House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

The Government Office for Science Annual Review 2009

Oral and written evidence

27 October 2010

Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 27 October 2010

HC 546-i Published on 17 January 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £4.00

The 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) Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central) Gregg McClymont (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) 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) Jonathan Reynolds (Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridge and Hyde) Alok Sharma (Conservative, Reading West) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

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 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: Glenn McKee (Clerk); Ed Beale (Second Clerk); Farrah Bhatti (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik (Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); Pam Morris (Committee Assistant), Jim Hudson (Committee Support Assistant); and Becky Jones (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected]

List of witness

Wednesday 27 October 2010 Page

Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Ev 1

List of written evidence

1 Letter from Professor Sir John Beddington to the Chair of the Committee Ev 10

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday 27 October 2010

Members present: Andrew Miller (Chair)

Stephen Metcalfe Graham Stringer Stephen Mosley Roger Williams Pamela Nash ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Sir John, thank you very much for coming fairly familiar with, means that is going to extend this morning. I am sure you would have liked to be a probably into the autumn of 2011. I think that would fly on the wall at our earlier session, no doubt. be a second thing I would point to as a success and Professor Sir John Beddington: Regrettably, I importance for the Department. wasn’t, Chairman. The network of Chief Scientific Advisers has done well. As you know, and I won’t repeat it, we now Q2 Chair: We want to cover the Government Office have it in each of the main scientific Departments. for Science this morning in some detail. How effective We meet regularly. We meet every Wednesday for a do you think the Government Office has been in the breakfast meeting. Clearly, not everybody can attend past 12 months? because of diaries but we usually have a good Professor Sir John Beddington: That’s actually quite attendance. Today we had 10. The Science Minister, a difficult question because I’m a modest man. I think David Willetts, comes to these occasionally. In fact, we have done well. I think you can see the benefit of he was at the breakfast meeting this morning, so it is a a lot of the ways in which the Government Office for good way of actually getting a proper network across Science has operated in the result of the CSR. I think Government of science and engineering. That is it was absolutely essential that we were able to another thing I would point to that is an on-going and provide at the highest level to the Government continuing success. appropriate information about the importance of the The other area that has expanded, and it was started science and engineering base in the country, and the in the previous year but I think it is now working very evidence base that was produced in part by the well, is the Government’s Science and Engineering Government Office for Science but also by Adrian Community. We now have well in excess of 3,000 Smith and his team in BIS has been enormously members. We’ve had regular meetings. My job as important in achieving what I believe to be a very head of the science and engineering profession in successful settlement. If you ask me what the Government has been recognised and we are taking it successes were in the Government Office for Science, forward. We have 3,000 or so fairly active members. I would point to that one as being reasonably We have had, I think, three conferences this year. important. Another one is planned for early next year, and we There are a number of things also which are of will have an on-going programme dealing with a importance. One of them is the acceptance by the whole range of matters. The forthcoming one is Civil Service Board that I should take up a programme actually on Science in the International Domain. One of reviews of the quality of science and engineering of the ones we had last year was, for example, across all Government Departments. To an extent, I Conveying Uncertainty in Science. So that’s another inherited that from my predecessor, Sir David King, area that I am proud of. but his reviews were of a rather different type and we I could go on but I will not, I promise you. I would are actually in the process of conducting those reviews also single out the Foresight work that is going very on all Departments, including those Departments well. We will be reporting on the Foresight Study on which you wouldn’t see, prima facie, as a major user the Future of Food and Farming almost certainly early of science, in the labcoat mathematics sense. Those in January. The work is pretty much finalised but I reviews have now extended, and I think that has been think we will be reporting on that in January. We have very successful, to involve other heads of analysis and a Foresight Study on Environmental Migration concerns. For example, we did a review of the looking at issues of the major drivers of Department for Education in which we had people environmental migration. That is likely to be reporting from the statistics field and the social science field as round about this time next year. We also had reports part of the review team. Those are on-going. during the year—one on Land Use and one on Mental We have had to slightly alter the programme. The aim Capital and Wellbeing. was to finish the entire period of reviews so that every We have just started and had the first meeting of the Government Department would have had a review by Lead Expert Group for the latest study, which is March 2011. Resource constraints, which you will be sponsored by Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Ev 2 