On Synthetic Biology – watch the debate
16/11/2012
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
‘Synthetic Biology: challenges and opportunities for the UK‘ took place on Wednesday, across two sites in London and Bristol. My esteemed Royal Society of Chemistry colleague James Hutchinson described our attempt to video link between two sites as a fitting level of ambition, considered in the context of the challenges we face if we are going to use synthetic biology to tackle the ‘grand challenges’ (primarily in food and fuel). You can see how it looked from my perspective here. (In the picture from left to right are: Professor Robert Edwards; Helena Paul; Daisy Ginsberg; Dr Lionel Clarke; Professor Dek Woolfson (in Bristol) and our London Chair, Dr Ehsan Masood.)
You can watch the whole debate at The Reaction here and find links to other write-ups and summaries on the Biochemical Society listing.
There is a lot of buzz around synthetic biology at the moment – there was even before senior government ministers started mentioning it in speeches at the Royal Society – but we are not anywhere near where we would need the technology to be for it to assure us of its widespread application yet. Indeed, as could be expected, we heard on Wednesday that before we can consider what we can do, we need to consider what we should do. Dr Clarke assured us that that was part of the point of setting out a Roadmap for the development of the technology so early (you can read David Willetts’ response to this from November 2 here). It is probably worth noting that the final report of the BIS Foresight project Global Food and Farming Futures (2011) did not give much reference at all to synthetic biology, except in the context of precaution around public opinion.
In this context, I recommend watching the debate back (it starts at 3:12). Apologies for a couple of sound issues around the mid-point.
Brief thoughts on the Finch Report
19/06/2012
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.
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Yesterday, Valerie Vaz, MP for Walsall South, organised an adjournment debate on women in science [transcript here]. I recommend you read it. She set out clearly what many others fail to do: that the matter of equality and diversity is not only a social justice issue, but also of vital importance to our competitiveness, and the government needs to do more about it.
Ms Vaz, a Biochemistry graduate, referred to a recent survey run by the Biochemical Society, which sought to bring to light the main problems facing our members, and some solutions to these. Issues associated with having a family – including childcare and the detrimental effects of taking maternity leave or working flexibly/part time within the traditional academic career and funding structures, featured highly in the responses. Furthermore, more female than male academic staff are on fixed-term contracts, and Ms Vaz reported that the gap is increasing.
Such issues are a considerable problem at an individual level, but also pose a great risk to our competitiveness, as diversity in research (as well as a well-motivated community) is benficial for research and innovation. Within academia, some universities and departments are doing a lot to address these imbalances, as I was recently exposed to when I joined an Athena SWAN judging panel for the first time. However, I also realised that some don’t “get it”.
Accountability
If we are to be an ‘innovation leader’ and secure the future strength of our science base, we need action now. I hope to raise this at Monday’s Science Question Time event on science and growth. Mr Willetts has shown signs that he buys into his role in solving the problems (attending the debate was a good sign), and said yesterday that he is to be accountable for mainstreaming the expertise developed by the UKRC, which used to be funded by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Willetts points to his direction to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to instigate a new diversity programme (the subject of the last Policy Lunchbox event). However, as the Royal Society of Chemistry points out, the funding for these programmes is relatively small. He needs to be doing more to promote change, and develop clear targets and a strategy. But I, and others, aren’t sure he gets the whole picture.
@jlush2 thank you. I think you are right.
—
Meg Munn (@MegMunnMP) June 14, 2012Final note
Mr Willetts took the opportunity the debate presented to draw attention to BIS support for Vitae, which provides careers support for researchers. He highlighted its role in helping postdoctoral researchers, that oft-neglected community, and his acknowledgement of their need for support is welcome. However, Vitae itself may be heading the way of the UKRC, as the latest Research Fortnight cover story reports: ‘Funding councils throw Vitae £3m lifeline – But careers body still loses more than half its core funding’. Indeed, one of the activities that will lose core funding, RF reports, is the GRADschools programme for postgraduate researchers. Maybe not something to be shouting about then.
