Bright sparks - Do our governments value science?

Scotland’s reputation in science is longstanding and substantial. Innovations such as penicillin, the telephone and radar are often raised, but the reputation stretches further back in time.
Economists, geologists and engineers led the Scottish Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, while mathematician and astronomer Mary Fairfax Somerville was described as the ‘Queen of nineteenth century science’.

The reputation isn’t just restricted to centuries past either. The cloning of ‘Dolly’ the sheep and the creation of the bionic hand have gained more recent headlines, highlighting a modern community of scientists who are bending light, creating tractor beams and leading international understanding of the big issues facing the world, such as dementia and sustainable energy.

Life sciences is a particularly impressive area encompassing 600 organisations, with 30,000 employees including some big names, like nuclear transfer techniques expert Professor Sir Ian Wilmut, and one of the most respected cancer specialists in the world, Professor Sir Philip Cohen.

RELATED CONTENT

Defending evidence - an interview with Professor Anne Glover

The STEM sell- Encouraging girls into science, technology, engineering and maths

For a Scottish Government keen to talk this reputation up, how can the country’s reputation for science be maintained and strengthened going forward? 

Falling participation in science and engineering subjects at school, particularly among girls, and reported lower spends by schools on science than their counterparts south of the border suggests the task may be getting harder. 

The fact the role of the government’s chief scientific adviser (CSA) has been vacant for almost exactly a year seems perhaps an odd place to start. 

The previous occupant of the role, computer scientist Muffy Calder, stepped down last December and as yet government has been unable to replace her. At the same time, appointments to the Scottish Science Advisory Council (SSAC) were delayed so the new CSA could inform the choices. They too have not been made.

The government has left itself open to criticism for a lack of scientific advice over energy policy, strategies to increase STEM participation and a decision to ban the use of GM crops.
It hasn’t been for a lack of trying, though. Scotland’s Education Secretary, Angela Constance, wrote to university principals and presidents of the country’s learned societies in September to ask for “a diverse pool of candidates” for the posts. 

Her letter revealed the government’s inability to fill the CSA post and its wish to know why. “We were disappointed we were not able to appoint anyone to the role,” she said.
A short review is being undertaken by civil servants into the requirements of the role, in dialogue with key stakeholders within the scientific community, “to ensure it fits that brief will attract a broad field ahead of re-advertising the post”.

In the meantime, she wrote, the remaining chief scientists, covering health and rural affairs, food and the environment, will continue to carry out key tasks that would usually be done by the CSA.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), a fellowship of academics set up during the Enlightenment, remains a vocal and independent voice to this day. It set up the SSAC with the then Labour enterprise minister Wendy Alexander in 2001, and at that time was responsible for appointing the CSA.

In 2007, shortly before the SNP won the election, the SSAC was brought under the auspices of the Scottish Government.

Current RSE general secretary Professor Alan Alexander says the fellows “look forward to further announcements” about the CSA post. 

“The Royal Society of Edinburgh strongly believes expert, independent scientific advice should be readily available to the Scottish Government. We therefore welcome the decision to recruit new members to the Scottish Science Advisory Council,” he told Holyrood. 

A Scottish Government spokeswoman confirmed the SSAC posts are being advertised ahead of the CSA post. “We will also advertise for a new Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland by the end of the year, following a period of sector engagement. These are critical roles, allowing ministers to draw on the very best scientific advice and expertise,” she said.

In an interview in the current issue of Holyrood, former CSA Professor Anne Glover said it does the Scottish Government “no credit” that the appointment has taken so long. “I think it would be good if a new chief scientific adviser could be involved in the appointment of people on the SSAC because he or she will want to work closely with these people and they will have a view about who should be on that council, what they can offer and so on,” she said.

The Scottish Government spokewoman pointed out they make significant investment in science. “The Scottish Government is investing over a billion pounds in higher education in 2015-16 – with £282 million of this specifically supporting core research and knowledge exchange in our universities, building on increasing levels of funding since 2007. Through the Scottish Funding Council, we also invest substantially in strategic research funding such as our programme of innovation centres,” she said.

The eight innovation centres are expected to lever further investment from industry and other sources of public funding to support research, an approach echoed elsewhere. 

The chief scientist in health, Professor Andrew Morris, has launched a strategy, ‘Delivering Innovation Through Research’, to improve NHS Scotland’s attractiveness as a place in which to conduct clinical research. It anticipates a future where the NHS, patients, universities and business work closely together for mutual benefit.

This model for collaborative innovation is one championed by Finance Secretary and Deputy First Minister John Swinney, who told a Universities Scotland event earlier this year it wasn’t just universities who had to embrace innovation, but “right across the company base of Scotland”, including the public and third sectors.

“Innovation can’t, forgive me, be just the reserve of universities. It also has to be the reserve of the public services in Scotland. We, as a country, must embrace at our heart the concept of perpetual innovation,” he said.

