House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

Forensic science: Research Councils UK Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2013–14

Sixth Special Report of Session 2013–14

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 November 2013

HC 843 Published on 26 November 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £3.50

Science and Technology Committee

The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies.

Current membership Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth) Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central) Caroline Dinenage (Conservative, Gosport) Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford) Gregg McClymont (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage) Jonathan Reynolds (Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridge and Hyde)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science. A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volume(s). Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Dr Stephen McGinness (Clerk); Leonie Kurt (Assistant Clerk); Xameerah Malik (Senior Committee Specialist); Victoria Charlton (Committee Specialist); Darren Hackett (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); Henry Ayi-Hyde (Committee Office Assistant); and Nick Davies (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected].

Research Councils UK Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2013–14 1

Sixth Special Report

On 25 July 2013 the Science and Technology Committee published its Second Report of Session 2013–14, Forensic science [HC 610]. On 27 August 2013 the Committee received a memorandum from the Research Councils UK which contained a response to the Report. The memorandum is published as Appendix 1 to the Report.

Appendix 1: Research Councils UK response

1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership set up to champion research supported by the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the Government’s objectives for science and innovation.1

2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not include, or necessarily reflect the views of the Knowledge and Innovation Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The submission is made on behalf of the following Councils:

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Medical Research Council (MRC)

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

3. Although Forensic Science across all the Research Councils represents only a small proportion of research proposals being submitted, RCUK recognised that the findings of the Silverman Report and the closure of the Forensic Science Service made Forensics a ‘special case’ and required us to create a support framework to empower Forensic researchers to adapt to the changes in the funding landscape.

4. The Research Councils wish to comment on specific recommendations within the Committee’s report as detailed below:

69. Professor Silverman suggested that Research Councils “do not earmark money for forensics research because of the Haldane principle” which made them “quite reluctant to provide earmarked funding”.

1 Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk

2 Research Councils UK Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2013–14

5. Although Forensics is a very broad research area EPSRC has recognised that the majority of the research falls within our Physical Sciences. Therefore Forensic Science is specifically included in the Analytical Science research area descriptor on our website. As such the majority of Forensic science is well catered for in a research area of over £52 million. EPSRC’s Peer Review Process is capable of accommodating all research proposals within its remit from the Forensic community on a level playing field alongside all other high-quality research that vies for its funding. In addition to the funding of specific Forensic Science grant proposals it should be recognised that EPSRC also funds science which is underpinning to Forensics, such as the development of new analytical methods.

6. RCUK aims to empower Forensic researchers to adapt to the changes in the funding landscape. To this end two initiatives have been instigated:

7. Firstly the formation of a Forensic Science Special Interest Group (SIG) led by the TSB to work out a strategy to promote Forensic Science research in the UK. The objectives of this are:

• Build and maintain an active community of those innovating in the development and/or application of forensic science technologies

• Work with the various stakeholders through execution of workshops and provision of other inputs

• Improve understanding of the applications domain opportunities for forensic science

• Improve dissemination of the state of the art in both academic and commercially available forensic science technologies

• Support the emergence of supply chains through better engagement with industry, acceptance of standards and focus on cost effective manufacture of devices

• Assist in the direction of funding of R&D and explore the potential for the use of Small Business Research Initiatives (SBRI) as a funding mechanism

• Raise awareness of all forensic science -related funding opportunities (public sector and commercial) and facilitate opportunities for UK organisations to lead or get involved in such projects, particularly where they address key challenges to future commercial success

• Raise awareness of the UK and wider EU capabilities in forensic science

• Ensure that the UK capitalises on its academic lead and becomes a commercial hub for forensic science exploitation.

8. Although led by the TSB, EPSRC was involved with the inception of this SIG and has worked very closely with it since to ensure the objectives are met. This is likely to take several years to bring to fruition, but EPSRC has been highly proactive in this work. Examples of this include, a full-day workshop held specifically for Forensic researchers to help them understand what funding is available and how to access it; Close association built up with the Forensic Science Society to identify how best EPSRC can work with what

Research Councils UK Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2013–14 3

is a very broad, disparate and varied research community and try and raise the profile of Research Councils as sources of funding; Attending and taking part in conferences (the most recent being in June 2013) held by the community to answer researchers queries and build up relationships with them. Associations with other interested parties have also been developed, such as the Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST).

9. Secondly, under the auspices of RCUK, EPSRC in partnership with the Forensic Science Society undertook an exercise in 2011–12 to identify Forensic researchers from the UK and beyond who would be added to the pool of Forensic experts able to review research proposals. This process led to experts being identified for BBSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC as well as EPSRC. Within EPSRC eleven Forensic researchers were added to our Peer Review College and a further eighty (approximately) being identified for additional use. This process has allowed EPSRC to more closely assign experts to the review process and ensure that high quality Forensics Science proposals are funded.

23. It would be helpful if there was a complete and accurate picture of the publicly funded forensic science R&D landscape in England and Wales, including funding from Research Councils, Government departments and agencies and international sources (including EU funding). In addition, similar information from the private sector would be valuable, notwithstanding the need to protect commercial interests. (Paragraph 82):

10. Forensic Science research has been described within the report as ‘disparate’. This is both a strength and a weakness. It is relatively easy to identify grant proposals which are specifically forensic in nature, but it is far harder to identify proposals which are underpinning of Forensics, such as the development of new analytical techniques or their application to new areas of research. In terms of creating an accurate picture of the research funded by the research councils, this underpinning and diversity makes accurate data gathering a challenge Nevertheless, data on research proposals involving Forensics is kept and constantly updated across EPSRC and four other councils. Currently there are less than a dozen funded grants which are specifically Forensic in nature within EPSRC’s portfolio which is the largest within the Research Councils.

11. In addition plans are being implemented within EPSRC which should help identify Forensic as a socio-economic theme. Once fully in place this will make the tracking of Forensic proposals within EPSRC, funded and unfunded, far easier.

21. We are disappointed that it remains as difficult as ever for forensic science researchers to obtain funding for research. Although the Silverman Review has led to some positive outcomes for forensic science, it has not addressed the chronic lack of funding faced by the sector.

12. Obviously this query goes beyond Research Council Funding alone, but in terms of EPSRC funding our peer review process which is open to all academics to apply for funding at any time is obviously open to all Forensic Science researchers as well. However, one of the problems that has become clear through our researching and networking of the community is that there is a misconception that RCs won’t fund Forensic research. This has been identified by EPSRC and by the Forensic Science SIG and EPSRC has already run a workshop (June 2013) to aid myth-busting and promote funding opportunities. These and similar issues are being addressed by the SIG but will require time and effort to

4 Research Councils UK Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2013–14

overcome, especially as the funding landscape remains so competitive. However, there is every opportunity for high quality Forensic research to be funded within the UK.