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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BES and Biochemical Society have together prepared a response to the UK Government Office for Science consultation on ‘Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy-Making’. Following on from the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt as Chairman of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009, the BES and Biochemical Society believe that guidelines on how scientific advice should be used, and principles on the treatment of independent scientific advice by ministers and civil-servants are more important than ever.

Key points from the response are:

– The Guidelines should be far more positive about the potential of learned societies to offer networks of expertise and advice to policy-makers. Learned societies such as the BES and Biochemical Society can help to facilitate dialogue between policy-makers and academics.
- Whilst the National Academies, such as the Royal Society, undoubtedly provide a useful source of advice to government, individual learned societies are the experts in their specific areas, and are often able to draw upon a broader constituency. Consulting more widely than the National Academies can play an important role in ensuring an adequate and representative research base.
- The involvement of lay members in science advisory structures as a matter of course could prove useful in identifying issues which may be of broad public concern at an earlier stage and would add value to the output of advisory bodies.
- Government could better draw upon established sources of expert advice by ensuring that in the first instance, further departments have their own Science Advisory Councils and Scientific Advisory Committees; as a priority the Department of Health and Department of Energy and Climate Change.
- Government at the highest level should adopt an explicit framework for the use of public dialogue to inform science and technology related policies.
- The Government should withhold advice provided or the evidence base for a policy only in exceptional circumstances.
- A scientifically-literate civil-service, and a civil-service which includes scientifically trained individuals, is also vital to ensure that policy questions are designed in a way which can be answered by scientists.

All consultation responses and briefing papers produced by the BES can be found on our website, under ‘Our Position’.

Defra has launched a new Evidence and Investment Strategy: 2010 – 2013, building on its previous strategy, which ran from 2005 – 2008. The purpose of the Strategy is to prioritise and manage Defra’s investment in evidence to 2013, focusing on three major areas: climate change, securing a sustainable food supply and protecting ecosystems.

Commenting on the launch of the strategy, Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra, said “it is absolutely essential that all the policies that we formulate are based on sound evidence…there has never been a time when there was a greater need for good quality evidence to contribute to policy-making and sound decisions”. An interview with Professor Watson is available as a video on the Defra website.

At present Defra spends approximately £240 million per annum on evidence to underpin policy formulation. In commenting on the launch of the Strategy Prof. Watson emphasises the importance of a ‘joined up’ Defra to make sure that this money is well spent and appropriately focused. Those working in the areas of food security, climate change and ecosystem services need to work together. These issues are also not simply domestic concerns, hence Defra must work with the Department for International Development. Finally, Defra must work closely with the Research Councils on delivering on these priorities.

The Strategy emphasises the importance of Defra possessing an adequate skills base to deal with the results of research and commission and procure good quality evidence. In his interview, Prof. Watson emphasises the importance of Defra staff becoming “intelligent customers of evidence”. Following the launch of the Strategy, an implementation plan is to be drawn up to make sure that the key points of the Strategy are translated into practice and that the Strategy’s concerns become embedded in the culture of the Department.

Nick Clegg MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, this afternoon addressed a packed audience at the Royal Society, laying out his party’s views on the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths. In a wide-ranging speech which lasted for approximately half an hour, Mr Clegg covered a range of topics; from early-years science and maths education to the use of independent scientific advice by the government. Mr Clegg’s speech was then followed by a high quality question and answer session.

Mr Clegg began his speech by congratulating the Royal Society on a diverse and exciting programme of events to celebrate their 350th anniversary year, stating that the Society represented one of the only bodies which has been influential historically and which continues to be so. His speech emphasised the importance of STEM training and STEM professionals in leading the UK out of recession and called for not just a ‘rebuild’ but a ‘redesign’ of the economy, built not just on the financial sector but on science, technology and innovation. Mr Clegg blamed the Labour Government for failing to capitalise on the success of UK research (with 1% of the world’s population and 8% of the world’s scientific publications) by translating this success into business opportunities.

