Ian Gibson wants to shake politicians
 
The old Science and Technology Select Committee has been replaced by a new select committee (the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee) set up to scrutinise the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS).

DIUS has a huge remit. Science and technology is included, along with responsibilities for copyright, innovation, skills, higher and further education and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.

The committee is off and running on inquiries into the government’s plans for second degrees, copyright, spending in the physical sciences, the movement of the National Institute for Medial Research from Mill Hill and the scrutiny of alternative energy sources.

As a member of the committee, I still sense there’s much to do. We still need innovative thinking to allow young people to engage with science, engineering and technology. There is to be new legislation and a debate on human embryology, stem cells and climate change. Public interaction with science is constantly with us – new wine in old bottles, or old wine in plastic bottles.

Evidence, not special interests

Can we ever see scientists providing the evidence in a surefooted manner to shake civil servants and politicians, and really have an evidence-based culture? Given different interpretations and analyses, can there ever really be an understanding between the two cultures? As one civil servant said to me, we are not letting vague evidence get in the way of good policies.

I feel think tanks like Newton’s Apple, Demos and the Smith Institute have yet to address these paradoxes in a way which puts science at the heart of the debate. As select committees stay in the power of whips and their powers are then further demeaned by the influence of powerful lobbyists who train witnesses, other groups like a few All-Party Groups (there are too many!) and powerful patient groups and charities are influencing government policies. Examples are in drug approvals, the school curriculum, funding of projects and many more.

Select committees get media support and scrutiny merely since they have an ‘official’ parliamentary aura. Perversely, it is this which limits their innovatory breadth and power. The selection of their membership is based for the government’s part on loyalty rather than independent analytical skills. It becomes a career move in the sense that, if you behave, the House of Lords beckons. 

The scientific movement is an all-encompassing, forward-marching movement which has room for divesity and debate

Understanding through statistics

The use of scientific evidence in policy determination varies from Whitehall department to department, and it might be valuable to look at how some key departments handle statistical evidence in health, transport, education and so on.

As I learned from a young mathematician who was paired with me through the Royal Society MP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, statistics are often poorly represented and not entirely understood by the outside world – or, indeed, by many MPs. If something is not understood it will not be trusted. We could put this right by looking at how statistics are used in a policy setting. What better example to start with than the figures issued on punctuality of trains!

The one essential aim is to keep the UK plc punching above its weight as other industrial nations move onwards and upwards. There are warning signs pointing to a slowdown in scientific recruitment and that, as a nation, we are not as innovative as we profess.

Scientific ‘community’?

Finally, in a recent piece in the Guardian, Michael Hann discussed the use or rather overuse of the word ‘community’.(1) This made me think about the ‘Westminster community’ and the ‘science community’. I wonder if these communities actually exist, and if they do, do I feel part of them? Hann argues that the ‘unity’ in community implies agreement. If Westminster was one unit, always in agreement, we would not have any meaningful debate, there would be no new ideas and minority opinions would be excluded.

I feel the imposed ‘community’ we have on the select committee stifles its potential. The scientific world is full of long-standing opposing viewpoints and various schools of thought which sometimes even use the same evidence base to come to very different conclusions.

Rather than thinking of myself as part of the scientific community, I prefer to think of myself as part of the scientific movement. This is an all-encompassing, forward-marching movement which has room for diversity and debate. This does not demand unity. Indeed, we know how individuals through their creativity can bring about amazing differences to our lives.

Is the UK government in the fast lane to do this, and who should it be listening to?

Reference

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/scienc
e/2000/mar/31/genetics.g2

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North