An oral evidence session was held yesterday afternoon by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee to examine Defra’s new Evidence Investment Strategy 2010-2013 and beyond, discussing whether this strategy provides a robust basis for competing demands in tough economic times.

Professor Robert Watson from Defra began by summarising key messages from the strategy, in particular the fact that the main evidence challenges identified (Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Sustainable Food Supply and Protecting Ecosystem Services) are interrelated and should be addressed by a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on different areas of skills within Defra and through external partnerships.

Members of the panel each made short presentations giving their comments on the strategy. Key issues raised included concerns from Steve Visscher from BBSRC that national capability for scientific research might not be maintained under the current strategy, and Dr David Gibbons from the RSPB commented that although investing in an ecosystem services approach is highly valuable, this should not be favoured over funding applied research into more specific biodiversity conservation issues. There was some disappointment that details of the implementation of the strategy have not yet been made clear, but Professor Watson said that the implementation plan is due to be published in October/November this year.

Many of the questions from the audience related to whether investment would be made in funding specific research areas, such as geoengineering, horticulture, and alternative agriculture. Professor Watson responded that the prioritisation process outlined in the strategy would ensure that funding is focussed on the most important evidence issues.

The Chairman, Rt Hon Michael Jack MP, closed the session with the comment that Defra’s future work in this area should continue to be examined, as the process of challenge from stakeholders is essential for developing good policy.

Last Friday the BES attended two a half-day workshop organised by the Biochemical Society and Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) which provided an overview of the funding landscape for UK higher education. The session emphasised the many pressures and challenges which will face universities in the period of fiscal tightening ahead.

Peter Heathcote, Head of the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences at Queen Mary University of London outlined the major shift facing universities; from blue skies research to more targeted research priorities and large multi-disciplinary, multi-investigator applications for funding. Paul Hubbard, Head of Research Policy at HEFCE, then delivered a presentation outlining the basics of the dual support system for universities (with the Funding Councils, such as HEFCE, providing a block grant and Research Councils providing funding for projects and programmes). He outlined HEFCEs plans in terms of ‘impact’, stating that this would be assessed at the level of the Department, not the individual, with HEFCE examining the connection back from impact to high-quality research. Both Labour and the Conservatives have declared that the dual funding system will be secure under any new government, although there have been suggestions from both that there may be more strategic direction of the research base than in the past. Both are supportive of the ‘impact’ agenda.

Finally, Helen Thorne, Head of Research Policy at the Russell Group (the association of 20 of the UK’s leading research intensive universities) outlined the current research funding situation and broader policy context. The Government has announced cuts of £915m to research and higher education, with cuts to research and teaching infrastructure: where £600m of these cuts will fall precisely is not yet known. It seems that universities are entering a period of extreme uncertainty, in terms of announced funding cuts and with more potentially to come.

The Government’s recently published (November 2009) blueprint for higher education, “Higher Ambitions”, makes it clear that in a period of financial uncertainty and tightening of the public purse universities are going to have to diversify their income streams. Partnerships with business, philanthropy, legacy giving and tapping into funding from abroad are all mentioned as potential sources of finance. The emphasis of the strategy is on using universities as a means to re-build the UK’s economy. Universities need to work in partnership with businesses to deliver graduates with the employment skills which business requires and need to deliver courses in subjects relevant to Britain’s economic future: “institutions unable to meet such strategic needs can expect to see their funding reduced to provide funding for those who can.”

‘Higher Ambitions’ states that support for STEM subjects will be enhanced. However, ‘concentration’ runs as a theme throughout the report: concentration of funds in centres of excellence, with enhanced multi-disciplinary collaboration between universities to create these, and concentration on areas of research in which the UK can excel. Universities will be required to “withdraw activities of lower priority and value…invest[ing] more in high priority programmes.” The overall picture painted by the strategy is one of diverse institutions, specialising in different areas, providing a range of qualifications (three-year degrees, part-time courses, foundation degrees, e-learning), enhancing the national, and their regional, economies, working directly with business and supported by a diverse range of funding sources. The Government acknowledges the need to direct resources more strategically “if [these] are to achieve public policy goals”, and “in future new priorities will be chiefly supported by redistribution of existing funds rather than provision of new money.”