As a key part of his speech, Mr Clegg made five pledges to the scientific community. According to Mr Clegg a Liberal Democrat government would;
1) Be honest about spending:
Mr Clegg emphasised that the Government’s current debt was not sustainable and that a period of fiscal contraction would have to occur in the years to come. He stated that STEM would be at the forefront of Liberal Democrat thinking in grappling with the economic situation.
2) Allocate funding to broad priorities:
A Liberal Democrat government would respect the ‘Haldane Principle’ but that government would be entitled to take strategic decisions based on broad priorities. ‘Impact’ as part of the Research Excellence Framework would be re-examined.
3) Reform education to increase scientific literacy:
One of Mr Clegg’s key points was the fundamental importance of early-years education in crystallising young people’s attitudes to STEM and take-up of STEM subjects later in life. A Liberal Democrat government would be committed to improving the quality of STEM tuition, with all Key Stage 4 students having the opportunity to take three sciences.
4) Uphold policy based on independent evidence:
Mr Clegg said that he understood the importance of independent scientific advice and that he supported the Prinicples for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice as submitted to the Government by Sense about Science. A debate was also necessary, he said, on the media’s communication of science and of the nuances of scientific discovery.
5) Immediately reform English libel laws:
Freedom to evaluate critically the work of others is fundamental to science, Mr Clegg said, and immediate reform is needed to make sure that the UK’s libel laws don’t stifle scientific debate and inquiry.

In response to questioning Mr Clegg confirmed that these five principles would be found in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. In response to other questions he reiterated his party’s commitment to abolishing tuition fees for university students, although acknowledged that money was not available for this at present, and reiterated his commitment to ‘lead with evidence’ the policy-making process. When questioned about how he would deal with a direct clash between the evidence (in this case, that eating less meat would be better for the climate) and politics (safeguarding farmers’ interests) Mr Clegg was pragmatic however, stating that ultimately he and his colleagues were politicians, representing the public. With many rural constituencies he said that it would be difficult in this case to make policy purely on the basis of this evidence. He hoped, he said, that a Liberal Democrat government would show ’sophistication’ in its approach to evidence-based policy-making.

The BES last night attended a debate at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), bringing together the science spokespeople from the three major political parties and aiming to make science an election issue. Lord Drayson, Science Minister, Adam Afriye, Shadow Science Minister and Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, took to the stage to face questions from an assembled audience of around 400; all keen to find out what mention Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems would make of science in their election manifestos.

Roger Highfield, Editor of New Scientist, chaired the evening which saw the politicians face wide ranging questions, including on cuts to the science budget, the balance between public and private investment in science, the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt (former Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) by the Home Secretary and scientific expertise in the forthcoming parliament.

Lord Drayson focused on the Government’s track record of supporting science over the past decade or so and stressed that science would remain key to policy-making in the future, under a Labour Government. He stressed his party’s commitment to retaining the ring-fence around the science budget, but he and others commented that Labour has not yet declared what the science budget will be. In tackling a question on the £915 million cuts faced by the higher education sector over the next two years, Lord Drayson said that a fees review was necessary and that universities need to consider other streams of funding; however he stressed again that he did see science, research and education as a fundamental part of the future prosperity of the UK.

Dr Evan Harris was an engaging speaker who clearly connected with the audience over the course of the evening as he defended the right of independent scientific advisors to speak out in criticising government policy, without fear of reprissals from politicians. He was robust in his criticism of the UK’s libel laws, and stated that the Liberal Democrats were committed to reforming these, should they be elected. He stated that his party was committed to maintaining the current spend on science, as far as possible, and called for stability as a fundamental component of the science budget. He strongly criticised plans for funding to be allocated to researchers on the basis of the proposed ‘impact’ of their work, stating that this is not a route which the UK should go down and would simply lead to ’story-telling’ amongst researchers.

It was disappointing that Adam Afriye did not give specific examples of Conservative policy towards science, although commendable that he plans to introduce compulsory training in science for new Conservative MPs after the election – an announcement made by his network, the Conservative Friends of Science, some time ago. Mr Afriye was scathing about the UK’s current financial position, as was to be expected, and challenged Lord Drayson to announce what the actual size of the next science budget would be; criticising the Government for ducking the opportunity to declare this when they had the opportunity. However, Mr Afriye could not be drawn on what the science budget would be under the Conservatives and whether this would be ring-fenced. He also refused to rise to the challenge to declare whether a Conservative science minister would have a seat at Cabinet, as Lord Drayson does and as any future Labour science minister would continue to have.

In discussing the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt, Mr Afriye made a comment which much of the science community would find disturbing; stating that Ministers should have the right to dismiss their advisors on any terms at all, even for the reason of ‘not liking’ them. Lord Drayson in contrast made clear that he did not support this course of action and stated that advisors to Government must not feel under any pressure not to deliver bad news. He directly encouraged the scientific community to respond to the current consultation on Principles of Scientific Advice to Government, stressing his hope that politicians’ and scientists’ focus on science advice, caused by the Prof. Nutt affair would lead to improvements in this area.

