Opening up policy
01/03/2013
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.
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
If you are one of our members and aged 16-35, the Biochemical Society is offering you the chance to question MPs in Parliament at Voice of the Future 2013 (VOF2013).
The event was held for the very first time last year and was such a success that we’re doing it all again! VOF2013 will be held on Wednesday 20 March and is being organised by the Society of Biology and hosted by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology. The event presents young and early career representatives of a number of learned and professional societies the chance to sit in the seats usually reserved for members of the Select Committee and question the MPs as in a real evidence session.
So if you’re concerned about scientific careers, muddled about the misuse of science in and for policy, fearful about funding or stressed about short-termism, why not take your question to the top?
For your chance to attend, you just need to send us a question for the MPs by 12:00 on Monday, 25 February. Full details and instructions are available here.
You can read an article about last year’s ground breaking event here (PDF).
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)
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
“We are where we are, and we must now make sure we go forward in the right direction.” – Julian Huppert MP.
Yesterday’s Parliamentary Estimates Day debates included a lengthy discussion about the Forensic Science Service (FSS) – which is currently in the final stages of its wind-down – based on the Science and Technology Committee report on which I have previously written in The Biochemist.
The full transcript is available online.
Conservative MP Michael Ellis made ground early on, making numerous statements defending the decision. He cited the losses being made (the levels of which are still disputed) and that commercial providers provide an excellent service, as regulated providers will continue to do so.
The debate soon turned though, as afternoon became evening and several critical voices were heard in the chamber. These raised numerous points about what needs to be monitored going forward – as Andrew Miller MP’s Science and Technology Committee promise to do, along with many other observers (including the press, should miscarriages of justice become apparent). Here is a selection of what was said last night:
Alan Campbell MP (Lab) (20:11):
This is a risky decision. I do not envy the Minister the decisions he has to take; I envy him his job, but not his difficult decisions. This is one decision, but what about all the other things happening across Government? What about the cuts in police numbers? What about the Justice Secretary’s acceptance that crime will inevitably rise in a recession? What about the changes to the rules on DNA that the Government are making in the Protection of Freedoms Bill? Add them together, and I am worried. Whatever the Minister’s motives, this is the wrong decision. I do not doubt that the Minister has gone to the nth degree to look at the issues, but I worry.
This is my final question: why is that instead of spending taxpayers’ money to get an FSS that is fit for purpose, we are spending the same amount of taxpayers’ money to end up with no FSS at the end of it all? It just does not make sense.
Julian Huppert MP (LD) (20:25):
One aspect of the Committee’s report causes me great concern. It involves the role of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman. He was personally criticised in the report, and I very much regret that: I do not think that it was appropriate. I think that there is a problem with the way in which the Home Office looks at scientific advice, and with the seniority and the access that the chief scientific adviser is given in the Home Office. I have raised those points in the Committee with the chief scientific adviser, who has a slightly different perspective on the issue of the amount of access provided. I think that chief scientific advisers should sit on the boards of their Departments, and should have access to information enabling them to deal with any concerns at an early stage rather than waiting to be invited to comment. There is a problem across Government in regard to their role, and that means that there will be similar problems in a number of areas in which advice is sought too late in the process. I fear that the Minister will not be able to tackle that problem alone, and I hope that the Government as a whole will ensure that chief scientific advisers are given an important role.
… I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.
Alan Slaughter MP (Lab) and Bob Stewart MP (Con) (20:37)
Slaughter:
… Given that other Government Members have constantly referred to the figure (the reported annual loss made by the FSS) —the £24 million, or the £12 million —I fear that the cost argument is the best the Government have. It is not a good argument, and it is not even very valid. As I said when I intervened on Michael Ellis, although not every piece of FSS work comes from the police services, the overwhelming majority of its work does. So what we are saying is that the FSS is subsidising police services at the moment.
Perhaps the police services have got a good deal. For example, if a particular police force negotiates a fixed fee with the FSS for complex cases and an hourly rate for simple matters, clearly that police service will have got a good deal, as it will get a fixed fee for important and complex cases with many pieces of evidence, and where it thinks that there is not much involved in a case, it will pay just for what it wants. If that is right, it may actually be the right way to do things, as it may take the pressure off the police in terms of not submitting items of evidence. If a police force was paying by the hour or for every piece of evidence, and a complex crime scene had 100 pieces of evidence to be submitted, it might think, “Do we really need to submit every piece of evidence?” Perhaps the police are not expert enough to make those decisions and the systems works well, even if it produces a notional deficit for the FSS.