Further reading: MPs debate women in STEM (Campaign for Science and Engineering blog)
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
Listen again to Voice of the Future and Science Question Time (along with 100,000 others)
22/03/2012
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
I was in Stuttgart on Tuesday (discussing gender equality in science) when I had an email from Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering and a collaborator on Science Question Time. Apparantly our recording of last Thursday’s SciQT Nuclear Debate had gone viral, with over 30,000 listens at SoundCloud. We knew it had been an interesting and provocative policy debate, but the evident public appetite was surprising, to me at least. It was not entirely unaided though, and we must thank the good people of Boing Boing for promoting our debate to their audience, and helping us to reach 117,000 (as of now…)
Last week also saw Voice of the Future take place in the House of Commons, with many young scientists – including some sixth form students – having the opportunity to ask difficult questions of David Willetts MP, Chi Onwurah MP and members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology (with several of them making their debut appearances). The recording of this event (with full video) is available here. In all, it was a good week for biology in the House, as Monday saw student Nicholas Love (University of Manchester) take home first prize from SET for Britain, held in the Commons Terrace Marquee, having won the Biological and Biomedical Science category and then taking the gong ahead of the winners of Physical Sciences (Chemistry and Physics), and Engineering. Both of these events were primarily organised by the Scoiety of Biology, with support from various Member Organisations including the Biochemical Society.
Excuse the brevity of this post, but there’s lots of info in the embedded links above!
Policy events and news at the Society
22/02/2012
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
It’s an exciting time in policy and public affairs at the Biochemical Society (I always feel as though ‘Policy Officer’ isn’t quite inclusive enough as my job title). A lot is going on! Here’s a quick run-down of our upcoming activities…
The Society has reserved six spaces at ‘Voice of the Future 2012‘ – an opportunity for young scientists to put their science policy related questions to the Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts MP; Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science, Chi Onwurah MP; and members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology. The event will be held on Wednesday 14 March at the House of Commons and has been organised by the Society of Biology, with the support of several organisations including ourselves.
The next Science Question Time – one of our regular collaborations with the Campaign for Science and Engineering and Dr Alice Bell – will focus on the Nuclear Debate and be held on Thursday 15 March at the Institute of Physics, London. Further details on the event, including how to submit questions and sign up, are available on the Science Question Time website.
Talkfest is back too, with an event on ‘Sounds of Science’ to be held on Wednesday 29 February at our Charles Darwin House base. You can listen to past Science Question Time and Talkfest events on our new Podcasts page. And, as always, we have Policy Lunchbox events lined up, with an announcement of May’s event expected soon.
The deadline for the Gender Equality in Science Grant Scheme is at the end of next month, which should give us some interesting and exciting projects to fund ahead of next year’s 100th anniversary of the Society admitting female members.
Sense About Science are holding a ‘Standing up for Science’ media workshop in Manchester on Friday 23 March. As partners, the Society has been assigned five priority places for our early career researchers.
The Society is partnering with the Society for Experimental Biology and the British Ecological Society to organize a unique bioscience communication training workshop for doctoral research students and postdoctoral research staff. The workshop, to be held in London on 7 June, will enhance participants’ skills and help to demonstrate the impact and benefits of their research. Further announcements will be made as we finalise the plans.
We’re also looking ahead to responding to the Higher Education Commission inquiry examining the future of postgraduate education, and thinking about our activities for the years ahead, now that my feet are well and truly under the desk. Watch this space!
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
David Willetts showed how busy his department had been over Christmas with a speech last week at the Policy Exchange. As well as the headline announcement of an invitation for new kinds of postgraduate universities for SET to be set up and several other points (see Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) news story for brief summary), the Minister for Universities and Science also gave further indication of BIS’ growing commitment to synthetic biology.
