Equality and diversity in science was the focus of last week’s Policy Lunchbox, run monthly at Charles Darwin House by the BES and the Biochemical Society.

Sarah Hawkes, Head of Scientific Engagement at the Royal Society, gave a presentation on her work under the Society’s new 4 year programme focusing on removing the barriers to increasing diversity in the scientific workforce.

The science sector in the UK, and the Royal Society itself, have been the subject of criticism for the notable lack of women amongst their ranks, particularly in more senior positions. In the UK, men are six times more likely than women to work in science, technology, engineering or maths (STEM) subjects, and of the 46 Fellows appointed at the Royal Society in 2012, only two were women.

The RS’s new programme, funded by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, aims to address this gender imbalance – as well as tackling other issues of diversity incorporating ethnicity, disability and socio-economic status – across both academia and industry. The idea is to learn from and build upon the number of equality initiatives which already exist to work towards three objectives:
1. Defining and understanding the scientific workforce;
2. Identifying barriers to entry and progression within the scientific work force, which a view to removing them, and;
3. In the long-term, increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce
The programme will involve data gathering and a large scale policy study, significant work to engage with the scientific community, organising diversity events and activities, and engaging with the ATHENA swan initiative and actors within education.

The scheme has strong backing from Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, who made a statement recently saying that ‘we must have an environment in which all scientists, including those from previously underrepresented groups, have an equal chance to excel’.

Much of the work so far has been to establish the programme and begin to embed it within the Royal Society’s work. An initial scoping study has been carried out to identify existing data on the diversity of the scientific workforce and knowledge gaps that need to be filled. As part of this work, the programme is exploring the possibility of joining up existing datasets to generate long-term trends which may indicate whether the suggestion of some commentators – that it is ‘just a matter of time’ before equality will come about in science anyway – is true.

A consultation and engagement conference held at the end of March also provided vital feedback from the scientific community identifying the barriers and issues people working in the field experience. Areas including careers guidance, career trajectories, improving awareness of STEM careers, the importance of role models and widening Athena SWAN were suggested and will be adopted to shape the RS programme’s work. Further consultation and a large scale policy study this summer will also investigate whether the diversity issues in science are replicated in other sectors and help identify evidence to make a ‘business case’ for improving diversity, such as an MIT study in America which suggested greater team diversity led to better innovation.
Consideration will also be given to different measures of ‘excellence’ within science, as women in particular find it challenging to maintain a reputation through publications due to factors including taking time off for maternity leave and loss of association with their publication record if they change their name when they get married.

The programme will focus initially on the academic sector, but, building on Ms Hawke’s previous experience working on the Athena SWAN Charter, it is hope the RS programme will collaborate with the Charter to broaden its scope beyond universities to pilot work within research institutes and, perhaps in the future, industry.

Of course, in addition to reaching out to pursue diversity externally, the Royal Society must address the significant gender imbalance within its own Fellowship which in the last 10 years, has elected only 43 women as Fellows out of a total of 438. Although low, this is an improvement compared to recent decades, and now with the significant support of the President Paul Nurse, Ms Hawkes feels progress will move faster. A major barrier to overcome is the fact that Fellows are elected based on nominations by existing Fellows, which means the demographic is likely to perpetuate without interventions.

Ms Hawkes suggested that Learned Societies can help the RS programme, and more broadly make progress with addressing diversity issues, by participating in satellite expert groups which the programme is hoping to establish and informing Ms Hawkes of their own diversity initiatives, or providing examples of role models and case studies. There may also be the opportunity to work collaboratively, to run joint mentoring schemes for example, and the RS may provide some funding for this.

See the BES website for information on the BES’s own Mentoring Scheme for Women in Ecology. More details of the Royal Society’s work on equality and diversity are available on their website.

UK businesses as a whole invest less in research and development than their major international competitors and there is more that the Government can do to address this disparity. That was the message from Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), addressing this afternoon’s meeting of the Policy Lunchbox network. Beck provided a fascinating overview of an area of policy that members of the BES may know little about but, Beck made clear, should familiarise ourselves with given the vital importance of support from business to the health of the science base in the UK.

The previous Labour Government stated its aim to increase the overall investment in research and development (R&D) from all sources to 2.5% of GDP by 2014 but the current Government doesn’t intend to adopt national targets for proportion of GDP spent on R&D. At present we stand only at 1.8% of GDP being invested, indicating the distance that there still is to travel to catch up with other G7 countries. Given that the UK Government is committed to tackling the budget deficit and therefore tightening spending over the coming years, the importance of leveraging other sources for investment in R&D is clear. At the moment however, the UK is third from bottom amongst the ‘G7′ group of nations in terms of business spend on R&D. In 2009, the 1000 UK companies that invested the most in R&D spent a total of £25.3bn, down 0.6% year on year. So what can the Government do to address this potential downward trend?

