Science is an important tool to build bridges between nations and a great asset for the UK in cultural diplomacy. So said Lloyd Anderson, Director of Science at the British Council, when he joined the Policy Lunchbox network earlier this week to discuss how his organisation uses science to promote the UK overseas.

The UK is second only to the US in terms of the number of Nobel Prize winners this country has produced and is first in the G7 group of nations in terms of research quality – beating the US on the impact ratings of research output. The UK produces 8% of the world’s science outputs, compared to the US’ 30% – so punches significantly above its weight. However the UK cannot afford to be complacent. The so-called ‘BRIC’ nations – Brazil, Russia, India and China, along with Mexico, are rapidly catching up to both the UK and US in terms of research output. In order to increase their impact, researchers from the UK need to collaborate with scientists from these and other nations: for every international author added to a research paper, 3% is added to the impact of that piece of work.

The British Council was established by Royal Charter in 1934, to encourage scientific, technological and cultural co-operation between the UK and other countries. The original rationale behind the establishment of the Council was to counter Nazi propoganda – promoting the UK in countries where it was felt that fascism could gain a foothold. Now, the British Council sees itself as a ‘cultural relationships organisation’ and is supported by a £188m grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office each year and has a turnover of £753m.

The science activities of the Council are funded by the FCO grant. Explaining the rationale for its engagement in Science, Lloyd outlined the mission statement of the Council: “Science provides a common platform for collaboration and discussion that brings people together across deep cultural divides. [It provides] a universal language [which encourages] mutual understanding and trust and helps people in the UK and other countries to work together to address global challenges.” In other words, science is an international endeavour, critical to prosperity and is therefore an extremely useful tool in diplomacy.

In communicating about science, the British Council is trying to reach three main tiers of audience, characterised by Lloyd as ‘T1, T2 and T3′: leaders (policy-makers/ ministers); influencers (scientists, innovators, science communicators and science educators), and ‘aspirants’ (early-career researchers, students and wider publics). The Council run Global Policy Dialogues – knowledge exchange partnerships and science and innovation themed events.

Given the high number of students who come from abroad to study as graduates in the UK, outward mobility in the UK is extremely poor and is getting worse. The British Council maintain a web page listing all of the funding sources which students and researchers in the UK can access if they wish to move abroad to work or study, but take up remains low. Those around the room suggested that this situation could change given the high cost of studying as an undergraduate, and potentially in time as a postgraduate, in this country. Lloyd speculated however that international experience may be less prized on academic CVs today, with stability and publication output acting as more of a driver to academic careers – stimulated perhaps by the Research Assessment Exercise’s emphasis on publication record.

Nevertheless, exciting opportunities do exist for those researchers wishing to engage in international collaboration. BIRAX – the British Israel Exchange Programme focusing on regenerative medicine and the Opening Doors programme, getting young post-doctoral researchers from different countries to come together to discuss a particular scientific issue, such as stem cells, or climate change are two such examples. Meanwhile, the European Commission runs the EURAXESS website as a resource for young researchers, providing personal assistance and support in navigating daily life in a new country.

Finally, Lloyd provided an overview of the British Council’s work to engage the public with science, including ‘Cafe Scientifique’ events and Fame Lab International (the ‘X factor’ for scientists!), run in collaboration with the Cheltenham Science Festival.

The British Council has four science advisers in its UK office and a network of scientific specialists worldwide. The outcome of all of this work is to increase recognition of the UK as a source of expertise and a partner for skills development. Science is one of the UK’s most attractive assets and Lloyd made it clear that there is plenty of scope for Learned Societies and NGOs to work with the British Council to foster an understanding of the importance of science worldwide.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for those working in science policy, maintained by the British Ecological Society and the Biochemical Society. For information about our forthcoming events, see the Policy Lunchbox website.

Today’s policy lunchbox organised by the Biochemical Society focussed on opportunities for influencing science policy in the devolved nations post election. A brief presentation led by Hilary Leevers from Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) preceded a discussion about the next steps for science policy work in the devolved nations.
16% of the UK’s population live in the devolved nations. Responsibility for primary, secondary and higher education has been devolved as well as some aspects of health policy and rural affairs policy.