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington looking at the future of computer trading in financial primarily a mathematical rather than a social science markets and posing questions about the increasing use background. So that has left a bit of a gap and this is of high speed computers, high speed trading and the work in progress. It is difficult. We have two people increasing proportion of trades on many markets who are heads of the social science research which are being done by algorithms rather than human profession in Government and they are doing an traders. We are posing too, in a sense, I suppose, excellent job. But I do think we need to be thinking engineering questions about the financial system. We about it. had our first meeting at the Bank of England this The attraction of this is that we now have a new head week. So that is where the Foresight Group is going. of the ESRC, Paul Boyle, with whom I have already Next week we will be publishing some work on had conversations about trying to engage with the Horizon Scanning, looking at new technologies which social science community to deal with some of these will have the potential for a significant benefit to big issues in Government. So I singled that one out as Britain—technologies where, essentially, the one area where I think “Could do better” would be a necessary conditions are that there is some degree of reasonable comment. comparative advantage in our science and engineering I won’t go on as long. I can think of other areas where base but also the potential for working forward. I could do better but I think they are more to do with Finally—and I do promise you, Chairman, that I will resources and so on. I don’t think we made what I then stop but you asked me a very open-ended would perceive as any significant mistakes and I don’t question—the Council for Science and Technology believe that we have actually had enormous omissions has put in a number of reports. In particular, the one other than those that are driven by resources. I would want to highlight is that on infrastructure, which has been accepted. The Treasury has now Q5 Chair: Should the Committee, perhaps, re-think responded. There is a programme on developing and its position on the desirability of a Chief Scientific looking at the future of our infrastructure. Brian Officer at the Treasury, or do you think the need is Collins, the Chief Scientific Adviser, both in BIS and even greater now? the Department for Transport, chaired an expert group Professor Sir John Beddington: I do believe it would at the Treasury this week to look at the problems of be sensible to have a Chief Scientific Adviser in the getting proper science and engineering advice and Treasury. It is a thing I have discussed with Nick how we develop the infrastructure in the UK. I will Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary in the Treasury. pause there, Chairman. In the run-up to the CSR I did have meetings with the Chair: That was very helpful. Senior Management Board of the Treasury, which Professor Sir John Beddington: I am very sorry, but Nick chairs. We were discussing primarily the Science it is a very open-ended question. Settlement and there are people in the Treasury who do absolutely know a lot about science and the Q3 Chair: Just to comment on the first part of your importance of science, but I don’t think that is a comments in terms of the settlement, it was interesting substitute for actually having somebody who comes to contrast your response there with David Willetts in from outside who has an appropriate external yesterday, who said that the science community, experience of science and engineering. I do think it is including the protesters outside the Treasury, did a still important. The last month or so has been quite good job. Perhaps all the science community did. busy, so it is not a thing I have been pursuing with Professor Sir John Beddington: I am very proud of much energy, I confess. the science community as a whole, Chairman. Q6 Roger Williams: I was very pleased that the Q4 Chair: In which areas do you think you could Comprehensive Spending Review process identified have improved your working? science as important in ensuring that the economy in Professor Sir John Beddington: I think the area this country flourishes. But, of course, it did have where I feel we could do better is actually making some more negative effects as well, particularly in certain that we link in better with the social science cutting administration. Could you perhaps say how analysis community. We have a number of cuts in administration might affect your particular role Departments where social science or statistics or, I and your department? suppose, economics are the main scientific activities Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes. We all have to and to an extent, historically, we have been neglecting recognise that we need to do more with less. Within that. We now have Chief Scientific Advisers in those my own department, it forms, as you will know, part departments, many of whom have a background of BIS, not in the sense that I report to BIS Ministers usually in economics, sometimes in statistics, but that but we are part of BIS, if you like, for pay and rations. is an area where, I believe, we need to build on it. The agreement I have within BIS is that we will be Social science needs to be built up more and I think taking exactly the same proportional cut on on that I could have done better. It is, arguably, a administration as it will. There will be no special question of resources. preferences. We were slightly presented with a difficult problem in Within my own department, obviously, we have a big the sense that Professor Paul Wiles, who was Chief agenda. One of the implications I mentioned earlier Scientific Adviser at the Home Office and also Head was that we are having to slow the pace of our reviews of Social Science in Government retired. We recruited of science and engineering in departments. That will Bernard Silverman as the Chief Scientific Adviser in take six months longer now than it would have done if the Home Office, but Bernard is a statistician, with we had not had to cut back on resources. The current cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 3

