Last week EU leaders put the subject of research and innovation at the top of the political agenda by dedicating one of their summit meetings specifically to the issue. Today the European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, conducted a keynote speech highlighting the importance of research and innovation at the Royal Society, London.

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn’s speech opened with her agreement with the Royal Society; to “put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth”. She revised that we need to efficiently prioritise resources, and drew attention to the need for continued investment in research and innovation in order to create future jobs, warning that cuts to the sector could jeopardise economic growth. This opinion is supported by economic research, which indicates that reaching the EU’s target of investing 3% of GDP in the sector could create nearly four million jobs in Europe and increase annual GDP by €700 billion by 2025.

The talk was held prior to the release of the Green Paper on future EU funding for research and innovation by the European Commission this week. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn explained that there have been seven previous Framework Programmes. Rather than creating an eighth however, she proposed a new instrument – a Common Strategic Framework, that would bring together all of the relevant EU tools. This approach, as outlined in the Green Paper, would be supportive of EU policy objectives, and therefore operate on a scale at which major European societal challenges could be dealt with effectively. The Common Strategic Framework would aim to raise scientific excellence in Europe by increasing support and investment to create an attractive environment in which to harness scientific talent. Additional to this, the framework would be simple, with less red tape, allowing scientists to spend more time in the lab and innovators to innovate.

The second speaker of the day, Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, agreed with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. He stated that directing funding streams toward research and innovation was vital to deliver added value, and that and collaboration between all EU members would be required for success.

In light of today’s talks on research and innovation one thing stands out; it is now time to get focused, get united, and get ahead.

A group led by Professor Bill Sutherland at Cambridge University has identified the top 25 issues in conservation in greatest need of attention from policy-makers; either through the production of new or amendments to existing policy. The group, representing governmental organisations, NGOs and academia, focused on those areas where there may be options to fill gaps, improve implementation or where new research may be required. The result was a long-list of 117 issues, honed to 25 through a two-day workshop and a voting process. Sutherland et. al. intend that the list be of use to amongst others, policy-makers, providing knowledge on areas in need of attention and the policy options which may be available to address these areas and researchers, who can use the paper as a guide to policy-relevant, scientific questions which could form the focus of research efforts.

Issues identified in the paper cover both terrestrial and marine environments, ranging from protected areas and climate change, to habitat banking, restoring floodplain functionality for nature conservation and ecosystem services, peatland restoration, nanotechnology, marine spatial planning and non-native invasive species.

To take ‘protected areas’ as an example of the authors’ approach, Sutherland et.al. identify that the management of protected sites was developed at a time when landscape-change was generally directly human-induced and was therefore largely controllable. How should these areas be managed now, given the indirect and unpredictable effects of climate change? Policy options given include designating sites now which are likely to make an important biodiversity contribution in the future. The authors then identify a number of research questions, including the need to investigate what site properties enable widlife resilience under climate change.

The authors acknowledge in the discussion section that ‘ecosystem services’ is a thread running throughout the paper, and recognise that the future of biodiversity conservation will embrace this approach. Therefore they call on policy-makers and the research community to explore how policy instruments promoting ecosystem conservation can best be directed to maximise benefits for biodiversity.

The authors recommend that the exercise be repeated for the UK every five years and encourage other countries to carry out a similar activity.

Sutherland, W. J., Albon, S. D., Allison, H., Armstrong-Brown, S., Bailey, M. J., Brereton, T., Boyd, I. L., Carey, P., Edwards, J., Gill, M., Hill, D., Hodge, I., Hunt, A. J., Le Quesne, W. J. F., Macdonald, D. W., Mee, L. D., Mitchell, R., Norman, T., Owen, R. P., Parker, D., Prior, S. V., Pullin, A. S., Rands, M. R. W., Redpath, S., Spencer, J., Spray, C. J., Thomas, C. D., Tucker, G. M., Watkinson, A. R. and Clements, A. , REVIEW: The identification of priority policy options for UK nature conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, no. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01863.x

David Willetts, Minister for Science and Universities, today delivered his first major speech on the Government’s vision for science in the UK, the Royal Institution. The BES listened as the Minister outlined his priorities for science, and announced a one year delay to the Research Excellence Framework to allow HEFCE to better assess the results of the ‘impact’ pilot exercise.