If that is also right, and the service is running at a deficit now, will commercial companies be prepared to allow such a situation to continue? Will they not renegotiate contracts with police forces over time to ensure that they not only cover their costs but make a profit? At least one Government Member has said, “Good luck to forensic scientists if they go off and earn more money in the private sector.” If that is right, who is going to pay for it? If, instead of working in the FSS, former senior members of its staff are hiring themselves out as consultants at a substantial daily rate, that sum will be picked up by the police and by the taxpayer. The argument about finance really does not hold water.
Stewart:
I think we might also be losing the ability to have seriously world-beating research and development in FSS-type matters. That is what worries me; we must not lose that R and D ability. If we are going to change, things must be just as good as they were before. If they will not be, we should leave them as they are.
Slaughter:
I wholly agree, and I ask the Minister, even if he is going to rely on the argument about money, to balance that consideration against the opportunity cost—the risk of losing the services that the FSS provides, which are in some cases easily quantifiable but in others are intangible, in terms of both its archives and its research and development.
… We are also losing a service that has been respected around the world, and has built up its reputation over many years. It is irreplaceable.
An embattled James Brokenshire MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime and Security tried to defend the decision, as he has done so on a number of occasions now, saying “commercial forensic service providers have provided high-quality forensic science services for the criminal justice system for a number of years, and there is no reason why the closure of the FSS will reduce impartiality or affect the accuracy of their work.” But it was Huppert’s rational voice which made the most important point: “We are where we are, and we must now make sure we go forward in the right direction.”
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Science and Technology Committee to keep close eye on FSS wind-down
I’ve been reading through the Government’s response to July’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the wind-down of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), which was published yesterday. On balance it is quite dismissive of the report, which strongly criticised the decision, with a couple of caveats (see the end of this post).
In short, it is clear that the commercial side of the decision remains at the forefront of the issue for those wielding the power. As Andrew Miller MP, chair of the committee, said yesterday: “It is disappointing that the Home Office has failed to recognise that the decision to close the FSS should not have been taken purely on commercial and legal grounds, but also on scientific grounds.” The Government states in its response that is not the role of the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) or Home Office Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA, Professor Bernard Silverman) to give legal or commercial advice, and they reject criticism of Silverman’s role. But what about their scientific expertise? And even if it had been appropriate to announce a closure on these grounds alone, surely their expert opinions would have been useful?
Subsequent comments about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE), with regards to the retention of forensic scientists within the profession and the UK – “We fully expect that the obligations arising from [TUPE Regulations] will be met… Ultimately police authorities hold these contracts” – bring to mind (perhaps unfairly) a quote by Arnold Schwarzenegger when asked about the environment early on in his governance of California. “Don’t worry about that,” he said. In the report, the Government do promise to report back to the Science and Technology Committee on the impacts of the closure on FSS staff next June. The time for judgement will be then.
The final point I find particularly interesting is that in their report, the Science and Technology Committee highlighted that there may be a problem with the Home Office’s use of scientific evidence in policy making. In their response, the Government denies this, citing positive messages in the Government Office for Science- Science Review of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, from 2007. But taking a closer look at this document, it also states several reservations regarding the Home Office, including that the CSA has no seat on the management board. As the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) recently pointed out (although the Home Office does fairly well in CaSE’s brief snapshot), this is still the case.
It isn’t all bad news. The response is positive in terms of ensuring the retention and continued operation of the FSS archive system (although the government has not revealed its long-term solution, noting that options are under consideration), and that forensic research and development should be established as a strategic research priority for the Research Councils. For the many other implications, we’ll have to see how private forensic service providers and newly (or soon to be) accredited police forensic departments adapt when the dust fully settles. Miller isn’t convinced that things wont go awry, stating: “I will be asking the committee to keep a close eye on the transition as I still fear that the forensic science research base and criminal justice system could be jeopardised if the Minister’s optimism is ill founded.” These are still worrying and uncertain times.
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Chief Scientific Advisor to the Treasury says: “You are in the dark without scientific method and data analysis”.
Yesterday, Professor Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, and Dr James Richardson, the newly appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Treasury, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This evidence session follows the publication of the Government Office for Science Annual Review earlier this summer, in which it was claimed that “2010 lived up to its titles of ‘International Year of Biodiversity’ and ‘Year of Science’.”
Professor Beddington highlighted how positive he felt about the progress that was being made, particularly praising the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for its Foresight program and particularly the Future of Food and Farming project, which has been internationally recognised. Foresight is now looking at international migration in relation to environmental factors, and will report on this in the autumn, as well as the future of computer trading in financial markets.