There is no doubt that after the relatively ‘benign’ environment in which universities have operated for the past several years, difficult decisions will need to be made after the general election and throughout the next few years to meet government policy priorities and to ensure a sustainable financial footing for institutions.

Research funding and support is one of the BES’s four major policy priorities. Read more about our previous work in this area.

The BES Policy Team this afternoon attended a meeting of Education Policy Lunchbox, a new network for those working in education policy which has arisen from the successful Policy Lunchbox series of meetings. Policy Lunchbox and Education Policy Lunchbox are organised by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society.

Hannah Baker, Education Policy Team at the Wellcome Trust, delivered a presentation on ‘Science Education for the Future’, the topic of a new report being prepared by the Trust and due out in June. The report will take a holistic view across the science education sector, to age 19, examining the curriculum, qualifications, assessment, continuing professional development and teacher training, amongst other matters. Attendees, from a variety of organisations across the education sector, were invited to provide comments and feedback on initial plans; full consultation with stakeholders will take place after the report is launched.

Questions raised in discussion covered how the sector could define what a scientifically literate population would comprise; educating young people to understand not only scientific concepts but to see science as a cultural activity and to understand how science works; and a possible tension between engendering scientific literacy and teaching the scientists and engineers of the future. A main issue for the Wellcome Trust, Hannah suggested, was whether students pursuing current educational routes were emerging with the right skills, demanded by employers. Are the routes through a science education at present what society ideally needs or should there be amendments to these?

The Wellcome Trust is also interested in improving science education research: What are the priorities for science education research in the short and medium term? How can we gain a stronger evidence base than currently, building on this to improve science education? These and other questions around improving the interface between science education research, policy and practice will be explored in the final report.

One very interesting point to emerge from discussion concerned the Wellcome Monitor, the results of the third round of which were published last week. This longitudinal study aims to analyse changing public attitudes to science and is published every three years. The most recent results imply that the notion that students find school science ‘boring’ is outdated; in fact, young people are interested and engaged with school science. Attendees expressed suprise at the findings, but colleagues from the Wellcome Trust attested to the reliability of the data on which the findings are based, with the Trust checking and re-checking the robustness of the methods and analysis. This positive message concluded an interesting and wide-ranging session.

The next Education Policy Lunchbox will be held on 20th April. More information is available from the Biochemical Society’s website.

The UK has successfully bid to host a major international science conference in 2012. The London conference, Planet Under Pressure: new knowledge, new solutions, aims to attract 2500 of the world’s leading thinkers on global-change research.

The four-day conference is sponsored by the International Council for Science’s (ICSU) global environmental change research programmes. It will bring together natural, physical and social scientists, together with economists. It will also involve engineers, health specialists and many others disciplines, plus with national and international policymakers, industry representatives, technologists, NGOs and development experts.

The event, provisionally booked for 7-10 May 2012, will take place prior to the next UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, also scheduled for that year. Presenting the latest research findings, the London conference is anticipated to provide a solid scientific foundation for the summit.

The conference has been initiated by ICSU’s International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). IGBP Executive Director, Professor Sybil Seitzinger says, “We need a planetary conference focusing on solutions.”

“We need to set research priorities that fully integrate diverse groups of people. We need to communicate a comprehensive picture of the state of the planet and its future to the institutions charged with global environmental stewardship. We will work with these institutions to help develop a planetary management approach that tackles all the challenges in a truly integrated way,” she added.

An overarching aim of the conference will be to discuss solutions to two challenges: what will it take to make food, energy and water accessible to nine billion people in a way that is sustainable? And, what inevitable environmental changes must we prepare for?

In the UK, the conference will be hosted by the Royal Society, the Living With Environmental Change programme (LWEC, which represents all the UK’s main agencies and government departments tackling environmental change) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the UK’s largest funder of environmental science.