CaSE have campaigned on science and engineering issues, by engaging MP’s, providing information to support policy making, and raising awareness of science as issue which interests voters. In the run up to the election in the devolved nations CaSE campaigned for the political parties in the devolved nations to include measures to promote science and engineering in their manifestoes.
These measures included:
- Appointing/ keeping a chief scientific advisor or science minister
- Increasing the number of Welsh speaking science graduates entering the teaching profession. 25% of schools in Wales teach at least 50% of their lessons in Welsh.
- Improving the science content of devolved nations’ school curricula. In Northern Ireland there is no requirement to teach maths and science post 14.
- Increasing the stability of funding in higher education institutions. Whilst funding for higher education Scotland appears to be fairly stable funding for higher education is increasingly unstable in Wales and Northern Ireland.
- Examining differences in funding for research in science and engineering between England and the devolved nations. Whilst the devolved nations have tended to spend more than England on research through the higher education teaching grant and the quality related research grant both Wales and Northern Ireland lack the critical mass to attract significant amounts of research council funding.

Pre-election CaSE sent out letters to the political parties of the devolved nations to ask them about their science and engineering policies, and analysed their manifestoes. The response to the letters was very good, with only 2 of 14 parties not replying. The Scottish National Party confirmed that the role of Chief Scientific Advisor will be retained after the election, and Welsh labour also pledged to keep their chief scientific advisor, and publish a science strategy for Wales later this year. Scotland is a leader on scientific issues, and many politicians see this as a source of national pride. Allowing the devolved nations to lead could be very productive for science policy.

The discussion that followed focussed on identifying areas of science policy in which success is likely to be achieved, and the lessons that can be learned from the devolved nations.

The devolved nations could act as a source of information for Westminster policy formation. For example the abolition of SATs at KS2 in Wales provides an excellent example of how case studies from the devolved nations could be useful in informing policy in England. A study by the Wellcome Trust showed that when SATs were abolished science subjects were still highly regarded by pupils and teachers several years later, suggesting that abolition of SATs in England is not likely to have a negative effect on science.

Finally the knowledge base built up by CaSE might prove useful if Scotland decide to separate from the union, and will allow us to hypothesise what might happen if this decision is made. It is possible research institutions in Scotland, which are highly reliant on Research Council funding, might loose a large proportion of their finances if the nation decides to leave the union.

A new study by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) aims to shed light on how academic bodies across Europe communicate with policy-makers, and how this can be improved. Drs John Holmes and John Murlis attended a meeting of Policy Lunchbox yesterday afternoon to discuss the study, and in doing so provided a few tips to the Learned Societies and charitable bodies represented.

EASAC is an independent and impartial association of national science academies from across Europe, concerned with building science into EU policy-making. The Royal Society is the UK’s national academy of science, and representative on EASAC. The aims of EASAC are delivered through three programmes: energy, led by John Holmes, environment, led by John Murlis, and biosciences. Within these topics, EASAC convenes expert working groups of members and facilitates workshops, with the subjects for reports and inquiries developed via an understanding of the needs of the European policy community.

For the past year, John Holmes and John Murlis have been working on a project, sponsored by the Inter-Academy Panel (IAP), focusing on ‘Good Practice in between Academies and Policy Communities’, aiming to produce and disseminate guidance based on the science – policy activities of EASAC members. The guidance document was finished earlier this week, so the presentation to Policy Lunchbox members was the first to share the final results of the study.

Twenty-seven academies took part in a survey to determine by what means and how frequently they communicated with policy-makers. Five organisations were revealed to be very active in policy engagement, with two thirds of academies engaging only occassionally. Eleven organisations convey a consensus view to policy-makers, whilst eight present a consensus view on occassion, and a range of views on others. Increasingly, said John Murlis, there is interest amongst Academies in providing policy-makers with a more nuanced view from science, recognising complexity and uncertainty.