The Minister began by highlighting that 2010 had so far seen a ‘great summer for science’, with the Royal Society’s hiigh profile ‘See Further’ festival, Lord Rees’ delivery of the Reith Lectures and BBC programming such as Prof. Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar System’. He then went on to reiterate his commitment to the dual support system for universities and the Haldane Principle – that decisions about where to allocate research spend are made at arms-length from governments. He recognised the argument that many in the scientific community, including CaSE, have made; that other countries have responded to the recession by increasing their spend on science, as a pathway to growth, but stated that these countries’ deficits were less than that of the UK. He stressed however that Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Chancellor George Osborne both understood the value of science to re-balancing the economy.

The Minister said that the coalition government had so far ‘been good’ for science; with Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, updating guidelines on the use of evidence in policy-making, and the new principles on the treatment of independent scientific advice now referred to in the Ministerial Code. However, not unexpectedly, he could not give a commitment to levels of funding which science and HE will receive into the future: this is an announcment which must wait until the Comprehensive Spending Review later this year.

The second part of the Minister’s speech focused on the economic case for investing in science, before moving on to outline his priorities for science in the coming months and years. Public spend on science has to stand up to public scrutiny, the Minister said, and although sceptical of the ‘impact agenda’ as currently framed, the Minister sees a need to demonstrate and measure the impact of research – on the economy, policy or society. A researcher cannot see publishing a certain number of papers in a particular peer-reviewed journal as their only measure of success, or impact, he stressed later during Q and A. Hence the delay of the REF for a year, to allow assessment of the impact pilot but also to learn from schemes being developed in the USA. The Society of Biology welcomed the delay during the Q and A session.

The Minister outlined his support for ‘clusters’, which he described as ‘low risk environments for high risk’ endeavours, singling out Dundee and the computer games development industry ‘clustering’ around Abertay University. He criticised the commonly voiced notion that the ‘British invent but fail to capitalise on’ discoveries. Instead, he said, the UK has demonstrated its capacity to capitalise on the research which happens elsewhere. Science investment matters, he said, partly because it increases the absorptive capacity of the UK: our ability to apply science here and as such reap rewards for our economy.

Transparency on the part of scientists, with greater sharing of data, was also highlighted as vital, and the Minister also commented that he had raised the importance of libel law reform with the Ministry of Justice: an importance which had been recognised.

Finally, the Minister outlined three priorities for his portfolio, which will form the focus of policy:
1) Investing in shared research facilities (research platforms)
2) Government playing a greater role in procurement (for example, to support small and medium sized enterprises – SMEs)
3) Public competitions for new technologies.

On this last point, the Minister singled out the X Prize Foundation for supporting the development of sub-orbital space flight. The Government might not set the prize – this could be driven by the marketplace.

Overall, the Minister seemed genuinely committed to the importance of science and technology. He recognises the worth of science and the importance of evidence-based policy. Yet, it seemed clear too that the case for investment in science still needs to be made to the Treasury. The Minister was pragmatic, stating throughout that cuts will be necessary and at one point that the challenge is to demonstrate ‘hard headed economic returns’ to enable maintenance of basic science.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for the Government to increase spend on science in order to ensure that the UK can remain competitive and an attractive place to both research and invest in science and technology. In a report published yesterday, the result of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘the impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research’, Committee members call for the Government to veto any potential cuts to the science budget, or face ’seriously damaging’ consequences for the sector.

The Pre-Budget Report of 9 December 2009 announced that £600 million would be cut from the higher education and science and research budgets, “from a combination of changes to student support within existing arrangements; efficiency savings and prioritisation across universities, science and research; some switching of modes of study in higher education; and reductions in budgets that do not support student participation”. The Committee conclude that the figure of £600 million is an arbitrary one, imposed by Treasury, with no clarity about how it was generated. It is also not yet clear where these cuts will fall.

