Opening up policy

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Manager

I’ve written a post at the Society of Biology’s (more public-focussed) blog on ‘Opening up policy’, in which I touch on participation, the representativeness of public samples, opening up democratically, social considerations and engaging with experts.

You can read it here.

Recent reading – science, careers, gender, policy and a look forward

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

This is an abridged collation of some of the interesting reading I came across/finally got round to over the Christmas break.

Careers and science

• Steve Caplan, Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Nebraska, questions whether the increasing focus on ‘translational research’ will restrict the next generation from asking the fundamental questions in basic science – and why this is dangerous.
• … Elsewhere, he argues that despite a lack of academic careers (relative to the number of PhD positions) we should train more students to PhD level if we also improve their training – not just preparing them for academic careers. (I tend to refer to this as ‘PhD 2.0’.) He also highlights this Individual Development Plan tool from AAAS’ Science Careers.
• Science Insider reports that a blogger who exposes scientific fraud has stopped posting following legal threats. Paul Brookes, Associate Professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, hopes to set up a new site with his real name behind it. (In related news, Fang Shi-min – a freelance science journalist and biochemist – recently shared the inaugural John Maddox prize for uncovering scientific fraud in China.)
• Times Higher Education publishes an article highlighting a US study, which argues that international groups of scholars bring complementary skills and ideas that aid research, resulting in a greater number of papers, which – in turn – are more highly cited.
• The BBSRC will announce full details of two schemes to support the translation of new ideas in biotechnology and bioenergy into commercial applications this month. Both will aim to foster industrial collaboration.
• Christine Fernandez, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, summarises a workshop which gave eight tips to publish high impact.

Women in science

• The organisers of the SpotOn London conference compile a useful selection of resources for female scientists looking to raise their profiles online (some also apply to men).
• Curt Rice, Vice President for Research & Development at the University of Tromsø, writes a great article about how quotas raise quality, and how diversity is about more than social justice. He also includes a succinct account of the ‘paradox of meritocracy’.
• The House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee take oral evidence for their Women in the Workplace inquiry. The transcript of the session with Dame Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Chair of the Royal Society of Edinburgh inquiry into Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), Kate Sloyan (Institute of Physics 2012 Very Early Career Woman Physicist of the Year Award winner), and Helen Wollaston and Trudy Norris Grey (both of the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Campaign) is worth reading.

Science for the economy

• David Docherty, Chief Executive of the Council For Industry and Higher Education, summarises the Growing Value report (PDF), which urges the government to make sustained, ‘steady-handed’, strategic commitments to research; prioritising collaboration between universities and business, and entrepreneurism.
• The Technology Strategy Board explain that the biosciences are a priority for them because they “could form the basis of a new technical revolution” (PDF, from page 12). They outline the opportunities for business and the challenges for innovation.

Openness

• Curt Rice (again), summarises a recently published paper on Open Evaluation, arguing that changes to how we evaluate are essential to the Open Access movement.
• The latest issue of The Journal of the Foundation for Science and Technology (PDF) features articles on implementing the Finch Report from Professor Sir John Enderby, as well as an article from Julian Huppert MP about how he uses social media. There is also a piece by Professor Pete Downes (former Chair of the Biochemical Society Policy Committee) about how universities can catalyse innovation. Crucially, he highlights that we must produce graduates who understand this and are interested.

The policy process

• Kirsty Newman (from the Department for International Development, but writing on her personal blog) says that when looked at in the right context, policy making processes need not be complex or complicated to engage with.

And finally…

• Nature has published a forward look at what they see the key stories of 2013 being, including the results of a clinical trial which uses human embryonic stem cells.