Willetts is always quick to point to his commitment to the Haldane principle, but says that the Government must make some funding priorities. In December’s Strategy for UK Life Sciences and Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth, we read that the Technology Strategy Board (who’s Director of Innovation Programmes, Dr David Bott, will join us at the next Policy Lunchbox event*) have identified synthetic biology as “a key emerging technology with the potential to create a billion pound industry within the UK in the next decade”. As with graphene, Willetts is – perhaps justifiably under the straitened economic circumstances under which he cannot even offer any funding for his new universities plan – trying to pick economic winners. Like it or not, we must hope that having made such commitments, they prove to be successful.
Shell’s Dr Lionel Clarke is currently chairing a group producing a ‘synthetic biology roadmap’, aiming to show how the UK can become a leader in this field, and last week the Minister declared that he was setting up a ‘leadership council’ to decide how this can be delivered, once finalised in the Spring. It seems that part of the Government’s plans to ‘make the UK the best place in the world to do science’ (expect to see more of this mantra from BIS in 2012) is to establish synthetic biology as strategic area of strength. If successful, it could open up our bioenergy industry; bring new, patentable developments in healthcare and have important applications in agriculture. Let’s hope it gets enough of that all important capital funding to have a chance.
* Policy Lunchbox is fully booked, but if you have a question for David please email me at james.lush@biochemistry.org (the event will be held on 26 January).
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Minister for Universities and Science, RH David Willetts MP, gave the third annual Gareth Roberts Memorial Lecture last night, held at the Royal Society of Medicine and organised by the Science Council. Here’s a brief storify of some of the key points.
The Minister, understandably, opened with positive statements, drawing on the encouraging messages from the days report on the International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base (http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-innovation-analysis/uk-research-base).
| “ | Willetts: UK science in great shape. We punch above our weight. #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Willetts on UK research: excel by making the most of what we have eg intelligence, international connections + infrastructure #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | UK still efficient in terms of research outputs but our internationalism is a key attribute says Willetts at #roberts2011 | |||
|
He made some interesting points about open access.
| “ | more citations per $ (BIS report) needn’t mean UK is more efficient. Cld be we focus spend on academic, not industrial science. #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | UK success ‘depends on openness’ David Willetts #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | “Research should not be hidden behind a paywall” #roberts2011 | |||
|
On capital funding, Willetts noted that six of the eight high priority capital funding projects from the Research Councils were to be funded, despite concerns about falling capital funding levels. Diamond Light Source is one of the projects.
| “ | MT @kaythaney Maximise impact through transparency and access (no £ walls), says Willetts. #Roberts2011 #LSF11 #scipolicy | |||
|
| “ | Almost half of science research publications from 2006-2010 included a collaborator from outside the UK #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Willetts says that @DiamondLightSou’s funding is safe. #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Not all rosy. We don’t exploit science as well. #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Willetts: wants to address fears about impact #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Willetts: “No desire to strangle curiosity-driven research” #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Do not support focus on pockets of excellence alone. Lone researcher still important. #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Peer review not perfect. But of course important. REF is all about quality. Not which journal. #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | More to do to ensure REF and research councils can foster multi disciplinarity #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Is impact assessment a way around the narrowness and restrictions arising from publications hierarchy? #roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | “Important that impact assessment panels ensure cross-disciplinary research doesn’t slip thru the cracks – need breadth” #Roberts2011 | |||
|
He also announced a new technicians register. @OliOHanlon got his wish, if a litle later than hoped.
| “ | #roberts2011 waiting for Willetts to mention technicians | |||
|
| “ | RSciTech – Registered Science Technician. #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | RSciTech launched by Science Minister tonight. Time to recognise and applaud the key role technicians play #roberts2011 | |||
|
The Minister pointed out that those who leave the ‘academic pipeline’ are not necessarily lost to science, but did acknowledge a problem and referred to the recent Science is Vital report (http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2011/10/06/careering-out-of-control-a-crisis-in-the-uk-science-profession/).
| “ | #roberts2011 am waiting from Willetts to mention #scicareers report from @ScienceIsVital | |||
|
| “ | Should a long term research career be the expectation of science undergrads? Willetts now discussing science career pyramid #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | Willetts asks whether we need to tweak the shape of the research careers pyramid #Roberts2011 | |||
|
| “ | #roberts2011 those leaving academia might not be lost to science but are they fulfilling their ambitions? Is the lack of opportunity a prob? | |||
|
And he didn’t get it all his own way with the last question either, as Imran Khan from the Campaign for Science and Engineering pinned him down with a question about long-term capital investment.