In addition, the funds allocated by HEFCE to universities in England will fall in the 2010-11 financial year, by 6.5% compared to the allocation in 2009-10. Within the overall HEFCE budget, allocations to individual institutions were announced a couple of weeks ago. Against this background of cuts already announced is the very real concern amongst researchers and others in higher education that further cuts are to come. The current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR 2007) expires in 2010-11, with funding beyond March 2011 contingent upon a new Budget and CSR. In evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, said, “my lack of comfort is due to the fact that I am arguing very strongly for the figure for the future overall research budget… The argument is still to be made and won.”

As well as concluding that overall cuts to the science budget are unsustainable in terms of building the UK’s ‘knowledge economy’, relying on a supply of scientifically qualified teachers, researchers and an attractive research environment to business and industry, the inquiry touches upon plans in the new Research Excellence Framework to assess the ‘impact’ of researchers’ work. The Committee also examine the separate push by the Research Councils to ask researchers to consider the impact of their work when applying for grants. The Committee conclude that assessing impact retrospectively as part of the REF, whilst a commendable idea, is not feasible in practice and that difficulties in doing this will prove ‘insurmountable’. However, members do support the Research Councils requirement for researchers to consider how they might open up ‘pathways to impact’ through their research and call upon the Research Councils to clarify their requirements. There is a perception in the scientific community that researchers are being asked to ‘predict’ the impact of their research; a charge which the Research Councils dispute and on which the Committee call for clarification to correct this misinformation.

Overall, the report echoes other recent publications calling for stability, and an increase, in science spending during a period of fiscal tightening, such as the Royal Society’s ‘Scientific Century’ and the Council for Science and Technology’s recent ‘Vision for UK Research‘ report. Today’s budget announcement will be an interesting test of whether HM Treasury has got the message.

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 story of forestry in Britain is unique. Our forests provide us with a range of benefits reflecting the changing needs and demands of society. Today, trees, woods and forests are expected to contribute to improving health, building resilient communities, and adapting to climate change. As British society’s perceptions and relationship with woods and trees change, the response is an evolution of policy and governance systems, forms of engagement, and mitigation actions in urban and rural areas.

Aimed at policy makers, researchers and agencies involved in British forestry and land use, the objectives of this conference, organised by Forest Research, the Research Agency of the Forestry Commission, are to:
• discuss societal and economic trends shaping the management of British trees and forests in both urban and rural contexts;
• share experiences of responses to these trends and how society can successfully engage with its woodland resource;
• identify future research and policy directions needed to meet emerging challenges.

Further details are available from the Forestry Research website.

New research shows that concentrations of pollutants in the environment and atmosphere may increase with global warming, as melting glaciers release pollutants which became trapped in their ice at the end of the twentieth century.

A team of researchers working in Switzerland has found that the concentration of pollutants, including DDT and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenols) in a glacier-fed lake – Lake Oberaar – is higher than in lakes which do not receive meltwater from glaciers, indicating that the pollutants are entering the lake from the glacier, rather than from direct deposition from the atmosphere.

From the 1950s – 70s remote glaciers in the Swiss alps were affected by atmospheric deposition of pollutants. Persistent pollutants such as PCBs and DDT can travel long distances in the atmosphere and can persist for many years in the environment, accumulating in food chains. Analysis shows that from the 1960s – 70s, the accumulation of pollutants in the sediment of Lake Oberaar was rapid, whilst this dropped in the 1980s – 90s due to tighter regulation and the banning of particular products, such as DDT. Now, the researchers have shown, the input of organic chlorines into the lake is as high as the peaks in the 60s and 70s.

The researchers conclude that increased warming will cause the further release of pollutants, leading to the increased exposure of wildlife and fisherman to these compounds, and contamination of water used for drinking and irrigation.

Original research: Bogdal, C., Schmid, P., Zennegg, M. et al. (2009). Blast from the Past: Melting Glaciers as a Relevant Source for Persistent Organic Pollutants. Environmental Science and Technology. 43: 8173-8177.

Source: EU Science for Environment Policy