{"id":5869,"date":"2019-11-15T18:01:57","date_gmt":"2019-11-15T17:01:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/?p=5869"},"modified":"2019-11-15T18:01:57","modified_gmt":"2019-11-15T17:01:57","slug":"science-and-government-science-in-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/2019\/11\/15\/science-and-government-science-in-government\/","title":{"rendered":"Science and Government, Science in Government"},"content":{"rendered":"

Before pre-election purdah set in, two interesting reports got published, one with more fanfare than the other. The one with more publicity attached was the long-awaited report (Changes and Choices<\/em><\/a>) on options for future international funding by Adrian Smith<\/a> and Graeme Reid<\/a>. It is of course impossible currently to predict anything regarding our future relationship with Europe. If and when Brexit happens then everyone seems agreed we\u2019d like to associate with HorizonEurope \u2013 but will they let us? How long would it take to get an agreement? What form would such an agreement take and would it be essentially pay-as-you-go\/can\u2019t take more out than you put in (as we currently do)? Given there are plenty of uncertainties including budgetary wrangling in Brussels for the next framework programme, the UK may not be attempting to negotiate at a particularly good moment (whenever that is). \u00a0It should not surprise anyone, then, that the conclusions of the report were inconclusive, as it were; there are no obvious or easy answers except we must do everything we can to ensure the UK stays open to researchers from around the world and that we invest sufficiently in science (with all parties committed to an uplift in spending as a percentage of GDP ), including through international collaborations.<\/p>\n

Since the report was (I believe) completed, the PM has thrown a new joker into the pack in the form of the ARPA-like organisation introduced in the Queen\u2019s Speech<\/a>, the brainchild \u2013 as the rumours have it \u2013 of Dominic Cummings. If there is to be a new agency outside UKRI to carry out this ARPA-like function, plus another new structure to oversee international funding to replace Framework programmes, we are going to be creating a confusing multiplicity of structures which will probably lead to endless confusion and, one must suspect, inefficiencies of scale. I hope there will \u2013 in due course \u2013 be some appropriate joined-up thinking.<\/p>\n

The second report, longer but probably of less immediate or obvious interest to the majority of scientists, was Realising our Ambition through Science: A Review of Government Science Capability 2019<\/a><\/em>, looking at (as its name suggests) the state of science within government departments. As Norman Lamb<\/a>, outgoing chair of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee explained, MPs are not exactly rushing to join his committee, a testament to the lack of interest MPs exhibit in science. We need a strong science base within government departments to offset the apparent scientific apathy<\/a> spelled out in this complaint.<\/p>\n

However, my experience at the Departure of Culture, Media and Sports a few years ago highlighted that, at that time there were remarkably few scientists in their teams: one to be precise. (I do know, with the incorporation of the digital brief this has significantly improved since.) \u00a0Nevertheless it is a fairly shocking statistic provided in the report that only 24 out of1200 \u2018fast streamer\u2019 civil servants are badged with science and engineering, and only 45 out of 400 scientists are on the generalist scheme. That really means there aren\u2019t very many scientists to go around, compared with \u2013 say \u2013 graduates in PPE or Economics. Every department has a different need, a different composition of scientific workforce and a different culture. However, as the opening sentence of the report\u2019s first recommendation says:<\/p>\n

\u2018Every department should have a clearly defined science system\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

hat is not necessarily the case yet. It probably is hard to do with such low numbers of scientifically-qualified people in many departments.<\/p>\n

The advent of UKRI has of late changed the landscape because there are specific funds (part, an unknown amount, of the Strategic Priorities Fund to be precise) which are dedicated to research funding for work with government departments. In order to facilitate this, each department is meant to<\/p>\n

\u2018publish and refresh annually, Areas of Research Interest documents with a view to encouraging extra-mural activity and collaborations and the commissioning of key R+D.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These documents are starting to appear (15 departments have published theirs). Of course, many topics cross departmental boundaries: AI, data science, demographic issues\u2026.- how such topics should best be handled is still to be resolved.<\/p>\n

It was interesting to read this report having recently read Jon Agar<\/a>\u2019s book Science Policy under Thatcher<\/a>, a fascinating book available free from UCL Press. Agar persuasively argues how Thatcher\u2019s deliberate policy was to take the government right out of \u2018near market\u2019 research with the consequence of damaging science leadership within Government. \u00a0In some senses Thatcher thought, as a scientist, she knew best and could make key decisions herself. Universities were somehow supposed to pick up the pieces in ways that weren\u2019t expected before the 1980s, and public laboratories, such as RSRE<\/a> at Malvern which had done so much influential work on liquid crystal displays for instance, were sold off. The latest report is to some extent still attempting to rectify the consequences, one might say damage, that Thatcher\u2019s decision made in our research and innovation landscape. As its recommendation 4 says<\/p>\n

\u2018BEIS\u2026should address the role of Public Laboratories across government in supporting and enabling research and development in the private sector\u2026..\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There are few Public Laboratories left, but their role needs to be carefully considered. The UK has little equivalent to the German well-funded Fraunhofer Institutes. But<\/p>\n

\u2018Government has a lead role in setting the framework for innovation, marked by the publication of the Industrial Strategy in 2017.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This includes \u2018de-risking\u2019 the early stages of innovation and using procurement as a useful tool as innovations take off. Too much focus has, here as in so many other situations, been paid to value for money rather than wider and perhaps more intangible benefits. Public Laboratories also offer scope to improve the so-called Place agenda, potentially opening up opportunities and jobs in some of the more deprived parts of the country.<\/p>\n

Of course, a key part in any system is ensuring the right people both meet each other and know enough about broader contexts. It is good to see Cambridge\u2019s Centre for Science and Policy<\/a> \u2013 which offers fellowships to civil servants to meet up with academic experts in an intensive way \u2013 getting a shout out for the excellent work it does (Disclaimer: I am on their Advisory Board). These aspects tie in with the report\u2019s first recommendation regarding an appropriate science system in each department. If civil servants, even if non-experts in science themselves, have a better appreciation of the wider landscape and, with a departmental CSA in place, it should be easier to create a system that recognizes the changing challenges and how policy must interface with the big issues of the day, such as climate change, privacy in the world of social media and an ageing population.<\/p>\n

I hope this report gets traction with Government. However, since we don\u2019t know what complexion our Government will have in a few weeks\u2019 time, anything might happen and everything is, as one might say, up for grabs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Before pre-election purdah set in, two interesting reports got published, one with more fanfare than the other. The one with more publicity attached was the long-awaited report (Changes and Choices) on options for future international funding by Adrian Smith and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[57,1358,1359,1361,1360],"class_list":["post-5869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research","tag-adrian-smith","tag-areas-of-research-interest","tag-jon-agar","tag-public-laboratories","tag-rsre"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}