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!
The Year in Science – Xmas Quiz
15/11/2011
This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer
Monday 28 November 2011
19:00, The Book Club, Shoreditch
From the team behind Science Question Time, we bring you the nerdiest quiz of the year. Think you know your biochemistry from your badgers, and neutrinos from your nuclei? Or just want to relive your old sciencey school daze? Then grab some friends, come down to The Book Club, and show us what you’re made of.
Helped by some special guests, we’ll be dredging up the year’s breakthroughs and blunders in science – taking in its highs and lows in the media, as well as use and abuse in politics.
There’ll be prizes for the geekiest costumes, nerdiest names, and brainiest teams. Confirmed guest round hosts so far include:
- Aleks Krotoski, host of the Guardian’s Tech Weekly podcast (Technology round)
- Pallab Ghosh, the BBC’s Science Correspondent (Politics)
- Alex Bellos, author of “Alex’s Adventures in Numberland / Here’s Looking at Euclid” (Maths)
- Adam Rutherford, presenter of the BBC’s “The Gene Code” and “The Cell” (Science Fiction)
- Sophie Scott, UCL neuroscientist and public engager (Brains)
- Louise Crane, co-organiser of “Science Showoff” (Picture rounds)
Entry is just £4, and teams can be up to 6 people. Any profits will go directly to support CaSE’s science & engineering advocacy. Buy your tickets here (you can enter as a team or we will sort it out on the night)!
Brought to you by James Lush at the Biochemical Society, Imran Khan and Beck Smith at the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and Dr Alice Bell.
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’