Whilst many organisations produced reports for policy-makers as an output of projects, others adopted more innovative means of communication, producing policy briefs for Government, organising seminars and policy fora – bringing scientists and policy-makers together under the ‘Chatham House Rule’, providing a protected and confidential space for discussion.

One of the interesting points to emerge from yesterday’s lunchtime discussion concerned the need for Academies to negotatiate the ‘handover point’; the point at which their advice is provided to policy-makers. John Holmes represented this as a continuum, from providing an overview of the science, to interpreting the implications of the science for policy, to suggesting policy options for Government and identifying those options most likely to succeed, based on scientific analysis. It is often said that scientists should ‘do science’, leaving policy-makers to make policy. In response to a question regarding the appropriateness of scientists suggesting policy options, John Holmes commented that if scientific bodies don’t do this, there is a danger that they will ‘miss out’ and others will step into this space. He suggested that professional bodies could suggest policy options, if it was made clear that these were based on scientific evidence and not the broader range of considerations policy-makers must take into account when making decisions.

EASAC has submitted an application to the IAP for funding to help EASAC members to implement the guidance, and also to facilitate work with the African Academies of science on a similar piece of work. The guidance document will shortly be available from the EASAC website, and will be updated regularly as new lessons emerge from EASAC members.

Education Policy Lunchbox this afternoon hosted Pam Tatlow, Chief Exectutive of ‘Million+‘, a university think tank. During a wide-ranging discussion, Pam outlined the recent activities of Million+ and touched upon the challenges which lie ahead for higher education into the future. Million+ is concerned particularly with the ‘post-1992′ group of universities, often called ‘new’ or ‘modern’ universities (former polytechnics which were granted university status at this time).

The most interesting aspect of discussion concerned undergraduate tuition fees. Figures outlined by Pam, from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (established by the Government), show that under Government plans to raise tuition fees from the 2012/13 academic year, Government will need to borrow £13 billion more by 2015/16 than it does at present in order to fund universities and students. At present, 15% of students will have their loans written off after 25 years (under the post-2006 student loans system) – the maximum amount of time available to pay the loans, after which they are cancelled by the state. This is projected to cost taxpayers 27p in the pound in the future. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has estimated the average charge for university courses as £7,500 from 2012/13. Taking this figure, Million+ estimates that 35% of graduates will not repay their loans after 30 years (under the new system students have longer to pay this back). This will cost the taxpayer 31p in the pound. If modelling is based on fees being charged at the maximum rate of £9,000 per annum, Million+ estimate that 55% of students will not repay their loans after 30 years, costing taxpayers 41p in every pound into the future.

Million+ produced a document in late 2010, modelling whether a graduate tax would work as a means to fund higher education, and considering whether such a tax would be more or less ‘progressive’ than the Government’s plans to raise the cap on tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000. The think tank found that a graduate tax of 2% on graduate earnings over £15,000, for a period of 20-25 years would be sufficient to fund universities at a sustainable level. Pam Tatlow was of the view that this tax was more progressive, as the more students earned, the more they would pay, reflecting the true market-value of their qualification, not what a university deems it is worth and can charge to cover their own costs.

The Government is due to release a Higher Education White Paper in late February or early-March, which will make clearer the motivation behind the increase in fees – given that analysis suggests that this model will in fact cost the Treasury more than alternative proposals. Pam suggested that market-creation, opening up higher education to private providers, could be a major impetus, as was increasing students’ control of their own education, as consumers, and that further information could be provided within the Paper. The British Ecological Society will be responding to this when released.

Education Policy Lunchbox is a series of monthly seminars organised by the British Ecological Society, the Biochemical Society and the Society for Experimental Biology. The network was created as a spin-off from Policy Lunchbox, a BES – Biochemical Society partnership which focuses on issues in science policy.

Today’s meeting of the BES Education Policy Lunchbox focused on issues arising from expected changes to the current university fees regime. Bahram Bekhradnia, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) provided an overview of the likely consequences of proposals to cut university funding, in anticipation of the release of the Browne Report. The Higher Education Policy Institute is the UK’s only independent think tank devoted exclusively to higher education. HEPI provides robust and objective policy analysis and advice across a whole range of higher education issues. Its mission is to improve higher education in the UK by creating a better informed policy environment – informed by research and analysis, as well as drawing on experiences from other countries.

