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

The Cambridge Conservation Initiative, a partnership of NGOs and departments at the University of Cambridge, is seeking your views on whether the way in which climate change has been communicated to policy-makers and the public can provide lessons for the communication of biodiversity loss. How can biodiversity move up the political agenda, with policy-makers and members of the public recognising the seriousness implications of its loss? Will studying how climate change has moved to the forefront of policy and public awareness help in achieving a similar shift for biodiversity?

Your views will help the CCI and the conservation community more widely, in efforts to make sure that biodiversity loss achieves a higher policy and public profile.

You are invited to complete a brief survey, giving your view on 35 statements, drawn from interviews with experts in climate change and biodiversity conservation. This should take you no more than 20 minutes. The deadline for completion of the survey is 31st August.

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.

Following a public consultation the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor Sir John Beddington has last week published the updated guidelines on the use of scientific advice within government.

The guidelines highlight key issues fed in by consultees, such as the importance of horizon scanning, engagement with representative bodies of the scientific community, using international sources of advice and, in particular, advice on engineering. Sir Beddington stressed the centrality of engineering in addressing today’s challenges, whilst Universities and Science Minister David Willetts spoke of the importance of making policy decisions using hard evidence.

Other recommendations to departments and policy makers included:
- identifying issues requiring advice and/or public engagement early;
- widening the range experts providing advice;
- adopting an open and transparent approach and publishing evidence quickly;
- explaining publicly the rationale behind policy decisions, especially where they are inconsistent with advice; and
- working collectively across government to adopt a joined-up approach.

More information on the work of the Government Office for Science, including Prof Beddington’s ‘Perfect Storm’ paper on the 21st century’s policy challenges, is on the BIS website.

See the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society joint response to the consultation on the Guidelines.

The Sense About Science Annual Lecture 2010 (Monday 21 June 2010) by Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the BMJ, is now available as a podcast from the Guardian

See pictures from the event and access information about the Sense About Science lectures at the Sense about Science website.

Building public trust in science should be the scientific community’s top priority. That is the conclusion of an editorial in this week’s Nature (Vol 466: 1 July 2010), which should act as a rallying cry to researchers to engage with the public and policy-makers. Another editorial feature highlights the potential of science blogs to allow researchers to do this.

The stimulus for the editorial is a news feature (p24-25) examining the erosion of public trust in science in the wake of the ‘climategate’ controversies (leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at UEA and contention over reporting of glacial melting in the latest IPCC report). Despite concerns that public belief in the reality of climate change has taken a nosedive in recent months, the article suggests that the situation isn’t as dire as many researchers believe: a survey at Cardiff University this year indicated that 78% of UK residents believed that the climate was changing, compared to 91% in 2005. More than three quarters of respondents ascribed climate change at least in part to human activity. A recent BBC poll showed that although there was a drop from November 2009 to February 2010 in the proportion of those believing climate change is caused by human actions, those who had heard about the ‘climategate’ controversies had not shifted their opinion as a result. In fact, it’s more likely that the decline is attributable to the exceptionally cold winter experienced in the UK. In the words of one contributor to the article, Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist from Stanford, “the way people decide whether climate change is happening is by sticking their finger out the window”.

There’s no doubt that climate scientists are facing mounting attacks on the integrity of their research. What can the scientific community do to face these challenges robustly and ensure public support for action to tackle climate change? Sheila Jasanoff, a science-policy expert at Harvard (and a contributor to Monday night’s Royal Society Science Policy Centre Debate, covered on this blog) says that more communication is good, but warns against the simplistic ‘deficit model’ – that a problem can be solved simply by transferring more knowledge. Researchers should instead seek to include the public in decision-making, for example as members of advisory bodies.

The editorial piece urges scientists to recognise themselves as ‘public figures and honest brokers’, avoiding hype and over exaggeration and welcoming legitimate scepticism into debate. They must provide policy-makers and the public with clear, accurate and credible information, acknowledging uncertainties and nuances. Polls in the U.S. have consistently shown the public trust in scientists is second only to military leaders – and jointly tied with physicians. To maintain this level of trust scientists and scientific institutions must become more transparent and open about the scientific process and the current limitations of our knowledge.

The BES Policy Team last night attended the inagural Royal Society Science Policy Centre debate, taking place this year as part of the Royal Society’s 350th anniversary festival of science and the arts, ‘See Further’. Lord Krebs, new Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee; Professor David Nutt, Chair of the newly created ‘Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs’; Prof. Mike Hulme, Head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA and Prof. Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University, joined Royal Society President, Lord Rees, on stage at the Southbank Centre to discuss ‘the experimental society’. The event was organised in partnership with the Science and Democracy Network – set up by Prof. Jasanoff to bring together leading thinkers annually to consider major science policy questions.