First, Beck stressed, we need to understand why business and industry isn’t investing as much in R&D in the UK as it could do. Beck outlined research which suggests that one way this can be explained is as a combination of three factors which collectively can be called ‘market failure’:

1. ‘Spillover rationale’: the suggestion that innovators find it difficult to appropriate all returns from their innovations. For example, the inventor of the first personal computer will have seen others move into develop this technology and will now occupy a crowded space. The Government can address this by means to allow the companies to keep the benefits of their investments more immediately, for example through tax breaks such as the R&D tax credit.

2. Coordination failure: broadly speaking, difficulties encountered by groups of individuals or firms in acting collectively. There may be a failure of businesses to network sufficiently with organisations conducting research (or vice versa) that may be of benefit to them – for example, by the facilitation of partnerships between industry and universities.

3. Information failure: Differences in the information available to both parties prevent transactions from taking place. This argument, for example, suggests that businesses seeking financial support or partners for R&D projects simply don’t know where to find the information.

Beck suggested that there a number of mechanisms that Government could use to address these market failures, thereby encouraging greater support from business and industry for science in the UK, through focusing on the following areas:

1. Skills: Universities report that many students entering courses from A’ Levels require remedial lessons in, for example, mathematics and experimental design, in order to perform. In addition, industries have complained that they need to give new graduates from universities additional training before they are competent in their jobs. There have also been reports from industry surveys that there is a shortage of graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) to fill posts. Alongside addressing school and university tuition there therefore appears a need to raise the profile of careers in science amongst young people.

Recent amendments to immigration requirements in the UK may also have sent a negative message to qualified STEM graduates from overseas, those considering further study and research in the UK, regarding the UK’s reputation as a good place to pursue a scientific career. Although the Government has taken steps to address these issues for STEM graduates, these negative perceptions may take some time to dispel.

2. Financial environment: tax-breaks such as the ‘patent box’ (a corporation tax cut of 10% on all profits attributed to patents) could create a favourable environment for companies to invest in R & D. Beck also highlighted the positive role that ‘challenge prizes’, such as the $10 billion Ansari X Prize, can play in incentivising investment and scientific progress. Since the launch of the X Prize, to reward the development of the first viable craft for unmanned space flight, it is estimated that there has been an additional $100 billion of investment in this area of study.

3. Knowledge flow: the Government could amend the Research Excellence Framework to make it easier for universities to employ those who have worked in industry, for example. When budgets are cut within industry, Beck suggested, the one of the first areas of investment to be cut is the travel budget. Employees therefore decrease their network at a time when they should be expanding this resource. Facilitating the flow of information between researchers in academia and in industry can help to address this.

4. A long-term, cross-party strategy for science in the UK will also be very welcome.

Beck highlighted recent developments from Government which have gone some way to address the points raised. For example, a £250,000 prize centre has been announced (orders of magnitude less than the X Prize but nonetheless a step in the right direction), whilst the Government is pressing ahead with plans for research hubs to link business and academia (so called ‘Catapult Centres’, previously known as ‘Technology Innovation Centres’) to aid commercialisation. However, a convincing argument for the state to do more has recently come in the form of a pamphlet by Mariana Mazzucato: The Entrepreneurial State.

Speaking about the publication on this morning’s Today Programme and in the pamphlet, Ms Mazzucato argues for public policy to be bold and courageous, stepping in to fund areas that the private sector has no interest in, plus put in place mechanisms to reap greater returns for itself for doing so. As an example, the United States supported the development of the internet by pouring large amounts of money into the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which undertook a significant amount of the research which underpinned the formation of what is now known as Silicon Valley. The private sector, Mariana suggests, has a reputation of coming into areas of research 15 – 20 years after a large amount of state investment. The private sector cannot therefore be seen as the answer to addressing deficits in state funding for science and innovation (although there is clear complementarily); the Government must find innovative ways of funding large-scale investment in the science base in this country if we want to see the emergence of another ‘Google’ in the UK, for example.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for Policy Officers and others working in learned societies and the third sector. It is run jointly by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. See our webpage for details of forthcoming events.

The BES, together with the Biochemical Society, hosted another successful Policy Lunchbox at Charles Darwin House yesterday. The guest speaker was David Bott, Director of Innovation Programmes at the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) who delivered an engaging talk on the process of turning innovative ideas into real products and services. David identified a number of barriers to this progression and outlined how the TSB is working to address them.