The speaker suggested that HEFCE funding for research and laboratory work would remain a high priority for government expenditure, with the bulk of cuts aimed at the teaching sector. He also speculated that other proposals could include the introduction of an interest rate on payments for government-funded student loans. Questions were then raised in reference to earlier claims that the current cap on tuition fees charged by universities could be lifted completely. It was considered that in this case, many UK universities would face inevitable declines in home and overseas student recruitment rates, as the quality of teaching and the overall student experience would be compromised.

Finally it was noted that the scale of the expected cuts is likely to have an ‘unprecedented’ effect on higher education participation, in comparison to the highly publicised increases in tuition fees more recently. Whilst recent reviews by HEPI show that higher education participation, particularly by students of the most disadvantaged social classes and have been improving rapidly, these proposals are likely to jeopardize this trend. Full details of the proposals to the government on higher education funding will be available when the Browne Report is released this Tuesday (11th October).

Martin Glasspool, Central Team Leader at the UK Government’s Foresight Programme, joined Policy Lunchbox yesterday (6 October) to discuss horizon-scanning and the work of Foresight. During a fascinating presentation Martin introduced us to various futures techniques, such as scenario building and ‘wind tunnelling’, and how Foresight has made use of these to contribute to better policy-making at home and internationally.

The Foresight programme “aims to bridge the gap in policy-making between the short and the long term”, in the words of Prof. Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor and head of the Government Office for Science, in which Foresight sits.

To tackle 21st century challenges effectively policy-makers must try to understand what the future might look like. Martin introduced the ‘evidence-based policy paradox’ to explain how difficult this in fact is. Policy is about solutions for the future but conventional ‘evidence’ is about the past. This paradox can be resolved: when uncertainty is low, use projections and modelling, and when uncertainty is high, use futures techniques. Martin acknowledged that there are dangers in using both of these approaches: the evidence on which your projections are based could have been collected too late, or badly, leading to poorly constructed models. The past can never be a perfect guide to the future. Foresight helps policy-makers to think systematically about the future, and to challenge their presumptions about what the future might be like.

By embedding their policy proposals in projections of the future, policy-makers can test their likely efficacy, leading to better policy-making and cost-savings.

Martin highlighted a number of Foresight’s projects, of which it usually runs three to four at any one time, to Policy Lunchbox. The projects run for two years, looking up to 50 – 100 years into the future, and have tackled ‘grand challenges’ such as climate change and food security. The findings of a project on ‘Global Food and Farming Futures’ will be launched in Spring 2011, with another on the ‘International Dimensions of Climate Change’ due out this autumn. These reports will be followed by a year’s intensive work with policy-makers, to help them to embed the reports’ suggestions in policy, and their impact will then be assessed two years hence.

The Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre forms another strand of Foresight’s work, running shorter, more reactive, projects, looking 10-15 years into the future. Horizon scanning, said Martin, was about ‘thinking differently in a structured way, by looking at less usual information’. The Horizon Scanning Centre picks up ‘weak signals’ about emerging issues by examining blogs, articles and grey literature, for example. Current ongoing projects include ‘Technology and Innovation Futures’, to be published this year.

In discussing the impact of Foresight’s work, Martin made clear how fundamental this is to Foresight’s operation. It was clear that Foresight had informed Government policy-making, including influencing a shift towards cross-Departmental buy-in to tackling obesity, and a doubling in the annual budget for flood defences, to name two examples.

Martin was positive about policy-makers’ use of futures techniques. Whilst this way of thinking is by no means universal across Government, many Departments have their own futures teams and policy-makers’ understanding about the importance of looking into the future, to inform better policy-making, is growing. Foresight is funded through the Science Budget and its future is no more certain than that of other elements of Government, with the Comprehensive Spending Review taking place in just two weeks. It’s clear however that Foresight is doing important work and it can only be hoped that this has been recognised.

Foresight provide a number of tools for those interested in using futures techniques in their own work. Have a look at the Foresight website for details of the Sigma Scan and the Horizon Scanning Centre toolkit.