| “ | Interesting time at #roberts2011 lecture. Willetts paints rosy view of future for uk research. Apparently not shared by @sciencecampaign | |||
|
| “ | Thx to Science Council for the David Willetts evnt at the Royal Society of Medicine last night… follow #ROBERTS2011 to catch up on tweets! | |||
|
| “ | We’ll have a full podcast available of the Willetts #Roberts2011 lecture available in the next few days. Assuming no tech problems. | |||
|
Update: Here’s the Pod delusion link – http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/10/20/david-willetts-on-science-policy-the-roberts-lecture-2011/
And a write-up at Nature blogs – http://blogs.nature.com/london/2011/10/20/london-science-festival-roberts-science-policy-lecture-with-david-willetts-mp
Update 2: And now the full text of the lecture – http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-gareth-roberts-science-policy-lecture-2011
This post was written by Michelle Brook, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer.
Last night David Willetts MP Minister for Universities and Science spoke at Cambridge University Science Society on the subject of “The Coalition’s Vision for Science and Technology”. Being an alumnus of the university and a life long member of the society, I thought I’d take the opportunity to listen to him speak to an almost exclusively academic audience – a very different one to that I typically hear him addressing.
Opening with an admission that the audience knows more about science than him, some of what Willetts had to say was expected: Cambridge was congratulated on being world class, and he emphasised that the university is deeply respected world wide. The world class nature of Cambridge (as well as a number of other English Universities) and the requirement to protect these academic institutes was stated as the reason increased tuition fees were being introduced. Once again the claim was made that the science budget has been protected in cash terms and ring-fenced – as opposed to the more accurate statement that the science resource budget has been protected in cash terms and ring – fenced, but that capital funding has not. The issue around immigration and visas was raised and Willetts stated that he is trying to negotiate with the Home Office on Tier 4 (or student) visas, and that he is optimistic that they will “reach a satisfactory outcome”. He said that he wanted to ensure properly qualified students will be able to enter the UK to attend British Universities, but also emphasised that there are abuses of the Tier 4 visa system at present which must be addressed .
Despite much of the content not being new – there were a number of points I considered worthy of note. Whilst emphasising the importance of evidence in policy, Willetts said that politicians often had to make judgements based upon incomplete evidence. He also emphasised that whilst the scientific evidence provided by physical and natural scientists is very important, that these subjects don’t provide the complete picture – and other disciplines are also vital.
I found it encouraging to hear Willetts explicitly aligning himself with the science community – stating that innovation was crucial, as was generation of the “economic impact that we need to convince the Treasury of the argument” for future financial support of UK science.
Clusters
Willetts provided an economic definition of a cluster: “a low risk environment for high risk activities”, stating that the Cambridge area certainly constituted such a cluster. He added that whilst the government cannot create clusters, they can and should support them when they arise or have arisen, pointing out that clusters are infrastructure intensive – requiring, amongst other things good transport links. Although the presently closed Oxford-Cambridge railway line was not mentioned, given that Willetts said that it could be argued that Oxford, Cambridge and London are part of a larger cluster, an argument can be seen for the importance of re-opening this railway line to complete the triangle in this larger cluster.
Careers
Willetts referred to some research on STEM graduates and careers that is expected today (4th March 2011) – apparently we were the first audience to hear of the conclusions. Whilst businesses often complain there is a shortage of STEM graduates, the UK produces a significant number of STEM graduates – above the European average. However, less than half of these STEM graduates go on to STEM related employment. The research is expected to show that half way through their final year, 25% of undergraduates have not completed any job applications, and that there are high levels of uncertainty amongst these students as to what to do with their STEM qualification.