Professor Lorna Casselton, Foreign Secretary and Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: “It is a tribute to the quality of UK science that London has been chosen as a venue for the conference. The Royal Society is dedicated to building international links within the science community and is therefore delighted to be hosting an event that will bring together such a wide range of specialists from around the globe to address many of the big challenges of our time.”

Director of Living with Environmental Change, Professor Andrew Watkinson, said, “An overarching aim of the conference will be to discuss solutions to the environmental challenges we face. We need to find ways to increase the speed with which we move to a low carbon society and ensure food, water and energy security for the billions of people across the globe in a changing world. The Living with Environmental Change partners are already addressing these critical issues, so I am very pleased that we are co-hosting the 2012 conference, which I am sure will become a catalyst for more innovative research collaborations to address the needs of society.”

The conference follows the influential 2001 Amsterdam Open Science Conference. That conference led to the Amsterdam Declaration, a defining moment in the development of Earth system science and indeed the launch of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The declaration acknowledges the Earth as a single system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human – or socioeconomic – components. It stated that the accelerating human transformation of the Earth’s environment is not sustainable and it led to new approaches to delivering global environmental science.

Since the 2001 conference, new science has emerged about the scale, speed and unprecedented nature of environmental change caused by growing human demands. By 2012, the scientific community wants to be working more closely with governments, international policymakers, industry and society at large to address these challenges. The conference will offer an important forum to consolidate these relationships and discuss the future.

Press Release (11 March 2010) taken from the website of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.

A report published by Natural England last week highlights the extent to which habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and now climate change have impacted on England’s species. “Lost Life: England’s Lost and Threatened Species” suggests that, amongst other figures, 24% of butterfly species and 22% of species of amphibian in England have been driven to extinction. The report represents the first ever audit of England’s lost and declining native species, collating all available data. It was the focus of a piece by Robin McKie, the Guardian’s science editor, in this Sunday’s Observer.

Interviewed for the article, Dr Tom Tew, Chief Scientist at Natural England, states that Natural England have in fact underestimated the loss of England’s wildlife; “we wanted to avoid repercussions of being alarmist…There are many more species we think we’ve lost but but we have not included them as they’re not officially extinct.”

The Natural England report identified the major driver of species loss over the last century as habitat loss. Speaking to the Observer, Dr Tew identified farming as a major offender within this, with ‘waves’ of species extinction coinciding with ‘revolutions’ in farming practice. Mechanisation and intensive landkeeping from 1900 onwards saw the first major swathe of extinctions in the countryside, followed by increasing applications of chemical pesticides and fertilisers from 1945 onwards, as food security became an increasing concern. By the middle of the 21st Century, Dr Tew suggests, climate change will account for the majority of future extinctions of English wildlife.

Farming is mainly to blame for the loss of our native plants and wildlife: Observer, Sunday 14th March

The British Ecological Society recently submitted a response to a Foreign and Commonwealth Office consultation document supporting the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Chagos Archipelago. In producing the response to the consultation, the BES recognised that there may be some conflict between conservation objectives and the potential resettlement of the islands, by Chagossians who were removed from the islands in the 1960s to allow the US to establish a military base.

In February 2010 the report of a workshop was released, which considered the socio-economic issues relating to the establishment of an MPA in the Chagos Archipelago. The workshop was held on 7th January at Royal Holloway, University of London, and follows on from a scientific workshop on the same topic at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton in August 2009. Participants were invited to the workshop on the basis of their involvement or interests in Chagos, including representatives from the Chagossian Social Committee in the UK, Chagos Refugees Group Mauritius, and UK Chagos Support Association. All participants agreed that establishing an MPA recognises the importance and value of the Chagos Archipelago and is an important opportunity to provide long-term protection. The chair of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All Party Parliamentary Group explained that the number of Chagossians wishing to return is small and hence there should not be a conflict with marine conservation.