Overall, this was a fascinating evening and CaSE are to be congratulated for putting together a stimulating, well-attended event, of great use to the science policy community.

A report published by the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management has outlined recommendations to make the future production of biofuels more sustainable. The report concentrated on first generation biofuels, such as ethanol and sugar cane, analysing the life cycle of their production. The authors found that the way in which biofuels are produced and managed can determine if they benefit society, the economy and the environment, but that more information is needed on the impact of biofuel production on water and biodiversity.

The report found that some biofuels can contribute to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil for example saves 70 – 100% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel use. However, others can substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels; land clearance for the growth of oil palms for biodiesel results in a 2000% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

17 billion litres of bioethanol were produced in 2000 and by 2007 this had grown to 52 billion litres. Such growth neccessitates increasing the amount of land put aside for the growth of crops for fuel: 2.3% of global cropland was covered by biofuel crops in 2008, up from 0.9% in 2004.

The report’s authors recommend reducing the environmental pressures of biofuel production through:
- enhancing the efficiency of biofuel production through increased yields and improvements in agricultural technology;
- growing biofuels on degraded, marginal and abandoned land;
- using waste from municipal, agricultural and forestry sectors to provide biomass for fuel;
- the use of biomass residue (left over from biomass processing) to produce electricity and heat.

In addition, biofuel policies should limit quotas and targets to levels which can be supplied sustainably. Productivity could be increased through reforming subsidies for fossil fuels.

Original source: European Commission – Science for Environment Policy
Download the report:Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels

Following the Parliamentary and Technology Committee’s meeting this week, focusing on GM technology in crop production, I took the time to read the Royal Society’s recent report; “Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture“, which was heavily cited at the evening event. The report provides an extremely interesting overview of a very complex topic, characterised by Prof. John Beddington as the ‘perfect storm’; how to feed more people, on less land, using less water and energy, in the context of climate change and in a way which doesn’t damage the evironment? The Royal Society steering group conclude that ’sustainable intensification’ is needed to achieve the 50 – 100% increase in crop production needed to feed a population projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

The report touches upon the gains made during the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960’s, with huge growth in food production in Asia (280%); particularly China, which saw agricultural productivity increase fivefold. A 70% increase in growth was achieved in Europe. The benefits of the revolution were not evenly distributed however; Africa saw a 140% increase, yet food production then fell from the 1970s, only re-gaining 1960 levels in 2005. There have been calls for a ‘greener revolution’, building on the original gains made in the latter half of the 20th century, but investment in research into agriculture has declined in recent years, due to complacency over food prices and availability, the Society concludes.

In expanding food production into the future, the global community faces an important choice: expand the area of agricultural land to increase gross production, or increase yields on existing land. The report concludes that expanding the land area available for agriculture is untenable: to keep pace with current per capita consumption would require a doubling of land used for crops, which would result in undesirable environmental and social consequences and increased greenhouse gases through ploughing. Instead, the report concludes that sustainable intensification on existing sites, coupled with habitat restoration, should be the way forward.

Any system is unsustainable, the report suggests, if it depeneds on non-renewable inputs; it cannot consistently and predictably deliver desired outputs; and it can only deliver these outputs by requiring the cultivation of more land and/ or causes adverse and irreversible environmental impacts which threaten ecological functions. To ensure sustainable intensification, the report concludes, greater investment is needed in crop genetics (both advanced biotechnology, such as GM, and conventional plant breeding) and in crop management practices (such as integrated pest management and planting seed mixtures). Both public and private investment is needed to advance research in these areas: public, to fund those areas which will not yield long-term returns for private companies, such as crop management techniques (likely to have no particular product or intellectual property for commercialisation associated with them); private to transfer the benefits from publicly funded research to markets.

In examining GM particularly, the working group concludes that there is no reason to expect any adverse impacts on health through the consumption of crops including transgenes, and that this technology, although not offering a panacea, can make an important contribution to increasing yields. Over the long term, advances which could be seen include the modification of crops’ metabolism to more efficient convert solar energy to carbohydrate or for the fixation of nitrogen. There could be a shift from annual to perennial crops – there are no perennial crops at present – enhancing carbon storage and reducing greenhouse gases from annual tillage of the soil. The asexual reproduction of seed by high-yielding varieties could be engineered, avoiding costly and lengthy procedures – least accessible to those in developing countries – to produce high yielding varieties breeding cycle after breeding cycle.