Getting robots to do agri-science (or George Osborne’s 8 priorities for science)

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

George Osborne gave a speech at the Royal Society this morning, in which he highlighted eight research prriorities:

1. Data driven discovery
2. Synthetic biology
3. Regenerative medicine
4. Agri-science
5. Energy storage
6. Advanced materials and nanotechnology
7. Robotics
8. Satellites and space

Sarah Castell jokingly suggested that we could kill two birds with one stone:

Let's get the robots to do the agri-science, two priorities in one hit. #Osbornesci

—
Sarah Castell (@sarahcastell) November 09, 2012

You can read a transcript of the speech here. I wasn’t there, so my impressions of the juicy part – the Q&A session – have been gleaned from the Twitter feed. The impression one gets from this is that Osborne didn’t really give satisfactory answers to questions on the migrant cap, the 4G campaign and more. It is fairly clear that the Treasury still does not couple sustained investment in science with economic growth, which is why we need to keep making the case for this.

And what if your research has not been deemed a priority? What about investing in people and skills? The government needs to recognise that the it is not enough to fund research; rather the overall basic research system must be protected. As Kieron Flanagan (Lecturer in Science and Technology Policy as the University of Manchester) has argued, “many of the social and economic benefits of research actually stem from the health and dynamism of the ‘system’ and not from the the impacts of specific bits of research.”

P.S. I’ve been writing more at the Biochemical Society blog recently. You can check it out here: http://biochemicalsociety.wordpress.com/

Update: You can now listen to speech and Q&A session here: http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/osborne-at-royal-society/?utm_source=social_media&utm_medium=hootsuite&utm_campaign=standard

Returning role models

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

I write this (referring to yesterday as I couldn’t post it then) whilst sitting in one of Bath’s many fine pubs (I recommend a spot next to the fire in the Pulteney Arms, next to Henrietta Park), reflecting on today’s inaugural Daphne Jackson Trust (DJT) Research Conference. It is often remarked that the Trust does wonderful work helping women (and, since 2003, men too) return to SET careers following careers breaks. As it celebrates its 20th anniversary, with its profile ever rising under the leadership of the charismatic Dr Katie Perry, the Trust is putting more emphasis on demonstrating the research output of its fellows. This, Katie told me, is the best way of getting buy-in from the higher echelons of university management, and also reminds the scheme’s advocates – such as myself – that the Trust’s aims are not only extremely valuable at an individual level, but also for the UK science base. I’ll not go into the issues around the benefits of operating in diverse research teams here, but needless to say the DJT schemes certainly contribute in this way, if only at a relatively low level (for now) considering the number of fellowships available. With the conference showcasing the research of fellows from more areas of SET than I am usually accustomed to seeing, I personally found the day very interesting, and it was fantastic to see such a great turn-out.

Whilst in conversation with Professor Alistair Fitt (Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University and a mathematician by research interest) and Professor Rob Eason (a Trustee of the DJT and deputy head of school in the Optoelectronics Research Centre at the University of Southampton), we noted that the balance of current fellows seems weighted towards biologists. We speculated that this was probably because there are more women (whilst the scheme is open to men and women, women are more likely to have a break to return from) from a bioscience background who had a research career to ‘return’ to. The percentage of female A-level physics students has lagged at around one in five for the past quarter century. Nevertheless, schemes such as the DJT fellowships are contributing to an increasing bank of role models (for more on this theme see last week’s post on Ada Lovelace Day) to help inspire the next generation of women to pursue research careers, as Daphne Jackson – herself a physicist – did. I hope that this, combined with the cultural changes which should accelerate as this issue continues to be discussed, will make a difference borne out by the numbers in years to come. One such role model on display at the conference was Dr Tzanka Kokalova, after whose presentation it was remarked that she might well end up with a Nobel Prize should her research in nuclear physics bring the ‘right’ results. Having given up physics at 16 (like many others I never had a specialist physics teacher due to the national shortage) much of the science was beyond me, but Dr Kokalova’s engaging personality made her an interesting speaker and certainly someone to look out for.

All in all, the day represented a successful divergence of the DJT’s programme of activities. I look forward to next year’s event (which will hopefully give me a chance to explore another of the UK’s lovely cities outside of London!) and to hearing more interesting research stories from engaging returners.