On what had changed since he took on the position in 2008, Professor Beddington noted that the installation of Chief Scientific Advisors in every government department (although there are currently vacancies at BIS, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media & Sport) now included the Treasury, with Dr Richardson’s appointment this summer. Professor Beddington said that when he came into the post enquiries often had to go unanswered because of a lack of capacity, and there was a sense that science and engineering had lost its way in government.
On the subject of the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), an area of particular concern for the Biochemical Society, Professor Beddington referred to the fact that we are still waiting for the Government’s latest response. However, he said he would look into doing some substantial subsequent analysis on the loss of scientists from the industry, and might be able to report on this in May or June. He expressed concern over making decisions – such as closing the FSS – on financial grounds with limited consultation, but was reluctant to comment on the implications of the closure before the Home Office responds on whether capability would be maintained. He also indicated that he would look into the figures of how many scientists had left the UK in total since the comprehensive spending review settlement.
There was praise for the Home Office from Professor Beddington on the way Professor Bernard Silverman, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Home Office, reports directly to the permanent secretary and controls large portions of the budget. Furthermore, he reported on the incorporation of the Principles of scientific advice to government in the ministerial code by the coalition, and said that he and the other science advisors felt reassured by this. These were developed following the furore that accompanied Professor David Nutt’s sacking as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009.
Dr Richardson, making his first appearance before the Committee, made positive comments about the progress that had been made. He asserted that it made sense for the Chief Scientific Advisor to be a Treasury economist, as the aim of the position is to link economics with the broader scientific community, and that economics is the predominate science in the Treasury. What was particularly encouraging was his comment that the need for science and engineering expertise is ubiquitous in government. “You are in the dark without scientific method and data analysis”, he said, as this is the primary way of providing evidence. He further remarked that knowledge of aspects of science leads to better decision making directly, citing an example as the relationship between climate change and the world economy.
Acknowledging the huge impact the Treasury has on science, both Professor Beddington and Dr Richardson were very positive about the new position, with the Treasury now vitally linked in with the rest of the science advisory network, with the wider advisory community feeding into Dr Richardson’s economic expertise. Dr Richardson said that the Treasury continues to generate policy-informing research through relationships with non-governmental bodies such as the Economic and Social Research Council, but that he had already made cases for where primary research by the Treasury could solve problems.
How will the landscape change with a Treasury Chief Scientific Advisor? Dr Richardson said that his role would focus less on individual projects, but more on promoting better standards of method, evidence and analysis in the Treasury. As he confidently put it, there are probably no situations where this wouldn’t be beneficial: “There may be things to which science is irrelevant but I struggle to see what they are.”
This blogpost was written by the Michelle Brook, the Biochemical Society’s Science Policy Intern.
On Wednesday 24th, Professor Adrian Smith and David Willetts MP were called in front of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee for an oral evidence session on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2010 (video). The following is a summary of key discussions and issues raised.
Changes within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Andrew Miller MP (Chair) began by asking about the recent merging of the Director General, Science and Research position with the Director General, Universities and Skills role. This move created a new post at Director General level, in charge of Knowledge and Innovation. The merging of these posts caused controversy last week with Professor Sir John Beddington (Government Chief Scientific Advisor) stating during a hearing of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, that he hadn’t been consulted on the decision. When questioned on this , Willetts made reference to a letter written by Beddington to Lord Krebs to clarify his statement in which Beddington stated he:
“was consulted … on options for streamlining the senior level in BIS and responded that [he] saw merit in an option which brought together responsibility for research, HE and innovation in a single post at DG level. This [his] view. What [he] was not consulted on was the nature of the individual to fill the post, nor the recruitment process, including panel membership or whether the competition should be public or within the civil service.”
Willetts went on to state that it was a great outcome that Professor Adrian Smith (the former Director General, Science and Research) had been appointed into the new expanded Civil Service role. However, he added that he fully understood the concerns of the scientific community in that it would be untenable to have someone without a science background in that role. He added that in future it would be necessary to look at how we can reconcile this issue with the requirement for ministers not to be involved Civil Service appointments.
Providing scientific advice to Government
Another issue discussed which feel outside the session’s topic of the CSR was that of how scientific advice would be provided to the government. In October it was announced that a large number of quangos were to be either axed or merged including a number of Scientific Advisory Committees. Miller raised the point that many of the Quangos being abolished are being reconstituted as “Committee of Experts” and moved within their sponsoring Departments. When asked what the key differences are between these two bodies, Willetts stated that as a Committee of Experts the bodies would no longer be considered Non-Departmental Public Bodies. He emphasised that he believes we can be confident that these bodies will still be able to ensure independent advice to ministers and stated that the absorbance of Quangos into Departments wasn’t an attempt to reduce independence. Sadly no-one asked what benefits establishing Committee of Experts rather than Non-Departmental Public Bodies could be expected to achieve. In addition, no-one enquired if the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (CoPSAC) would be applicable to these Committee of Experts, which given the current consultation on CopSAC would have been a very timely question. (Beck – this is something we’re raising in our response.)