However it was emphasised that the MPA proposal must not be used in such a way that detracts from the rights of the Chagossians. Participants agreed that the process must be done in such a way that allows the consideration of future issues with respect to resettlement or changes in jurisdiction. Some proposed the establishment of an MPA that makes provision for sustainable utilisation of natural resources if Chagossians resettle some of the islands. Many participants also voiced the opinion that representatives of Chagos and Mauritius should be closely involved in the MPA discussions, and were concerned that the initial exclusion of these groups may have already undermined the process. Since establishing a no-take MPA will require enforcement, this would certainly require involvement of Chagossians and Mauritians in MPA planning. Discussions in the workshop also raised the issue that economic analysis had been based on the current situation and did not take account of the costs of benefits of potential Chagossian resettlement or change of sovereignty.

Overall, the conclusion of the workshop was that the establishment of an MPA in the Chagos Archipelago should be done in such a way that involves all stakeholders in order to create a robust conservation area that can withstand future challenges.

A panel discussion was held yesterday evening at the Judge Business School in Cambridge, entitled ‘The price of extinction: what losing biodiversity costs’. The event was part of the Cambridge Science Festival, in collaboration with Cambridge Conservation Initiative and Science Magazine.

Tim Radford from The Guardian opened the discussion by highlighting the global scale of biodiversity loss: one eighth of birds, 13% of flowering plants and one quarter of mammals are currently at risk of extinction. The panel members were asked in turn to give their opinions on the most important issues for biodiversity conservation.

Dr Hazell Thompson from Birdlife International and Dr Ruth Swetnam from the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, were in agreement that a valuation system for biodiversity is required. Dr Thompson explained that biodiversity conservation often loses out because it is not practically valuable to the people who actually bear the cost of protecting biodiversity. For example, constructing mines in the rainforest in West Africa has a greater economic benefit for local people than protecting the rainforest. Dr Swetnam detailed the main physical resources that are provided by biodiversity, such as food, fuel and climate regulation, and concluded that if we don’t assign monetary value to biodiversity then the value will in effect be zero, and this will inevitably lead to biodiversity loss. In contrast, in the view of William Kendall from Green and Black’s, assigning value to biodiversity will not work in the world of business because business values immediate profits, so the benefits of biodiversity conservation are not considered because they are remote and poorly calculated. In his view, biodiversity conservation can only be incorporated into business through regulation, whether this is through external regulation such as government incentives, or self-regulation through customer pressure. Although valuation and regulation were presented in the debate as opposing views, perhaps they could go hand-in-hand: valuing biodiversity could be an important factor in implementing regulation.

Pamela Abbott, chair of Cambridge Conservation Forum, put forward the point that there could be huge benefits to human health of protecting biodiversity, which would reduce government spending on healthcare. For example, a 10% increase in local green space can increase life expectancy by five years. She brought the issue of biodiversity loss down to a local scale, using the catchphrase ‘Extinction begins at home’, and suggested that individuals can have a significant input into conserving biodiversity through making wildlife gardens.

Professor Bill Adams from the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, talked about the issue of how much biodiversity we actually need. He mentioned the recent paper published in Nature on Planetary Boundaries, in which Johan Röckstrom defined limits for the capacity of the planet to cope with anthropogenic changes, including biodiversity loss. Professor Adams suggested that the particular boundaries which are considered to be important by rich countries might differ from those which are important to poor countries, such as those supporting food production. This issue was also raised in the discussion afterwards, bringing up the fact that most of the initiatives for conservation of biodiversity come from the developed world, while most of the remaining biodiversity is in developing countries. Dr Ruth Swetnam put it plainly, saying that since the UK has already cut down most of its trees, we are not in a good position to tell the inhabitants of developing countries to keep their trees when they have families to feed. Perhaps biodiversity conservation will take a different angle if more people from developing countries become involved.

The only pre-election science debate to be held in parliament took place on 9 March organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry with the support of the Society of Biology, among other learned societies, and facilitated by the Science and Technology Committee. This was a great example of the value of unified action to highlight the specific value and needs of science research and education. The BES Science Policy Team attended the evening event.