Willetts stated that this made these STEM graduates susceptible to recruit ment from other professions, such as consultancy, and that this was exacerbated by a very modest recruitment effort from SMEs. As such, large numbers of STEM graduates are lost from the scientific career pipeline. Whilst Willetts views it as desirable to be spreading scientific understanding into the wider populations, to his mind, this leaky STEM pipeline does cause problems for science.
Part of this “leaky pipeline” comes back to the oft stated incomplete careers advice, and I presume there will be encouragement from the government towards SME’s and universities to improve their attempts to retain science graduates as active researchers.
Diversity
When I asked if he could give a ball park figure for how much the UKRC 2011- 2012 transitional funding would be (Annette Williams announced earlier this week that the UKRC had succeeded in wining some transitional funding from BIS), he said that “if he remembered correctly the figure was about £500,000″. He went on to state that when this money ended he hoped to see a continuation and strengthening of women networks such as STEM ambassadors and STEMNET.
One thing that really struck me during the question and answer session was that many of the questions being asked were those that people working within science policy had already asked of Government – many of the answers to which are in the public domain. There were many questions about immigration – such as the issues surrounding Tier 1 and Tier 2 visas, questions about the ACMD and why the government is trying to remove requirements for specific science based knowledge from the ACMD advisory panel. These are all excellent questions – but they are questions that have been asked many times before – in a variety of forums, including but not limited to Select Committees evidence sessions.
This made me think that as a community, the science policy world isn’t as good as it could and should be at disseminating information into the scientific community and wider public – scientific academics and students at Cambridge are a cohort that could and should know more about these issues which directly affect them. Whilst there appears to be increasing coverage of science policy issues in the media, somehow the information received by people working within policy isn’t being fed back effectively enough into the science community. As a Learned Society who relies on the opinion and expertise held within its membership, this is an issue we are working to address.
A more informed audience might have been able to ask more subtle and searching questions of David Willetts, rather than asking questions that have previously been raised.
They may also feel more reassured that some of the issues facing science, research and universities – such as immigration - are being addressed and that the opportunity has been provided by Government for significant input from the scientific community (particularly through those working in science policy) on many of these issues.
Surely an increased confidence of the science community that the government isn’t trying to destroy British science can only be a good thing?
Science Question Time: Unanswered questions
27/10/2010
This blog post was written by Beck Smith, the Biochemical Society’s Head of Policy.
Last night saw ‘Science Question Time’ at the Royal Institution, a panel discussion chaired by The Times’ Science Editor Mark Henderson. The panel comprised:
• Rt Hon David Willetts MP (Minister for Universities and Science)
• Prof Colin Blakemore (Professor of Neuroscience, University of Oxford and Former Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council)
• Dame Professor Janet Finch (Professor of Sociology, Manchester University and independent Co-Chair of the Council for Science and Technology)
• Philip Greenish (Chief Executive, Royal Academy of Engineering)
The opening remarks focused on words of congratulation for David Willetts following the results of last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) which saw a flat cash settlement for science over the next four years with Philip Greenish calling it a ‘good settlement for the sector’. Janet Finch suggested that at the current rate David Willetts may be heading for the prefix of ‘much loved’ but cited concern about the current lack of a coherent vision to run alongside the spending plan. Colin Blakemore observed that David Willetts had been infected by the ‘science bug’, a condition which induces enthusiasm and support for science in those without a formal science background.
Following congratulations, each panellist went on to identify some of the challenges now facing the sector in the wake of the CSR:
• Philip Greenish – Feels that the UK is not as good as it should be at translating science into wealth and that at this time more investment should be focussed on areas of research that can bring tangible benefits to the economy in the short to medium term.
• Janet Finch – Offered two points to keep an eye on. The first, a need to avoid complacency regarding the UK’s current position as competition from other countries increases. The second, in implementing the CSR, support should be given to the entire research base, there should not be ‘picking and choosing’. There must be focus on people (as opposed to topics), investment must be made both in our own best people and ensuring that we attract the best people from across the world.
