The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee has this morning published the report of its inquiry into ‘Putting Science at the Heart of Government’. The report concludes that the Government has reduced science to a political bargaining chip, with responsibility for the Government Office for Science shuffled between three Departments in two years, and that a broad vision is mising for science policy.

The Committee directly appeals to the Prime Minister to bring the Government Office for Science (GO-Science) into the Cabinet Office so that science can play a stronger role in informing decision making. The Committee also urge Government to establish a press office in GO-Science, which would also serve all Science Advisory Committee.

The report also says:

• If the Government is to return to ‘picking winners’ it must have clear priorities and come clean about which areas of research will get less money

• The 2009 Budget Research Council savings are in reality an attempt to influence research funding streams and the Government should not label them as something they are not

• The Haldane Principle should be replaced with a principle which accommodates a much wider range of factors, for example regional science policy

• After the general election, a new free-standing Science, Engineering and Technology Committee should be created with a cross-departmental remit

Phil Willis MP, the Chairman of the Committee, said:

“My Committee does not underestimate how important the Government believes the role of science and engineering advice to be. We were impressed by evidence demonstrating that significant progress is being made, such as the increasing use of Chief Scientific Advisers.

“We ask that a tangible and ambitious strategy for UK science and engineering policy is developed. The Government has committed to placing science and engineering advice at the heart of policy formulation and now it is time to do so: scrutiny of policy must be strengthened and a clearer vision for the future must be developed.”

On 5th June the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) merged to form the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. As certain select committees are directly linked to government departments it is expected that the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee and the Business and Enterprise Committee will cease to exist and a Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee be created.

The IUSS committee has outlined its concerns in relation to the potential loss of science scrutiny due to this probable merger of committees in special report “The future of science scrutiny following the merger of DIUS and BERR.”

When the IUSS Committee was established in 2007 it succeeded the Science and Technology Committee and was originally named the Innovation, Universities and Skills (IUS) Committee. This change in committee was thoroughly opposed by both members of the Science and Technology Committee and the scientific community who felt it may downgrade or reduce the scrutiny of cross-cutting science issues within Parliament. To allay fears the IUS committee was established with 14 rather than the normal 11 members and the word science was added to the committee name in 2008.

The current IUSS committee feel however, that their fears were founded and deem that cross-departmental science scrutiny has lost out. They believe that the probable merger with the BIS committee will make this scrutiny harder again due to the increased departmental remit. The committee additionally report Lord Mandelson’s recent comment that “The future competitiveness of this country depends on the excellence of its science” yet the committee note that there is only a part-time Minister for Science and Innovation within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which may result in basic science being neglected.

In the report the IUSS committee conclude “We call on the Leader of the House to propose the creation of a Science and Technology Committee alongside the new Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We urge the Leader of the House to bring forward the necessary Standing Order changes and let the House decide the matter.”

The policy team yesterday attended a very interesting talk delivered by Professor Adrian Smith, Director General of Science & Research at the Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS).

He started off on an optimistic note, arguing that the UK research base has been living through a golden age since 2000- government research expenditure, which had been hovering at just under ₤3 billion a year for over 15 years before that date, had grown to well over ₤5 billion a year by 2008. He argued that the results were clear, with the UK still punching well above its weight in world-class research, receiving 12% of world citations despite having only 1% of the world’s population, and remaining the “most productive & efficient’ research nation in the G8.

However, this decade of growth is now at an end, and he highlighted the major implications for the research base. Renewed stress will be placed on demonstrating the value of research to the economy, and the new funding expectations amongst researchers which have developed in the boom times will now have to be replaced by more constrained ambitions. He did note that the ring-fence around science funding had been maintained in the last budget, and explained that lessons had been learnt from the decline of the nuclear research base in the country: research funding cannot simply be switched on and off, as researchers will depart for abroad during any funding break.

His conclusion was that some tensions certainly did exist between funding short-term ‘economy-building’ research and longer-term blue-sky research, and that some prioritisation around areas where the economy can be strengthened was inevitable. He was optimistic however that the argument for longer-term science funding could be successfully made, and felt that policy makers were well aware of the damaging long-term effects and potential brain drain which could result from cutting funding. He concluded that making the argument for the value of scientific research was therefore as important as ever it has been, and told the audience he expected them to be out there making that case.

Government department spending cuts announced in the Budget last month are set to hit the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) particularly hard, with annual savings of £400 million by 2011 being called for. Although DIUS will aim to make the savings through efficiency drives and “strategic reprioritisation”, there are concerns that widespread cuts could destabilise the higher education sector.

For further information, please see: Research Fortnight 323 6 May 2009 p.1, 6, 2, 16, 17.

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has this afternoon announced the full results of his Cabinet reshuffle. Ed Milliband is to become Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in a new department, full details of which are yet to be announced. Hilary Benn will stay at Defra as Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra will no longer be responsible for climate change, and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) will give up responsibilities for energy to the new department.

John Denham will remain as the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, at DIUS, the department responsible for the Government’s science portfolio. Lord Drayson becomes Minister for Science at DIUS, replacing Ian Pearson MP.

A full list of members of the new Cabinet can be found here.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has delivered its report on the current state of systematics and taxonomy in the UK. The Committee argues that systematics and taxonomy research in the UK is in critical decline and that further decline would severely impact on the UK’s ability to deliver its conservation aims.

The Committee has criticised the NERC for a lack of clarity over its process for funding taxonomic research; calling for greater funds to be made available to support this area, and also for the Research Councils to better coordinate dialogue between the producers and users of taxonomic research.

Speaking last week (13 August) on the launch of the report, the Committee’s Chair, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood said: “”Systematic biology is crucial for many of the Government’s targets on maintaining biodiversity and the protection of endangered species as well as providing an important measure of the effects of climate change. However there seems to be significant confusion within Government over who has responsibility for this vital area.”

The Committee has called on the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) to take the lead in supporting systematics and taxonomic research.

The BES responded to the Committee’s inquiry, together with the Institute of Biology and Biosciences Federation. Read our response here.

Read full report: Systematics and Taxonomy: Follow-up