Lord Drayson (Labour), Dr Adam Afriyie MP (Conservative) and Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat) outlined their policies for science if successful in the forthcoming elections. In a long and lively question time all three candidates answered questions on funding and regulation of science; the balance between basic and applied research; the research excellence framework (REF); the balance between ‘glamorous’ and ‘Cinderella’ topics; the role of government in directing research calls; international exemplars of good funding practice, and whether the role of MPs is to respond to or actively lead public opinion of emerging science issues. There was agreement on a small number of topics including the importance of preserving the Haldane Principle and the need for a Chief Scientific Adviser to the Treasury, the only major government department currently lacking a CSA.

The RSC is hosting a video webcast at http://www.rsc.org/SAGE2010 and there was an active Twitter debate using the hashtag #scidebate.

Habitat banking describes the trade in habitat or biodiversity ‘credits’, i.e. areas of land where environmental restoration has taken place that can be bought to compensate for unavoidable habitat destruction through development. This concept has been in practice in the form of wetland mitigation banks in America since the 1980s, and its use is spreading as a means for governments to reduce the biodiversity loss associated with economic growth and development.

A report launched today by the organisation Ecosystem Marketplace provides a summary of the existing schemes around the world, listing 39 such projects in operation and another 25 planned in various countries. It calculates a market of between $1.8 billion and $2.9 billion per year alone from the 20% of projects that provide figures, resulting in the additional conservation management or protection of 86,000 hectares of land per year. There is increasing interest within the EU and the UK of adopting a more formalised habitat banking system, and both the EC and Defra have recently published scoping reports (available here and here) on the subject.

Download “The State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide” report.

An event was organised this morning to launch the new Royal Society report ‘The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity’. The report brought together experts from politics, industry and science to assess the role of funding for scientific research in the context of the current and future economic situation.

Sir Martin Taylor FRS, chair of the report’s Advisory Group, outlined the issues relating to scientific funding at the launch. He emphasised that, in addition to being a world-leader in scientific research, the UK is also highly successful at exploiting research, through clusters of high-tech companies surrounding universities. However, the UK’s current advantage is being threatened by major investment in science by the US, China, India, France and Germany, in response to the economic downturn. Sir Martin Taylor used the analogy of a football league to describe the potential consequences for the UK of lack of investment in scientific research: relegation from the premier league would make it very difficult to return to former standing. He mentioned that the President of the National Academy of Sciences has warned that the best scientists will move to the US if UK investment in science is not maintained.

The purpose of the report is to ensure that the UK remains at the pinnacle of science, and uses this to support economic growth. The panel at the launch were asked in turn to highlight the most important aspects of the report, in their view. Dame Wendy Hall from the University of Southampton emphasised the importance of a revolution in information technology throughout the education system, business and research, to facilitate international and interdisciplinary research. Sir Martin Evans from Cardiff University highlighted the investment in people, especially fellowships to support early-career researchers. David Roblin from Pfizer recognised the importance of knowledge exchange between academics and industrial science, and the focus on global challenges. Lord David Sainsbury highlighted a key incentive for politicians to implement the recommendations of the report: increasing investment in science will promote growth which will create much-needed jobs. Lord William Waldegrave warned that the UK would lose foreign investment in scientific research if seen to be dropping behind, and he also backed the recommendation for a Chief Scientific Adviser in HM Treasury, which received strong support from the audience.

Robert Chote, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out that the case for support for science does not ‘tug at the heartstrings’, so extra efforts need to be made to convince politicians that investment in science is valuable and has significant economic benefits. The report comes at a key time for political consideration, in the run up to the election. This evening, science spokespeople from the main political parties will meet at the House of Commons for a debate entitled ‘Science and the General Election 2010′. The launch of the Royal Society report today coincides with the publication of a document by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CASE) ‘Building our Future with Science and Engineering’, which urges politicians to develop coordinated long-term policies for science and engineering. A letter from CASE was published in the Times yesterday demanding that the party leaders articulate their policies on science and engineering.