ESOF – European parallels, career tips, and a new peer review guide

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

I attended ESOF (the Euroscience Open Forum) on Friday, in the fair city of Dublin. I took a lot away from it (not least that riding a Vespa to Gatwick isn’t a very good idea). As I’m shortly to take the best part of three weeks off for the Olympics, I will have plenty of food for thought, particularly on careers, on which I attended a number of sessions.

ESOF is a huge, biennial behemoth (the next one will be held in Copenhagen) but in a good way – I was very impressed. On Friday, the sessions ran from 8:00 to 18:30, with around ten parallel sessions at a time and no designated breaks (I took the opportunity of a Bob Geldof keynote to duck out and get a sandwich). The UK is perhaps not as engaged in the European science ideal as other countries, but on first reflection, I noted that many of the discussions were similar to those going on in the UK. Here are my scribbles from Máire Geoghegan-Quinn’s keynote speech, the current European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science (excuse the roughness):

• Politicians should deploy the scientific method whenever possible, need to remind of that
• Science vital for future – and intellectual inquiry will always explore most profound ideas
• Higgs – excitement across all ages, groups and countries
• Challenge-driven research important, but curiosity-driven research leads to great discoveries – silicon chips (Bohr), WWW
• Challenge-driven research also brings fundamental benefits – e.g. aero wings and fluid dynamics
• Horizon 2020 – not everyone happy with large settlement, so keep making the case
• ERA – single market for ideas in Europe – increased competition and cooperation between member states (existing example of CERN). Goes live soon. Another important strand is Open Access. Need everyone to line up behind ERA – will deliver science excellence for Europe. Will rely on political will and trust
• March of progress will rely on centrality of science and public trust – must communicate well e.g. on synthetic biology (the same day, ‘A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK‘ was published)
• Thriving intersectoral ecosystem is necessary for solving problems
• Already examples of successful collaborations and things going on in background – Grand Challenges a good and relatively cheap way of stimulating it
• DARPA – $1m for driverless car. Led to many partnerships
• Human Genome Project – for each $ spent, $140 generated
• Open access will help collaboration. People cannot always be co-located, but could be huge enabling factor – individuals, poorer countries, SMEs – which then pump money back into local community – more tax – more research funding…
• Should we be aiming to get tangible outputs back from publicly funded research?
• We must support both forms of research. This is where ideal spin-off situation arises
• Can’t aim to capitalise on specific things before know what outcomes will be.

Elsewhere, I heard some interesting tips from Dr Silvia Giordani from Trinity College Dublin on careers:

1. “Change is good… Being crazy is rewarded in the end.”
2. “Learn as much as you can early, and you can put it together later.”
3. “Network, network, network!”

Peer review guide launched

The previous day, Sense About Science launched their ‘Peer Review: The nuts and bolts’ guide at the conference. Despite the quickening evolution of the publishing landscape, peer review – as I heard at a recent(ish) meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee – remains the gold standard for determining the soundness of scientific papers, and misconceptions (particularly about open access journals) can be damaging.

The guide was produced by Sense About Science’s Voice of Young Science network, and provides a quick reference how peer-review works and how to do it. Helpfully, it features guidance from both sides of the fence – both editors and scientists at different stages of their careers, as well as other observers such as James Randerson from the Guardian. It is definitely recommended reading, although it acknowledges that formal training in the art of reviewing is variable in amount and availability.

If you were at ESOF too, let me know!

Peer Review: The nuts and bolts (PDF): http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/99/Peer-review_The-nuts-and-bolts.pdf
Further reading (Science Careers blog): Become a Reviewer: Advancing and Contributing in the Scientific Establishment

Brief thoughts on the Finch Report

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

We have released a statement on the Finch Report, the report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (known to all as the Finch Group). I am in no doubt that the scientific community and public want open access. But, working at a learned society, to me it has been interesting to see how the debate over the more technical details have played out over recent months, given that we:

a.) represent a significant community of scientists (we recently passed 6000 members)

b.) generate a significant amount of our revenue from publishing.

