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:
- “Change is good… Being crazy is rewarded in the end.”
- “Learn as much as you can early, and you can put it together later.”
- “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
The original version of this post appeared on the British Ecological Society’s Ecology and Policy Blog
As a whole, UK businesses invest less in research and development than their major international competitors, and there is more that the Government can do to address this disparity. That was the message from Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), addressing yesterday’s meeting of the Policy Lunchbox network. Beck provided a fascinating overview of an area of policy that members of the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society (partners in organising Policy Lunchbox) may know little about but, Beck made clear, should familiarise ourselves with given the vital importance of support from business to the health of the science base in the UK.
The previous Labour Government stated its aim to increase the overall investment in research and development (R&D) from all sources to 2.5% of GDP by 2014, although the current Government doesn’t intend to adopt national targets. In any case, at present, we stand at just 1.8% of GDP being invested; indicating the significant distance that remains for us to catch up with other ‘G7′ countries. Given that the UK Government is committed to tackling the budget deficit and therefore tightening spending, the importance of leveraging other sources for investment in R&D is clear. At the moment, however, the UK is third from bottom amongst the G7 group (ahead of Canada, just, and Italy) in terms of business spend on R&D. In 2009, the 1000 UK companies that invested the most in R&D spent a total of £25.3bn, down 0.6% on the previous year. So what can the Government do to address this potential downward trend?
First, Beck stressed, we need to understand why business and industry aren’t investing as much in R&D in the UK as it could do. Beck outlined research suggesting that one way this can be explained is as a combination of three factors, which collectively can be called ‘market failure’:
1. ‘Spillover rationale’: the suggestion that innovators find it difficult to appropriate all returns from their innovations. For example, the inventor of the first personal computer will have seen others move in to develop this technology and will now occupy a crowded space. This disincentiveses innovation. The Government can address this through means that allow companies to keep more of the benefits of their investments, for example through tax breaks such as the R&D tax credit.
2. Coordination failure: broadly speaking, difficulties encountered by groups of individuals or firms in acting collectively. There may be a failure of businesses to network sufficiently with organisations conducting research (or vice versa) that may be of benefit to them. This could be alleviated by the facilitation of partnerships between industry and universities.
3. Information failure: Differences in the information available to both parties prevent transactions from taking place. This argument suggests, for example, that businesses seeking financial support or partners for R&D projects simply don’t know where to find the necessary information to do so.
Beck suggested that there are a number of levers that Government could use to address these market failures – thereby encouraging greater support from business and industry for science in the UK – through focusing on the following areas:
1. Skills: Universities report that many students entering courses from A-levels require remedial lessons in, for example, mathematics and experimental design, in order to perform. Furthermore, industries have complained that they need to give new graduates from universities additional training before they are competent in their jobs. There have also been reports from industry surveys that there are a shortage of graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) to fill posts. Alongside addressing school and university tuition there therefore appears a need to raise the profile of careers in science amongst young people (such as through the STEM Ambassadors programme).
Recent amendments to immigration requirements in the UK may also have sent a negative message to qualified STEM graduates from overseas – those who may be considering further study and research in the UK – regarding the UK’s reputation as a good place to pursue a scientific career. Although the Government has taken steps to address these issues for STEM graduates, these negative perceptions may take some time to dispel.
2. Financial environment: tax-breaks such as the ‘patent box’ (a corporation tax cut of 10% on all profits attributed to patents) could create a favourable environment for companies to invest in R&D. Beck also highlighted the positive role that ‘challenge prizes’, such as the $10 billion Ansari X Prize, can play in incentivising investment and scientific progress. Since the launch of the X Prize, to reward the development of the first viable craft for unmanned space flight, it is estimated that there has been an additional $100 billion of investment in this area of study.
3. Knowledge flow: the Government could amend the Research Excellence Framework, for example to make it easier for universities to employ those who have worked in industry. When budgets are cut within industry, Beck suggested, one of the first areas of investment to be cut is the travel and meetings budget. Employees therefore decrease their network at a time when this needs to be expanding. Facilitating the flow of information between researchers in academia and in industry can help to address this.
4. A long-term, cross-party strategy for science in the UK would also be very welcome.
Beck highlighted recent developments from Government which have gone some way to address the points raised. For example, an annual £250,000 prize fund has been announced (orders of magnitude less than the X Prize but nonetheless a step in the right direction), whilst the Government is pressing ahead with plans for research hubs to link business and academia (so called ‘Catapult Centres’, previously known as ‘Technology Innovation Centres’) to aid commercialisation. However, there are convincing arguments for the state to do much more; such as those recently presented in a work by Mariana Mazzucato called ‘The Entrepreneurial State’.