But despite commitments and collaborations with business and Scottish Government, a large part of research funding for science in Scotland is distributed through UK-wide research councils. And although Scotland gets more than its population share of funding, it remains lower than other European countries, and may fall further. 

A decision to ringfence annual resource spending for the research councils in 2010 looks likely to fall victim of the Chancellor’s Spending Review at the end of the month. George Osborne has asked government departments to model spending cuts of 30 to 40 per cent, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills still to find another £450m in cuts this year alone, £150m of which is to come from the universities’ teaching grant for 2015-16.

Those concerned will have found little comfort in comments made by the UK universities and science minister Jo Johnson in a debate in the Commons. 

“It is hard to think of a Chancellor who has spent more time in lab coats and high-vis clothing than he has. He has revealed his preferences over his chancellorship by ringfencing science over the last parliament. We in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are working hard to make the best possible case for science going into the Spending Review. Obviously, there are difficult decisions and a difficult settlement to be made, but science has a strong set of arguments to make, and we are reinforcing those arguments in our discussions with the Treasury,” he said. 

These ‘strong arguments’ were shared by MPs on the Science and Technology Committee, who last week published a report on the science budget which called for an increase, not a cut, to research and development investment.

“The UK has fallen behind its competitors in terms of total R&D investment and this will put UK competitiveness, productivity and high-value jobs at risk if it is not reversed,” the report said, calling for a roadmap for increasing R&D funding to 3 per cent of GDP. 

Cuts to capital expenditure have eroded the overall science budget in departments outwith Business Innovation and Skills, according to the report.

“We are dismayed by the steep decline in research and development in some departments. This is driven by understandable budgetary pressures but also by lack of transparency surrounding these budgets,” the report added. 

“The UK risks losing its status as a science superpower if the Treasury does not make a long-term commitment to increase science funding in the Spending Review,” said the committee’s chair, Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood. 

Celebrity particle physics scientist Professor Brian Cox also waded in. “The committee paints a vivid picture of one of the world’s leading scientific nations shackled by underinvestment,” he said.

Cox was one of a number of signatories to a letter to government under the banner ‘Science is Vital’, a campaign formed in response to the last threat to research funding in 2010. 

The group’s chair, cell biologist Jennifer Rohn of University College London, tells Holyrood the group has heard rumours the cuts are “inevitable”, which presents more of a danger to the future of research than when the group formed in 2010.

“The situation does seem more perilous this time around,” she says. 

“We are starting from a position of weakness, in that five years of underinvestment since 2010 has taken its toll, putting the UK at the lowest science spend, as a percentage of GDP, than any of the other G8 countries, and 12th in the EU overall. 

“The government’s austerity programme is still being carried out relatively unchallenged, and there is little fat left to trim. Despite the fact publicly funded research actually returns about 20 per cent on investment and nurturing it would help the economy to thrive, science must seem like a relatively soft target for making further cuts in the short term.”

The implications of the Spending Review on Scotland have been acknowledged by the Scottish Government. The spokeswoman said: “Ringfencing the UK science budget has served the sector well, supporting collaboration and helping to attract and retain talent. The outcome of the UK Spending Review will have significant implications for Scotland across all policy areas, both reserved and devolved and we are keen to ensure a settlement that takes account of Scotland’s priorities.”  

While the budgets may be under strain, there is some recognition by the UK Government that the current model of public investment in research favours the south east, with 46 per cent of the total spend going on the ‘golden triangle’ of London, Oxford and Cambridge.

While this probably reflects the sheer number of researchers located in that area, Johnson says a new approach is needed. In a speech in Sheffield in July, he said the government would look to drive productivity across the UK in what he called “one nation science”. 

“The first part of one nation science is to take a more thoughtful approach to place. I have asked officials to work with local areas to develop ‘audits’ mapping local research and innovation strengths and infrastructure. These deep dives will provide a new way to identify and build on areas of greatest potential in every region,” he said. 

But while Scotland sees more than its population share of funding, it remains centred around the ancient universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and St Andrews. Through think tank Million+, the modern universities argue they should be rewarded for linking well with small and medium-sized businesses in their communities. Responding to the concerns over the forthcoming Spending Review, Million+ chair, Professor Dave Phoenix, said: “Seventy-two universities now receive less than £5 million per annum in government funding for research in spite of the fact that they have centres of world-leading research excellence.

“Britain’s research base will not be maintained on the back of a very small number of universities which continue to be allocated the lion’s share of funding.”

The call was echoed at the SNP conference by Professor Michael Gunn of Staffordshire University, who told a fringe meeting he thought the SNP’s increased presence at Westminster could help the countries learn from each other’s approaches.

“Let’s face it, there are now very big differences in the funding of higher education north and south of the border but this should not close our eyes to the huge benefits that come from cross-border university collaborations whether in research, sharing best practice in teaching or how to better promote access to higher education, including for those who are older and want to study on a flexible basis – something modern universities are very good at and for which they should be given much more credit,” he said.