Speakers were each given five to ten minutes to cover their key points before the floor was opened for questions. A central theme was the role of scientists in providing scientific advice to policy-makers. Lord Krebs was clear that scientific advisors have the job of assessing risk, whilst policy advisors have the role of managing risk. Prof. Jasanoff felt that scientific advisors are those who are able to tell society when an experiment is over; when we have enough evidence to move forwards and the scientific certainty to act, at least until evidence is reassessed. Prof. Jasanoff was also clear that it wasn’t enough for scientists to say that they were trustworthy just by virtue of their position: creating trust in people was fundamentally interlinked with creating trust in knowledge and needed to be cultivated. Prof. Jasanoff contrasted the position of physicians, seen as trustworthy figures by the public due to their adoption of a unique ethical code, with that of scientists. She stated that being more highly cited is not necessarily a mark of being more trustworthy: an interesting point.

Prof. Nutt, controversially dismissed by the Government as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009, was clear that politicians should not stray into making psuedoscientific statements to gain favour with the electorate: politicians should stick to politics and scientists to science.

Prof. Hulme highlighted the UEA ‘climategate’ affair as a mechanism facilitating greater openess and transparency in science. With the aid of the internet, the public can offer new challenges to scientific institutions. Prof. Hulme said that it was valid, in an open society, for the public to make demands for greater openness from scientists. Scientists need to consider how they respond to this. Prof. Hulme suggested that ‘climategate’ and ‘glaciergate’ – controversies over data cited by the IPCC -have unsettled the traditional notion of the expert. Who are the experts in society? Prof. Hulme gave an example of a flood-risk assessment project in Pickering. Citizens have been brought in alongside hydrologists and geomorphologists to construct models of flood risk in the town, based on their understanding of how water has flowed through the town in past flooding events. As a consequence of public involvement, there has been greater public buy-in to the model constructed.

Yesterday’s budget included some policy changes which could impact science, the environment and innovation.

A relatively long section on a “low carbon economy” included a pledge “to make this the greenest government ever.” The document also stated that order to move towards a secure low carbon economy, the UK needs “£200 billion of investment to 2020″, which would require a “reform of the energy market and action to attract additional private sector funding.”

More specifically, the budget outlined that a report will be published in the autumn to reform the climate change levy in order to “provide more certainty and support to the carbon price”, setting a provisional date of 2011 for relevant legislation. The government has also pledged to “help individuals invest in home energy efficiency improvements that can pay for themselves from the savings in energy bills.”

On the subject of oil and fuel duties, the case is being considered for introducing a fuel duty discount in remote rural areas, including a possible pilot scheme in Scotland. Following an assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the effect of oil price fluctuations on the public finances, the government will consider options for the design of a “fair fuel stabiliser.” Furthermore, the government is considering changing the aviation tax system to a per-plane rather than per-passenger duty, which could “encourage fuller planes.”

Finally, regarding business innovation, a consultation with business will be conducted in autumn 2010 to “review the taxation of Intellectual Property and the support R&D tax credits provide for innovation.”

The full budget can be read here.

12th July 18:00 – 20:30

The British Library is hosting the latest in their Talk Science series on 12th July, in partnership with the Research Information Network and Eureka.

Mark Henderson, Science Editor for The Times, will be in conversation with Dr Evan Harris

The discussion will address current issues in Science Policy, including:

• What role will science play in the new Government?
• How will the scientific perspective be heard and understood across Parliament?
• How could the use of scientific evidence in policy-making be improved?
• With tightening budgets, what are the big issues that UK science faces?
• Should science funding be more elitist?
• Will the long-term impact of science ever be measurable?

The event is free, but booking is essential. To book, please email Science@bl.uk providing the name, affiliation and email address of each person requesting a place.

An extremely interesting and insightful editorial in this week’s Nature (13 May, 465, p135):

“An analysis by London’s The Times newspaper shows that some 71 canddidates with scientific backgrounds have been elected, down from 86 of the 650 members in the last parliament…The case must be made to members of all thee major parties that science is an important driver of Britain’s economy; that it can provide crucial solutions to major issues such as energy independence and that it deserves strong support even during times of economic cutback. These arguments will hold more sway if they are cast in a non-partisan light.”

“in the run up to the general election, CaSE encouraged all parties to make their positions on science known, and in its aftermath the organisation must work to inform a new government’s science policies…Other scientific societies should rally their memberships to get word out to new parliamentarians about the value of science. A well orchestrated, non-partisan apppeal early in the life of the parliament could leave a lasting impression.”

The BES will be doing all it can in the coming weeks and months to stress the value of science to the new government. If you’re a member of the BES interested in forming links with your local MP, get in touch with us and we can provide a briefing to help you to communicate the value of ecology to them.