Economically, publishing is already important for our economy – as David Willetts said himself (admittedly when addressing the Publishers Association AGM) – and open access publishing could be too. The opportunities and potential of the wider ‘open science’ movement is huge, especially when other possibilities such as data mining are taken into account. But there are risks involved, and learned societies face a challenging transitional period. The whole research ecosystem will need to be on board, particularly funders.

The transition is already taking place and the open publishing world is developing quickly. In 2008, a survey showedthat the landscape was very unclear and that none of the member societies of the Biosciences Federation (a fore-runner of the Society of Biology) offered a fully open access journal. Now, Portland Press Ltd (our publishing subsidiary) alone publishes two: Bioscience Reports and ASN NEURO (on behalf of the American Society for Neurochemistry).

The shift to open access is, to my mind, undoubtedly a good thing, as long as it can be done sustainably and any charges do not exclude people from being published. That would be completely self-defeating, which is why we all need to work together for the benefit of researchers and the public.

Post at Nature’s Soapbox Science: Policy as an outreach activity

I recently had a post published on the Nature Soapbox Science blog. You can check it out here. It forms part of the #reachingoutsci series.

James

Costs, investments and empty labs

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

I’ve just seen the shiny new(ish) video for Cancer Research UK’s new campaign called Create the Change. It’s about raising money to help fund their contribution to the Francis Crick Institute, in which they are joined in consortium by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, UCL, Imperial College London and King’s College London. They’re looking for £100m.

Personally I believe that the Francis Crick Institute is a great idea, but there are significant problems and risks associated with building and launching it at a time of severe cutbacks, and not just in capital and from government. The investment comes at the same time as CRUK (late last year) and Wellcome Trust (early last year) decisions to cut their project grants. This is a huge blow for researchers in the biomedical field, particularly young researchers. It is already very difficult to secure research funding and these decisions exacerbate such problems.

UK grant application success rates are currently around 20%, which brings its own dilemmas, and with competition increasing and renewed emphasis on excellence (seemingly being framed as if mediocre was OK before), many are at risk of exclusion from some of the foremost sources of research funding. However, if our commitment to fundamental research is to be preserved at a level which can maintain our future research excellence, we need to invest in potential. At the moment, the losers of increasingly demanding competition risk exclusion for not being judged ‘excellent’ enough. The Wellcome Trust’s long-term investigator awards are praiseworthy, avoiding the stop-start disruption which affects the planning and productivity of labs. But cutting project grants just increases the uncertainty and instability for those who are not lucky enough to secure one of these, which is the majority.

Fundamentally, project grants are increasingly hard to find. Will the paucity of opportunities start to drive researchers abroad – will there be any talent to fill the labs of the Francis Crick Institute in years to come? Are the differences between costs and investments being fully realised?

Does the Forensic Science Service closure bring opportunity for stronger research in the field?

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

With discontent still surrounding the imminent transfer of all the Forensic Science Service’s (FSS) work to private providers and the police, one potential (emphasis on potential) silver lining is the extra attention research has been given in the inquiry.

The FSS previously spent £3-4 million per year on research and development, a significant hole which now needs to be filled for the sake of our justice system and competetiveness in this area. Furthermore, commercial forensic service providers have less incentive than the publicly funded FSS to conduct original research, particularly at a time when they need to rapidly expand their scientific services to shoulder the extra work they must now take on. To counter this, there are now growing calls for forensic science research to be incentivised within the public funding framework; by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB).

In December, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee held an evidence session at which they questioned Professor Bernard Silverman, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Home Office, on this issue. Professor Silverman spoke positively and said that he was undertaking discussions with the three aforementioned funders. With the FSS gone, the Home Office may no longer be seen as the ‘home’ of forensic science research, creating an onus on these three, who receive their funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. And, as Professor Jim Fraser, Director of the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Strathclyde, said in his submission to the original inquiry: “The research councils talk a great deal about the ‘impact of research’. What could be more impactive than criminal justice?”

