems of knowledge transfer. We are good at the transfer of some elite science to the pharmaceutical, aerospace and biotechnology industries, but we need to build on this success and make certain that as many other industries as possible create competitive advantage by making better use of our science and engineering base. I must stress, however, that this must not be at the expense of distorting the prime function of university research, which is to push back the frontiers of knowledge. There are at least three ways of doing this:
At last year?s Festival, Margaret Beckett announced the launch of the President?s Partnership Prize to reward university departments that have done most in the past year to build research partnerships with industry. She announced that a further round would be held this year and Peter Mandelson confirmed that decision with the launch of the University/Industry Partnership Prize this week. The prize fund has been increased, but the emphasis remains on rewarding departments that have adopted a strategy for improving their game in this vital area.
Informed Government and Public Decisions My second priority is to ensure that everyone, both Government and individuals, have access to the best scientific advice when they are making decisions. Again at last year?s Festival, Margaret Beckett, spoke of the need for Government to place science at the centre of its thinking, policy-making and action. Peter Mandelson and I share that belief. Government decision-making should be based on sound science and the public should be able to rely on this being the case. Top quality independent scientific advice is crucial to all of this. Within Government, we must ensure that we have the most effective and appropriate advisory structure and it is important that this structure is understood by the general public. We must be open about advice that is received both to:
Progress One important element in achieving this goal is to ensure that Sir Robert May?s Guidelines on ?The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making? are properly implemented across Government. Some of you will already be aware that the Guidelines were prepared just over a year ago and set out a number of best practice measures on the use of scientific advice which Government Departments are expected to follow. Since the Guidelines were drawn up, a number of measures to assist in their implementation have been introduced. These include the designation of a Minister within each Department with specific responsibility for the Guidelines; and the regular reporting by departmental Chief Scientists on the procedures which they have put in place. Sir Robert has recently undertaken an assessment in conjunction with departmental Chief Scientists of progress in implementing the Guidelines. I am pleased to say that the Guidelines have made a positive impact with a number of specific instances of their value being identified. One example is their use in the provision of scientific advice relating to the serious situation on Montserrat last year. But Sir Robert also noted in his assessment that there is still scope for further action and Peter Mandelson and I are determined to ensure that this takes place. We have already asked Departmental Ministers to examine what further action is necessary in the individual circumstances of their own Departments, and the Office of Science and Technology will be supporting them in this work. At a time of unprecedented scientific advance the Government must be confident that it is achieving the very highest standards of integrity and openness in its use of scientific advice, and it must also be able to convince the general public that this is the case. The public consultation exercise I therefore want to stress the need to take these matters forward with the general public, by which I mean potentially everyone in the UK including, in relevant circumstances, everyone here! It is clear that over the years the public has lost faith both in Government?s - and in the scientific community?s - handling of advances in science and technology. This is a trend that we have got to reverse. One of our challenges for the future is to make the debates behind science and engineering accessible to everyone. We need to break down perceived barriers and engage people in debates about the science issues of the day. Openness and honesty are key to a better understanding of scientific concepts. There is a need for more science communication to focus on the issues that really worry the public. Recently we welcomed the opportunity to fund a Consensus Conference on the handling of nuclear waste, run by the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development. A panel of lay people will be exposed to a wealth of information and will then have the opportunity to question expert witnesses. This aims to allow the lay panel to reach a consensus on what the public perceive to be the key issues associated with handling and disposal of radioactive waste. This information can then be fed into policy making. Last year at Leeds, John Battle first declared his intention to set up a new Government sponsored consultation initiative to seek people?s views on the wider issues arising from recent developments in the biosciences. This will focus on access to and use of information relating to the biosciences. This includes the information available to policy makers and the general public, as well as any mismatch between the two and the way that people use this information to inform their judgements relating to risk and trust. In particular we hope that the exercise will provide an opportunity to highlight and increase awareness of the network of advisory committees in this field. A small advisory group has been appointed to help the OST plan the final implementation of this project and I look forward to us starting to generate meaningful results in the next few months. This project is seen as being a key contributory factor to a number of Government activities. For example it is referred to in a recent Office of Science and Technology memorandum to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee as well as in the answers to recent Parliamentary Questions. It could be argued that an activity like this, in helping us to understand better the requirements of the public, actually plays a part itself in improving the quality of scientific advice available to Government, and hence helping to generate a virtuous circle of better communication and improved understanding. Conclusions As we enter the 21st Century, we need to ensure that the science and engineering base is fit for purpose. This is an exciting challenge both to me personally as the new science Minister, but also to everyone here. In addition to the priorities for the Government that I have outlined, it is a challenge:
|
|
|
|
|
Other speeches by Lord Sainsbury of Turville
(the following are available from the archive) |
|