Comprehensive Spending Review
In moving on to the CSR, Willetts expressed hope that the details would be released before Christmas, but stated that he believed the balance between HEFCE and Research Council funding would stay roughly the same as at present. He added that a limited consultation with the scientific community had largely expressed the view that the allocation of funds between Research Councils should be kept broadly the same.
Capital expenditure
Of concern is Willetts’s statement that the capital element of the science spend would face a cut roughly in line with the 44% cut to BIS. This cut would include the money being spent on the UKCMRI, which as a new investment, surely marks an even greater cut for current projects requiring capital expenditure? Committee members also expressed concern that the four big capital projects that are going ahead (including Diamond and CMRI) are focussed in the South East of the country. In response, Willets referred to Daresbury and said that the proposed Technology and Innovation Centres would be located all over the country.
Early Day Motion 707
15/09/2010
This blog post was written by Beck Smith, the Biochemical Society’s Head of Policy.
Proposed by Mark Lazarowicz (Labour and Co-operative MP for Edinburgh North and Leith), Early Day Motion (EDM) 707 provides an opportunity for us to engage our MPs and encourage them to show their support for science:
‘That this House expresses its concern over the recent comments by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills apparently signalling retrenchment in Government funding for UK science; supports the view of the President of the Royal Society that short-term austerity risks undermining the UK’s future science base; notes that the United States, China, Germany and France are all significantly increasing their science budgets in the coming years as a central part of their strategies for long-term economic growth; and believes that investment in basic scientific research throughout the UK is vital if the commercial benefits of developing new technology are to be broadly spread, rather than restricting funding to a reduced number of institutions as the Government appears to propose.’
So, what is an early day motion?
An early day motion is a formal motion submitted for debate in the House of Commons. EDMs cover a plethora of concerns, yesterday alone saw the publication of EDMs on ‘Police protection for former Prime Ministers’, ‘Women’s Institute campaign on country of origin labelling for food’ and ‘Dolphin slaughter in Japan’ amongst others.
The significance of signatures?
The UK Parliament website tells us that ‘In an average session only six or seven EDMs reach over two hundred signatures. Around seventy or eighty get over one hundred signatures. The majority will attract only one or two signatures.’ EDMs with a large number of signatures are not more likely to be debated. However, a large number of signatures helps to achieve the other aims of EDMS, such as drawing attention to, and showing support for specific campaigns.
At the time of posting EDM 707 had eleven signatures:
Mark Lazarowicz (Proposer) – Labour and Co-operative MP for Edinburgh North and Leith
Peter Bottomley – Conservative MP for Worthing West
Alan Meale – Labour MP for Mansfield
Austin Mitchell - Labour MP for Great Grimsby
Mark Durkan – Social Democratic and Labour Party MP for Foyle
David Crausby – Labour MP for Bolton North East
John McDonnell – Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington
Tony Cunningham – Labour MP for Workingham
Graham Stringer – Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton and member of the Science and Technology Committee
Tom Blenkinsop – Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
Valerie Vaz – Labour MP for Walsall South
Update: 10:15 16 September 2010
Elfyn Llwyd – Plaid Cymru MP for Meirionydd Nant Conwy
Alasdair McDonnell – Social Democratic and Labour Party MP for Belfast South
Gregory Campbell – Democratic Unionist Party MP for Londonderry Waterside & East Londonderry
Jim Cunningham – Labour Party MP for Coventry South
Andrew Gwynne – Labour Party MP for Denton and Reddish
Paul Blomfield – Labour Party MP for Sheffield Central
How do I get my MP to sign EDM 707?
1. Find your MP (search by postcode)
2. Contact your MP by phone, email or letter – tell them that you’re a member of his/her constituency and tell them why it’s important to that they sign EDM 707 and ask them to sign it.
How does an MP sign an EDM?
The most common way for an MP to sign an EDM is by tearing out pages from their copy of “Blues” (questions tabled during yesterday’s sitting for answer on future days appear in a separate blue section with its own numbering sequence within the Vote Bundle) and then signing below the chosen Motion/Motions.
These pages are then taken to the Table Office and the EDM is then reprinted in the next Notice Paper with the new names added.
More simply, MPs can give the Table Office the relevant number and ask for their name to be added.