Whilst the Research Councils will not make forensic science an immediate ‘strategic priority’, Professor Silverman was enthusiastic that they are taking steps to stress the importance of research in this area. Continued political pressure will help them “rise to the challenge” (Silverman) and encourage innovative research in universities, for which they can be rewarded through the Research Excellence Framework.

Whilst it would be foolish to expect all the FSS’ research and development practises to be continued, this may well provide an opportunity for new, innovative and collaborative research to fill this gap.

Also attending the Science and Technology Committee evidence session were James Brokenshire MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Prevention) and Andrew Rennison (Forensic Science Regulator). Other items under discussion included the FSS archive and the creation of a new strategic group, which is expected to meet for the first time in April. An uncorrected transcript can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/uc1698-i/uc169801.htm

Discussing international students in STEM on Radio 4

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

You and Yours, on BBC Radio 4, devoted its programme last Tuesday (6 December) to discussing the value to the UK of international students studying science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) here. The broadcast, which attracts an audience of around 3 million, took place following the publication of a research report by Civitas (a non-partisan think tank), which accredits the rise in STEM graduates in recent years to an influx of foreign students. Is this a problem?

Looking at data from between 1997 and 2007, the research suggests that Britain is suffering from an indirect form of brain drain. Under current immigration rules, non-EU students do not have automatic right to stay in the UK following their period of study and will move away having taken advantage of our higher education system, which is acknowledged as world class. The basic statistics are published in Civitas’ press release, but in short, the report says that we are not actually seeing a rise in home-grown STEM graduates. Civitas suggest that this puts us in a vulnerable position whereby we cannot use the knowledge-base we develop to support our own economy. (Note – Inside Higher Ed reports a similar phenomenon is occurring in the USA.)

Most of the callers to the show, however, tended to be of the opposite opinion and Stephen Clarke, the author of the report, was forced onto the back foot. We heard about the positives of having UK-trained scientists abroad, with examples such as the building of international collaborative networks and the spreading of British ‘soft power’ given as ways in which our economy benefits. The expertise of ‘UK PLC’ may also be enhanced, as our international graduates are subsequently brought back again by employers, with us benefitting from a global brain cycling. Our graduates also act as advocates for UK education, and indeed it seemed on the programme that non-EU students were queuing up to heap praise on our university courses. On the other hand, they expressed frustration with our restrictive visa policies, and many other comments to this effect were posted on the Radio 4 Facebook page. This is currently a major concern in the scientific community.

Another issue that the report raises is that we shouldn’t be talking about the increase in STEM undergraduate numbers as a success story for recruitment from UK schools, as the rise in international students accounts for so much of this trend. This may contribute to the self-perpetuating system whereby insufficient graduates become teachers to inspire our next generation. A STEM Ambassador caller pointed out that there aren’t ‘too many’ non-EU students at all (as they don’t take places ‘assigned’ to UK students), the problem is that there aren’t enough home students. He also suggested that we need to give children the ‘science bug’ at primary school in order to sustainably increase our home-grown STEM graduate base.

The debate continued as Stephen asserted that once graduates leave the UK, we don’t get long term economic benefits. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he said. However, where he did agree was that we have wonderful education system here, which we ourselves do not fully appreciate. Another caller noted that in some cases, overseas students are actually keeping departments from which home students can then benefit open, and the short-term cash benefit from student immigration is certainly welcome (especially in smaller university towns).

I would say that the view of our high current unemployment rate as a reason to restrict the stay of valuable international graduates does seem very short-termist. These highly skilled individuals are vital to contribute to the ‘science for growth’ philosophy, especially given their increasing proportion of the graduate pool. I hope the government agrees.

Update -  December 15 – Related article ‘Innovation strategy “ignores” funding and visas’ (Times Higher Education). A blog post on the Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth is available here.