• Colin Blakemore – Feels that science has been given top priority; results of CSR recognise the importance of science. With this recognition comes responsibility and consideration must be given to how to evaluate the ability of the science community to deliver on the promises it has made. He also stressed the importance of funding both fundamental and applied research, but recognised that applied research is likely to be an easier ‘sell’.
Having heard from all of the panellists, David Willetts responded and in discussing the favourable CSR settlement, he expanded on comments made earlier in the day, saying that it was the quality of evidence built up and offered (e.g. Royal Society – The Scientific Century) during the decision-making process that was pivotal in securing the science spend.
David Willetts offered three challenges which both BIS and the science sector now faces:
1. Flat cash Vs. Inflation = a real reduction. Clearly how this will be managed presents a significant challenge – reference was made to the Sir William Wakeham review ‘Financial Sustainability and Efficiency in Full Economic Costing of Research in UK Higher Education Institutions’.
2. Reduction in capital expenditure – the challenge posed by fixed international subscriptions and very costly equipment. He observed that in this situation, in managing these expenditures, people can become the variables. This led to comments about the need for a stable career path in science and the development of ‘the right kind of career pyramid.’
3. The issue of QR and the ‘clustering of excellence’ – how best to address this. An example provided was that of institutions which score particularly highly in one area but not as high in others. What is the best of encouraging collaboration alongside competition? He referenced the announcement of the Department of Health and Office of Life Sciences Therapeutic Capability Clusters programme.
Following this, he offered an observation of the current environment in which he felt there was, ‘mutual cooperation and mutual trust alongside stable funding in which to address these issues’.
The next topic for discussion was that of immigration caps (great blog post from CaSE on this issue). Janet Finch, building on her earlier remarks, reiterated the need for the UK to have a reputation as the best place for science – the issue is not just about obtaining a visa to work in the UK, but creating an atmosphere in which you don’t feel as though your future is precarious – ‘Nobel prize winners don’t arrive fully formed.’ In response, David Willetts recognised the challenges this issue presents and said that he is currently discussing this issue with the Home Office and hopes to reach an agreement in the coming weeks. In addition, he said that the Prime Minister also understands the need for us to recruit the best minds. He then focused on the example of international students signing up to ‘bogus institutions’ and the abuse of the system this represented. It could be the case that effectively tackling issues such as these may uncover some additional flexibility in the system.
Mark Henderson then asked the panellists to identify what they considered to be the next big issues:
• Philip Greenish – How we do show that we’re generating wealth?
• Colin Blakemore – The need for quicker translation and how can this be done most effectively with public funds? How to encourage industrial investment in commercial R&D? How to choose areas for Hauser Institutes?
• Janet Finch – (over the next 12 months) How to find a better balance between cooperation and collaboration? The observation that post-CSR, will concern now shift to the Research Excellence Framework (REF). She expressed concern that discussion on this issue would slip back into the old debates where the question really needs to be how to best use the resources we have.
• David Willetts – The challenge posed by the administration savings to be made in BIS and an observation about the ‘compliance costs’ the science community faces through mechanisms such as RAE/REF.
Audience questions covered a wide breadth of issues, with some raised more than once, in particular pressing David Willetts to address concerns about how scientists can do more for less when many are already working flat out. These questions followed David Willett’s earlier enthusiasm for US scientists using iTunesU to promote/communicate both their science and their institution.
Others questioned the impact of cutting the museums budget on our ability to inspire the next generation of scientists? Philip Greenish answered that he felt it would and that we needed to be cleverer and smarter at attracting next generation of scientists.
Despite the praise for the outcome of the CSR, the number and breadth of issues raised showed that UK science is by no means out of the woods. This event was a useful opportunity for the science community to raise these concerns with key decision makers and we should all hope for more opportunities of this kind in future.
Perhaps the final word should go to Stephen Curry who tweeted after the event, ‘…Think it has given Mr Willetts and res. community much to think about. Hard choices ahead.’
The account above comes from notes I took at the event. Further information and different perspectives can be found through the links below, I’ll update this post with links to other accounts as I find them.
ResearchResearch.com: ‘Willetts hopes to reach immigration deal soon’