One of the biggest issues is the significant risk involved in pursuing innovative ideas as well as a lack of long-term support for innovative projects due to a demand for immediate returns on investments. There is also a lack of long-term political planning. The UK Government does not harness its considerable market influence, which has the potential to drive innovation in its suppliers through forward-thinking procurement and regulation, alongside tax breaks to encourage investment in certain technologies. Since its creation, the TSB has developed a ‘toolbox’ of solutions to these barriers including providing coherent, long-term support to those involved in innovation and encouraging knowledge exchange, for example by hosting ‘Missions’ to introduce innovators to potential competitors, funders and collaborators, and creating _connect, an online social network.

The environment presents an important area in which innovation is key and David stated that the TSB has identified energy and food production as major markets for the coming years due to the considerable logistical challenges they pose. The need to double food production by 2050 will require significant innovation in agriculture, whilst increasing energy production without worsening damage to the environment will require novel design and planning. In response to this energy challenge, one of TSB’s ‘Catapult’ technology and innovation centres will focus on Offshore Renewable Energy. Sustainability, although a relatively small proportion of the budget, is a specific, dedicated programme within TSB and underpins all of the board’s work.

Already, TSB’s work has contributed to innovative environmental projects. A Demonstrator Project (designed to encourage further innovation in the sector) tested consumer responses to newly introduced electric cars, measuring their habits, attitudes and opinions of the vehicles when using them for a year. Another scheme – Retrofit for the Future – used innovative technologies to adapt 118 social houses to reduce their carbon emissions by 80% and found significant energy and money savings for the residents.

With the Business Secretary Vince Cable MP announcing a further Catapult Centre yesterday and a range of funding opportunities and events planned for the new year, the TSB’s valuable work in driving innovation is set to continue.

David Bott’s presentation at the Policy Lunchbox was well received by all the attendees and led to some very interesting discussion afterwards.

We would like to thank David Bott for his participation today, and everyone who attended. The TSB report ‘Concept to Commercialisation’, which discusses the work of the TSB further is available online.

The next Policy Lunchbox event on 6th March will see Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, discuss ‘how can the Government incentivise private sector investment in research and development?’ This event is full, but to join the waiting list contact James Lush at the Biochemical Society.

This post first appeared on the Biochemical Society’s Blog

Policy Lunchbox was privileged on Friday to host the first presentation on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ (BIS) new Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth since its launch last Thursday. Grant Peggie, Head of Innovation and Investment at BIS, gave a run down of the key points to the assembled members of the Policy Lunchbox community over mince pies and mulled wine. Here’s a summary of what he had to say.

Whilst the UK is host to world class researchers and punches above its weight in terms of pure research output, we are not as good at encouraging and developing strategic partnerships with the rest of the ‘innovation ecosystem’ – compared to near neighbours such as France, Germany and Sweden, and also other countries like the USA, said Grant. As well as places where research takes place, business, finance and bodies such as standards offices must all work together to support ‘innovation for growth’. Grant also emphasised that policy makers need to understand that it is important for innovation to take place in all sectors – not just in traditional areas like high-tech industry – including fields like utilities and construction.

The Strategy document sets out medium and long term mechanisms through which the government intends to support innovation for growth, having identified it as something we need to exploit. The timescale (as laid out in a section at the end of the document) for instigating all the projects goes no further than 2015, as the government has been unwilling to commit to longer term plans during this lasting period of austerity. However, Grant was reassuring when questioned about short-termism, stating that the announced Technology Strategy Board (TSB) focus areas – such as graphene development – would have lasting legacies. For example, the Graphene Global Research and Innovation Hub (possibly to be established in Manchester, although the location decision rests with the TSB and Research Councils in accordance with the Haldane principle) should be operational within four years, by which time some of the other policies laid out in the document should help support its long-term activity. The Government has committed £50m to graphene research through the spending review period and has pinned hopes on profitable applications being developed in the UK.

On the other strategic areas highlighted, we heard that the location of a new ‘Cell Therapy Catapult Centre’ (the less said about this moniker the better) in London would be decided next year, although there was pressure to land it in East London. This will also be the home of the Open Data Institute, to be founded in Shoreditch and led by Professor Nigel Shadbolt and Sir Tim Berners-Lee. People will notice that this isn’t actually a new announcement, and indeed Grant admitted that not much of the chapter from which this announcement and several others can be found (entitled ‘Knowledge and Innovation’) is actually new, but sets out what the Government has committed to since this spring/summer. How the Institute will fit in with the opening up of NHS data announced by David Cameron as part of the new Strategy for UK Life Sciences remains to be seen. The datasets to be prioritised have been named as transport, weather and health.