Speaking about the publication on yesterday’s Today Programme, in the document and online, Ms Mazzucato argues for public policy to be bold and courageous, stepping in to fund areas that the private sector has no interest in, as well as putting in place mechanisms to reap greater returns for itself for doing so. As an example, the United States supported the development of the internet by pouring huge amounts of money into the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which undertook a significant amount of the research underpinning the formation of what is now known as Silicon Valley. The private sector, Mariana suggests, has a reputation of coming into areas of research 15–20 years after a large amount of state investment. It cannot therefore be seen as the answer to addressing deficits in state funding for science and innovation (although it is clearly complementary); the Government must find innovative ways of funding large-scale investment in the science base in this country if we want to see the emergence of another Google in the UK, for example.
Policy Lunchbox is a network for Policy Officers and others working in learned societies and the third sector. It is run jointly by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. See our webpage for details of forthcoming events. The next event will be on how to get the most from party conferences.
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).
Challenges of journal access in Africa
20/12/2011
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Earlier this month, the Biochemical Society hosted the Publishers for Development (PfD) meeting entitled (deep breath!) Getting Research to Researchers in Developing Countries – Examples from East and Southern Africa, The Complex Picture of Availability, Access and Use as part of our support for capacity building. Representatives of several major publishing houses came together with a variety of experts and those working on the front line of access – from both the UK and Africa – at Charles Darwin House to discuss the unique challenges of journal access.
To very briefly summarise, we heard that the key issues in African tertiary education institutions are the lack of:
- bandwidth
- awareness of availability
- information literacy
- knowledge of what counts as scholarly
- communication with and appreciation of libraries.
It may come as a surprise that these five main problems of access do not actually include not having the rights to see publications. Kondwani Wella, Librarian at the Kamuzu College of Nursing (University of Malawi), confirmed this, saying that access itself is actually “not too bad”. This is thanks in part to programmes from organisations like the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (one of the partners behind PfD), the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, Research4Life and EIFL, although awareness of programmes is not as universal as might be hoped. Kondwani told us about the roots of this problem; highlighting a lack of librarian awareness of the value of resources held, as well as a lack of respect for (or in some cases, a complete lack of) librarians in institutions. Such problems can be tackled at a local level through collaborations and training schemes, with particular success when principals (vice-chancellors) are engaged. Organisations like the Association of Commonwealth Universities (the other key partner behind PfD) are also involved with this effort. However, fundamentally, Kondwani noted that if journals are not available to researchers and students in an online format that works for Africa, long-term, sustainable access will not ever result.
Bandwidth
The complex design of publishers’ websites is a significant problem, hindering usability for inexperienced African users and also dramatically increasing the time it takes for homepages to load. The key issue in this regard is with internet speed, or the lack of it. Alan Jackson from Aptivate told us that in order to provide a good web experience, pages should take no longer than 10 seconds to load. Given the limited bandwidth available for users at African universities, he estimates that the maximum size a page should be is 25kB (explanation here). Crucially, however, numerous publishers break this golden rule; Science, for example, weighs in at 72kB. Aptivate’s website has some useful tips for designing low bandwidth pages here. One successful solution we heard about is the adaptation of mobile website platforms to work as low-bandwidth versions. Cambridge University Press has implemented this system, creating this fast-loading homepage. The website detects whether the user is using a PC or mobile phone and adjusts the screen size accordingly. This dramatically increases usability.
Improving access makes an enormous difference to the professional lives of individuals; how they work and think, their research impacts and their reputation – and the reputation of their environment. For researchers in developing countries to succeed in research on the global stage, the challenges are many. But creating usable interfaces seems a simple place to start.
You can read more about the rest of the meeting in the PfD press release that followed the event, and on their website. They can also be contacted via Twitter.
Update 08/05/2012
PfD have just launched their Bandwidth Challenge, using a quote from this very blog…
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.
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 blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Science is an important tool to build bridges between nations and a great asset for the UK in cultural diplomacy. So said Lloyd Anderson, Director of Science at the British Council, when he joined the Policy Lunchbox network earlier this week to discuss how his organisation uses science to promote the UK overseas.
For a detailed event report, please visit the British Ecological Society’s Ecology and Policy blog, written by the BES’ Policy Manager Ceri Margerison.
Vince Cable talks science
08/09/2010
This blog post was written by Beck Smith, the Biochemical Society’s Head of Policy.
At Queen Mary, University of London this morning, Vince Cable made his most revealing speech yet about the future of science in the UK.
While he begin his speech by stating that ‘my colleagues, including at the Treasury, value the contribution of UK science’ what followed suggested that a valued contribution would not be sufficient to protect science from significant spending cuts.
Setting the scene with ‘we face the tightest spending round since post-War demobilisation’ and ‘the Labour Government was planning deep cuts of 20%-25% in the budget of that department’, the science community looks set to assume the brace position.
