the-BA : All hail the new Science Supremo

Ian Gibson extols the Chancellor

At last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent ‘science’ budget 1 has made the opening moves in removing us from our complacency and self-congratulatory slumber.
His plea to prioritise investment in science, technology and engineering, to deliver ‘our whole economic future and future well being’ utilising the skills of our nation, has laid down the gauntlet science has needed from politicians.
Universities must be well funded, co-operative not competitive (away with the Research Assessment Exercise!) and all our industries must increase their investment in research and development. It is time that these two major players got together to ensure meaningful collaboration, and not just the odd granting of a Professorship or Studentship to give credence to their mutual admiration.
The two sides need to engage in a serious dialogue, independently of Whitehall interference, to come up with a British Strategy for Science, Technology and Engineering, and that will mean international collaboration.

Still to do

Whilst we can celebrate the increased funding extolled by the Minister of Science and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister and their apparatchiks, we fail to have seriously delivered the benefits which ought to have accrued from our strong scientific inheritance and talents of our young people who, in the main, carry out the research. We lag behind in our innovatory skills and in delivering the parts of this complex process.
We need a scientific voice in this country which recognises the poor science schooling our people get. Again the Chancellor, the new spokesperson for science, has recognised this.
As the author Ian McEwan has pointed out, there is a condescension to the layman which the theme of Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene has overcome. He talks in a language which is both penetrating and recognises the history of science, which did not start in 1953 with the discovery of the structure of DNA or later with the sequence of DNA. Science builds on experiments which allow us to re-interpret earlier hypotheses.
We must feed our young minds on a diet of laboratory experience and promulgation of ‘crazy’ independent thought and discussion. In such an environment the world moves on. David Attenborough’s Blue Planet and Colin Pillinger’s Mars shot excite and enthuse. Then what? Back to the static teaching with no apparent reference to the world in which we all live. Is it any wonder our young people, who wish to carry out research, get turned off?

Evidence and assessment

Innovation feeds on the novelty of ideas and enthusiasm. Both ‘blue skies’ research and development of product can co-exist and are of equal value. We talk of them, but within a climate of value judgement. Science is a process which bolsters our social and industrial worlds, where evidence is all – well almost all. Political decisions should follow the evidence, not the other way round.
Politicians have yet to learn to ask the questions where evidence is needed, to have the research carried out and to set up a process of assessment involving the public from the very beginning. The public are rightly suspicious of science when it falls into the wrong hands and often act without even worrying about the science. The feeling is strong that politicians will do what they want to, irrespective of the evidence. [This sentence read: The feeling is strong that politicians will do what they want to any use or misuse of the evidence.]

Reform the career structure!

The Chancellor has seen the need for interaction, if not amalgamation, between Research Councils and programmes where they cover the same fields like clinical trials, animal experiments, the effect on social conditions, and so on. Research into issues allowing health improvements are to be unified in one organisation with delivery of both treatment and care in mind. At last we have someone speaking for British Science – the Treasury!!
I await further changes, not just in the organisation of funding bodies but the creation of a truly positive role for scientists and technologists in society. The school science programme is in deep need of reform and it is not just about building new laboratories. Why should justification of a career structure and a well paid job not follow the recent structural reforms in the National Health Service for General Practitioners? Are scientists up for the challenge, or is the safety of the laboratory still a comfort zone?

Reference
1. Budget of 22 March, 2006. See http://budget2006.treasury.gov.uk/

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North
Gibsoni@parliament.uk

	Home

	News

	Reports and Publications

	Science & Public Affairs

	SPA Archive

	June 2006

	SPATalk

	Science and Peace in Antarctica

	Twin tracks to tackle climate challenge

	Budget throws sensitivities into relief

	News in Brief

	Morality,theology and action on climate change

	What are we going to do about the decline in chemistry students?

	The psychology of terrorism

	Science meets policy

	Where did texting come from?

	The self-sorting tendency

	Physics in the City

	Young people and gambling problems

	Deaf people and linguistic research

	Food labelling in Europe - We need information for the majority

	Food labelling in Europe - We want nutrition labelling

	Food labelling in Europe - It's a mess

	Mobile phones and children - Voluntary Code

	Mobile phones and children - Children face risks

	Mobile phones and children-UK code of practice

	And then there was one

	Joys and duties of a scientist

	Scientists in the pay of industry

	Creationism reviving; science recruitment declining

	All hail the new Science Supremo