Ian Taylor explores different funding priorities

The Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s challenge to me to form and chair a policy task-force on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) was one I could not resist.

As a former Minister for Science and Technology, I know how significant the subjects are for the future prosperity and well-being of this country. Appropriately, the STEM task-force forms a key part of the work of the Party’s Economic Competitiveness Policy Review Group.

Science central to economy

The Conservative Party has recently failed to take science and technology sufficiently into account in policy formation. Science was not mentioned at all in our last General Election manifesto.  By the time of the next General Election we will have been out of office for more than a decade – a period of dramatic developments in both science and technology as well as in the global competitive climate. So an incoming Conservative Government must ensure that the exploitation of STEM is central to the economic competitiveness of the UK and to our quality of life.

In the UK we cannot afford to be complacent about the resilience of our STEM base nor of the related knowledge and skills formation. Our accumulated expertise is at risk of being eroded by ever-increasing international challenge. Market incentives are moving highly skilled jobs abroad, where an exceedingly well-educated and qualified workforce can achieve a comparable or even better performance at a fraction of the UK labour cost.  Universities are now competing in a global education and research environment.

Private and public funds

The purpose of the STEM Task-force is to recommend what main actions, in priority order, an incoming Conservative Government should take to maximise the contribution of STEM to the economic competitiveness of the UK.  In this, we have taken as a core principle that in the modern economy it is in the national interest for taxpayers’ money to be invested in stimulating STEM innovation.

We also maintain that one of the objectives of government funding is to leverage into STEM as much private capital and activity as possible – and to avoid bureaucratic rules and regulations which act as deterrents.  For example, the plethora of government input schemes are still often disjointed, confusing and uncoordinated between agencies. Awards are both too thinly spread yet require massive documentation and compliance.  How can better investment risk-taking emerge from the shadow of the National Audit Office?

Whilst we are obviously aware of the government’s priorities and agenda we do not intend to let this stifle our thoughts or policy review.  Re-prioritising science funding could not all happen overnight so there will be some continuity if there were to be a change of government. But there may be a radical shift in emphasis nevertheless. Without engaging in a bidding war for more money, there are certainly ways in which improvements can be made.

Our subjects

We are looking constructively at several related themes:

• the scope of a national strategy for STEM
• the relative importance of applied science and ‘blue skies’ research
• the actual stimulus provided by the Research Assessment Exercise
• the key research areas that need to be developed and/or retained
• the achievement and exploitation of STEM in a global market
• the most added-value mechanisms for the successful exploitation of STEM
• the relative effectiveness of input funding versus government procurement
• the methods and mechanisms of attracting and retaining students/leading experts
• the role of Public Sector Research Establishments
• the remit, organisation and management of the Research Councils
• the impact of EU and international research collaboration in STEM.

Educating future scientists

A fellow task-force on Higher Education and Skills will look at personal skills development and transfer. This will include reviewing policy for attracting students, the state of vocational training and the comparative decline in student numbers in several STEM disciplines – a crucial concern if we are to maximise our future potential.

I have participated in a Conservative seminar on the curriculum and teaching of science in schools, as improving these are crucial if we are to have the students with skills to exploit the policies we put forward for STEM.

The task-force I have assembled consists of individuals from different backgrounds but with a broad range of experience and skills both from academia and industry. We will publish our interim report around the end of this year. There is plenty to do, but I am certain we will stimulate a wider political debate about STEM which can only be in the national interest.

Ian Taylor is MP for Esher and Walton, and chairs the Conservative Party’s Task-force on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)