Dr Cable believes the question he has to address is ‘can we achieve more with less?’ but also recognises the distance between himself and the setting of current practice of setting research priorities through peer review. While the Government may not be able to directly set research priorities, ‘the Government spends £6bn a year supporting science and research and it is right that I should speak about strategic priorities.’
Dr Cable peppers his speech with questions, in addition to ‘can we achieve more with less?’, he also asks:
- How far should policy be driven by economic impact?
- How does Government spending in scientific research contribute to the economy?
- How do we economise without damaging science?
- How to prioritise?
- … How we maximise the contribution of Government supported research to wealth creation?
- How to encourage academics to collaborate with industry to maximise the benefit of their research?
Citing the OECD 2010 innovation report which ‘shows that investment in intangible assets helped account for between two-thirds and three-quarters of labour productivity growth. It also suggested that innovation is a key source of future growth for emerging economies’ the expectation of and focus on research innovation to deliver is a key theme through the speech. Indeed, the OECD speech concluded that, ‘Cutting back public investment in support of innovation may provide short-term fiscal relief, but will damage the foundations of long-term growth.’ Despite acknowledging the increase in science spends seen in the US, China and Germany, it seems that the key message heard from the OECD report by Government is that ‘there is considerable scope to improve the efficiency of government spending’.
On the mechanism of cuts, Dr Cable disfavours salami slicing and appears wary of specialisation for two reasons:
- Decisions on which areas should be specialised should be not politicised
- Many of the ‘choices are not choices at all because disciplines interact’
Bearing these points in mind, Dr Cable appears to favour the identification of broad problems e.g. challenges thrown up by an ageing population which require collaboration across a number of disciplines. In addition to the identification of broad problems, Dr Cable suggests ‘there is a case for identifying and building up the areas where the UK is truly a world leader’ e.g. stem cells and regenerative medicine, plastic electronics and advanced manufacturing amongst others.
In answer to the question of ‘How to prioritise’, Dr Cable states a preference s to ‘ration research funding by excellence and back research terms of international quality – and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do.’ He goes on to say that ‘It is worth noting that in the RAE 54 per cent of submitted work was defined as world class and that is the area where funding should be concentrated.’
This ’54 per cent’ has proven to be of the most discussed parts of Dr Cable’s speech, with many believing this to be an arbitrary figure. Blogger Telescoper said in his post ‘Unravelling Cable’, ‘The comment is made all the more meaningless, however, because the 54% was actually imposed on the assessment panels anyway; they were told to match the outcome of their deliberations to a target profile. The figure quoted is therefore hardly an objective measure of the quality of scientific research in the UK.’
Towards the end of his speech, Dr Cable turns his attention to the importance of international collaboration (and the need to break down existing barriers to collaboration), the UK and ‘its attractiveness as a destination for the brightest scientists, researchers and engineers from all over the world.’ He then goes on to say, ‘UK researchers already have an excellent record of working across borders. Almost half of more than 90,000 research articles published by UK researchers in 2008 had a co-author from another country. Co-authorship with non-UK collaborators tends to produce significant impact gains e.g. papers with USA, Germany, France have impact 50% higher than the UK research base average.
However, in recognising the investment other countries are making in science, it remains to be seen how attractive the UK will be able to remain, as both a place in which to do science and as a potential collaborator. A blogpost from the Campaign for Science and Engineering exemplifies the difference in attitude between Dr Cable and other world leaders in their (financial) support for science.
Dr Cable’s speech ends with a return to an emphasis on innovation, ‘The key is to find ways of transforming research into innovation. The UK has a strong record but we need to do more. This involves building stronger links between the UK’s science and research base and the business community to create more spin-out companies, and to provide a magnet for attracting overseas investors to the UK.’ He also recognises the important role of the UK’s world-leading universities in attracting overseas investors.
In response to the speech, Professor Steve Smith of Universities UK said, ‘Universities understand the constraints on public funding and the need to target scarce resources in the most effective way possible. However, the coalition government is in danger of sending the message that the UK is not a serious player in the field of science and innovation.’
Perhaps Mark Henderson the The Times in his analysis of Cable’s speech (subscription required) summed it up best of all by saying, ‘While it would be nice to think we can achieve more by spending less, a far more probable outcome is that we will end up achieving less with less.’
Update 17:32
Russell Group respond to speech saying: ‘Dr Cable has urged UK scientists to ‘do more with less’; they already are. The UK’s leading universities currently punch well above their weight in the international sphere – generally coming second only to the US – but are under-resourced in comparison with their global competitors. Our current 1.3% of GDP investment in higher education is outpaced by the US, Germany, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Japan. Against the odds, with one percent of the world’s population, 12% of scientific citations go to UK-based research.’
Response in full can be read from the link above.