The report is wide-ranging in its scope and there is certainly far too much to cover here. One recommendation which the BES could consider taking forward is in relation to the training and development of crop scientists. The working group suggests that attention should be paid to enhancing the plant science component of biology A’levels, as a way to encourage young people to study subjects allied to farming and agriculture at university. The working group also conclude however that, alongside the trend for many universities to close down or reduce their teaching in agriculture and crop science, take up of those courses which do exist is low. For the UK to take a leading role in research contributing to global food security, as the report calls for, there is a need, clearly amongst a disparate range of other measures, for universities to re-examine their courses to make them more attractive to potential research scientists of the future.

The BES Policy Team last night attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee exploring GM technology. Entitled, ‘Come back GM, all is forgiven?’, the Chair, Ian Taylor MP, made it clear that the question mark was there for a reason; by the end of the event it was clear that further meetings of the Committee are needed to allow members to explore these issues in greater depth. Opinions from the floor were aligned along two polar opposites and there was not the time available to allow sufficient debate to begin to bring these two sides together.

Presentations from Professor Peter Shewry and Professor Howard Atkinson introduced the topic to those present and set the scene for later discussion. Professor Shewry showed a slide illustrating the global scale of growth of GM crops; these are now cultivated in 25 countries worldwide, across 70 million acres of land and have now been grown for 14 years. In this time, Professor Shewry said, no ill effects to health or the environment have been recorded. In outlining the case for growing GM crops Prof. Shewry said that society needs them for three reasons: to improve the quality of crops (i.e. to reduce diet-related disease); to increase sustainability (through less intensive inputs), and to increase productivity (contributing to food security).

Prof. Shewry’s research is concerned with the health benefits of GM crops, particularly wheat. By modifying wheat crops to express genes for the production of fish oils (long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids), the human dietary intake of fish oils can be increased without recourse to intensification of fish farming. In giving reasons why GM had not been adopted in the UK, at the end of his talk, Prof. Shewry suggested that prejudice, misinformation and elitism in Western nations was responsible, with it reducing opportunities from those in developing countries, with limited access to food, to benefit from this technology.

This was a theme returned to in discussion with Chris Kirk, Chief Executive of the Biochemical Society firmly making the point that those in the West get extremely incensed about the use of GM technology to produce food, yet are content to use pharmaceutical products maunfactured in a similar way. Again, he reiterated the point that concerns in affluent countries are damaging the prospects of less developed countries to benefit from this technology.

Concerns were raised by some present about the potential health impacts of GM crops – one example given was that the effects of exposure to asbestos are felt only 25 years later, so 14 years may be too short a timescale of testing to declare GM foods ’safe’- and the problem of secondary pest emergence in GM cotton (Bt cotton), leading to increased pesticide spraying once more. One audience member raised the important point that many people are genuinely concerned about GM technology and that these concerns cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. He and others called for greater engagement from the scientific community in the debate, communicating with the public and providing syntheses of the scientific evidence for policy-makers.

Jim Paice, MP for South West Cambridgeshire made the point that it was very hard for politicians to find their way through the morass of ’sweeping statements’ made by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace; without engagement from the scientific community, such negative, and poorly evidenced, statements would dominate debate. Chris Kirk urged policy-makers and Committee members to read the Royal Society’s recent report: “Reaping the Benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture” as an authoritative digest of current scientific evidence regardiing GM technology.

Finally, Lord Rooker mentioned the ‘GM Dialogue‘ which the Food Standards Agency has been asked to lead on behalf of the Government. This public engagement project is expected to last for around 12 months and steering group members have recently been announced. With this, a potential further Parliamentary and Scientific Committee meeting on this topic and a Talk Science event at the British Library in January, it seems that GM food may once more be rising up the agenda.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering, of which the BES is a member, is organising a debate on 13 January 2010 between the science spokespeople of the three major UK political parties. Lord Drayson, Science Minister, Adam Afriye, Shadow Science Minister and Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, will speak at the Institute of Engineering and Technology from 6.30pm. Members of the BES and others interested are encouraged to attend.

This event is free but registration is necessary. on registration there is an opportunity to submit a question to put to the speakers. See the CaSE website for further details.