Concerning the Research Councils, changes are afoot. Multi-institutional bids for funding will be allowed according to a framework to be published in February, providing new opportunities for consortia such as the N8 group (the Universities of Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and York) to apply for funding together. Furthermore, groups such as charities not based within Universities will also be able to apply for funding. This means that there will be more funding streams, although there won’t be more money up for grabs. Particularly regarding the new rules on consortia, this could lead to very large funding awards being made, with one potential knock-on effect being the restriction of traditional award recipients even further – in what are already straitened times. Grant agreed that this was a risk, although this policy did come out of consultation with universities. Another outcome could be on the institutional and geographical spread of awards, which are already a contentious issue. On the other side, it is hoped that larger, consortia based funding could lead to more matched funding bids from pharmaceutical companies. These changes will certainly need to be follow closely next year. The Research Councils have also agreed to invest £2 million in the development of a UK ‘Gateway to Research’. Plans remain sketchy, but should allow open access to Research Council funded research data and other information by 2013. The scheme aims to be flexible and allow for non-Research Council research to be catalogued here too. This has the potential to be a really exciting and useful resource – if they get it right regarding the usability of data – especially for publicising research which could be commercialised. Smaller companies without extensive access to horizon-scanning resources could have greatly improved access and more business relationships may arise.

The bottom line, what else is new, and forthcoming work

In total, according to BIS figures, we heard that £610 million has been committed to capital in science since January. The headline announcements new to this Statement are highlighted in the BIS press release. However, as already alluded to, there is no ’10 year plan’ or similar long-term vision as the science community would like to see, representing a real long-term commitment to science as a driver of growth. We may expect reassessments to be made towards the end of the spending review period (ending in 2015).

Some of the other plans we received a run-down of are:

-The Economics Paper published alongside the main strategy document focuses on innovation (and is the first to do so since the mid ‘90s) and Grant revealed that a separate analysis of science would be published next year.
- As well as Cell Therapy, the other Catapult Centres will be High Value Manufacturing and Offshore Renewable Energy, with three more to be confirmed.
- The previously announced Biomedical Catalyst Fund will total £180 million, half each from the TSB and the Medical Research Council (MRC). This fund will be focussed on commercial medicine and proof of concept research. The TSB investment was newly announced in the Strategy for UK Life Sciences released earlier in the week.
-There will be an extra £75 million for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) through the resurrected Smart scheme – to come from the TSB – as first announced in the Autumn Statement. The TSB will also implement a new innovation voucher programme to support collaboration between SMEs and external knowledge providers. The first vouchers will be awarded next year.
- The Launchpad initiative will be extended – providing intensive support for specific sectoral clusters in chosen locations, with the aim of attracting follow-up ‘angel investment’. Grant hinted that a life science Launchpad was being considered for the Scottish central belt.
-The Red Tape Challenge will be extended, investigating the bureaucratic barriers that inhibit innovation – including those set by government. Further challenges identified are the barriers posed by procurement methods.
-Tax credits to incentivise research and development in the UK will be introduced in Budget 2013.
- The TSB will gain more staff to make sure we can leverage as much EU funding as possible in the future.
- We are going to embark on a joint research agreement with China, funding bi-lateral projects. Joint research calls with the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology are expected during 2012.

The delivery plan makes it clear that all the policies must be followed through, although the mechanisms have not yet been decided.

Naturally, Grant wanted to highlight all the positives of the Strategy, but as he said, having RCUK and the CBI saying good things is a good sign that they seem to have hit several right notes. And, whilst the Strategy certainly emphasises innovation rather than research, Grant explained that the rationale for this was two-fold: firstly that there was no desire to “throw research up in the air again”; and secondly that whilst research is a vital strength of the UK, innovation is in greater need of attention, particularly concerning commercial exploitation.

Last word – still no commitment on postgraduates

Grant was candid when asked about the lack of focus on post-graduates in recent government publications, acknowledging this point but regrettably not revealing any firm intention for anything to be done. However, he reported strong awareness that this is a live issue, citing the influence of Twitter as a significant pressure for a concerted effort from BIS in this area.

Related reading

Innovation and Research Strategy, and Economics Paper: http://www.bis.gov.uk/innovatingforgrowth
Strategy for UK Life Sciences: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/s/11-1429-strategy-for-uk-life-sciences
Autumn Statement: http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/autumn_statement.pdf

Policy Lunchbox is a network of policy professionals from the charitable and third sectors maintained by the Biochemical and British Ecological Societies.

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.