Foresight is also interested in hearing from Learned Societies and others regarding suggestions for experts to be involved in their reports. Contact the team through the website for information.

The Policy Lunchbox network was today joined by Sirini Withana, Policy Analyst at the Institute of European Environmental Policy. Sirini led a fascinating discussion to explain the structures and processes of policy-making in the European Union. The EU has grown from a loose organisation of six Member States in the 1950’s, established to deal with economic issues, to a coalition of 27 Member States which now generates over 80% of the UK’s environmental policies.

Sirini began by outlining the three main structures of the European Union: the European Commission; the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

The European Commission
The European Commission is essentially the ‘civil service’ of the EU, politically independent and in charge of initiating European community policy. The Commission comprises the ‘College of Commissioners’ and ‘Commission’s Services’. Within the College each Member State is represented by one Commissioner, appointed for a five-year term. The UK Commissioner is Lady Catherine Ashton, also HIgh Representative of Foreign Affairs. The Commission’s Services is the permanent apolitical administration for the the Commission, charged with preparing policy proposals. The Commission’s Services is organised into Directorates, such as DG Environment and DG Research. Within DG Research, the Joint Research Centre provides scientific and technical advice to the Directorates.

The European Parliament
The European Parliament meanwhile is composed of 736 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), directly elected by the electorate in Member States. Of these, 72 MEPs are from the UK. Each MEP has a five-year term of office. MEPs organise themselves into political groups within the Parliament, of which there are currently seven, with the European People’s Party (EPP), a centre-right group, currently the largest and most powerful.

The European Parliament shares the power to make laws and control over the EU budget with the Council of the European Union.

Legislation proceeds through the work of specialist Parliamentary Committees, of which there are 20. Once a proposal has been put forward by the Commission, a lead Committee is identified to take this forward, with an MEP from this Committee appointed to act as a ‘rapporteur’, leading the work on this area of legislation by the Committee. Once the Committee has considered the proposal and collated information a report will be presented and voted on at a plenary session of all MEPs.

The Council of the European Union
As already mentioned above, the Council of the European Union passes legislation and has control of the EU budget, jointly with the European Parliament. The Council meets in nine different ‘formations’, one of which is the ‘European Council’, which represents Member States’ interests and comprises the Heads of State of each EU member country. The current (first) President of the European Council is Herman Van Rompuy. The Presidency (Chair) of the other eight ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union rotates between Member States, once every six months.

Decision-Making: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Decision-making usually occurs via a process of ‘Ordinary Legislative Procedure’. The European Commission tables a proposal which is then allocated to one of the nine ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union. The Parliament and Council then take it in turns to consider the proposal and issue a formal opinion upon it. If both bodies disagree at this stage, a ’second reading’ of the proposal takes place. If there is still no agreement after this stage a ‘Concilliation Committee’ is formed. If after the process of Concilliation the two parties still do not agree the proposal is dropped.

The UK feeds into this process through the UK Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep), which receives its negotiating mandate from the UK Government.

Following this very useful overview, Sirini offered a few tips for how best to influence policy-making in the EU:

- Keep track of upcoming developments: review the annual strategy and work programme for the EU, one launched in March and the other in the autumn each year;
- Influence the development of proposals: identify the desk officer working on a particular proposal and engage with them; respond to open consultations;
- Exercise influence during the legislative process: engage with the rapporteur (MEP) leading the development of legislation for a particular Parliamentary Committee and engage too with other MEPs on that Committee. Many will not be specialists in the area they are reviewing and will welcome input;
- Influence the UK Government, thereby influencing the negotiating position put forward by UKRep.

Overall, Sirini encouraged us to ’stay ahead of the game’, influencing policy at the earliest opportunity. Identifying and building relationships with key people in Brussels, including through receptions and events, is important, as is providing clear, concise and evidence-based input. Being clear about the steps in the EU decision-making process will help organisations to target their input in the most effective way.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for policy professionals maintained by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society. For details of forthcoming events please see the Policy Lunchbox webpage on the Biochemical Society website.

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.