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington structure is that I have a deputy and four senior people What I am concerned about and I am actively engaged in the senior Civil Service who report via him to me. in at the moment is the research base—the I think that will drop from four to three, and 25% is universities, the science base and the research councils the figure. That, obviously, will present problems but and their institutes. Where we have not got agreed we will have to address it. funding and where we have not got, as it were, a ring- On the extent that I feel we are not viable, I don’t fence to defend that is within the research and believe that. I think we can deliver on what the development in Government Departments themselves. expectations are with a reduced group. I think the way So it was agreed earlier on this year by the new I am going to try to organise it is that some things coalition Government that where Departments were may take a bit longer, rather than us omitting things. actually having plans to cut their R&D spend they I think that is my philosophy of dealing with these would be required to consult with the Treasury and problems. myself. Most of the plans that were going up to the CSR were at too general a level to be able to actually Q7 Roger Williams: You have already said that there assess that. So I have discussed that with Nick may be a delay in a review of the effectiveness of Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary in the Treasury, scientific advice across the Departments. Are there and we will be starting a programme of engaging with any other particular areas, given the fact that BIS said each of the Departments over the next couple of it was going to reduce expenditure on administration months to look at their R&D spend and see how they are changing it. by £400 million? The key thing here is that we are trying to ensure that Professor Sir John Beddington: We will take our what is optimal for an individual Department is not proportional hit. My budget is of the order of £5 sub-optimal for the Government as a whole, because million, of that sort, so we will be taking a hit. It is cuts in one Department will have knock-on effects in early days yet. The CSR is just out. Quite how exactly another. So part of the job of the Treasury, and which that is going to be working needs still to be worked I will be taking on, is to ask questions about these out. I think the concerns I have are that we will have various proposals. to cut back in particular areas, we will have to make We will put a timetable really led by Departments. choices, but my aim will be that nothing is omitted. Some Departments have already well articulated their But sometimes it will take a little bit longer to actually plans and they are wanting to have that examination do. That will be the way I will try to address those starting very soon. We will probably be starting it at issues. the latest the week after next but probably next week. We will just have to explore the Departments. So that Q8 Roger Williams: Could you give us an overall process is going to be on-going. It will enable us to view on how the outcome of the Comprehensive look, at the end of that process, at what the overall Spending Review will affect UK science? science spend has been, not just in terms of the Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes. I can give you research councils but also in terms of the actual my view. I wouldn’t say it would be definitive, Mr science that goes on in Government Departments. At Williams. First of all, since the review, I have been the end of that process, I think we will be in a position talking to a lot of senior scientists and engineers out to indicate what that looks like. in the community. I have also had the opportunity to Quite clearly, given the administrative problems and talk to a number of senior industrialists. I think, by the overall cut to a number of Departments there will and large, the overall view is that this is an excellent be an issue in which they will be making choices. The settlement and shows its commitment to science and good thing, I think, is that at least we will have a engineering in taking it forward. chance for the Treasury and me to debate those In the context of how British science is, we have choices with them and pose issues about cross- always been highly productive but there are always Government work. going to be some efficiencies. I think over the next couple of months we have got to be thinking about Q9 Roger Williams: If you had real reservations ways of doing things in a more efficient and more about the way in which a particular Department was cost-effective manner. I think the message that it sends planning to continue expenditure and investment in out, though, in the context of a very significant science, how would you make your views known and reduction in Government spending, is that there is a where does the influence come along that line? flat-cash settlement and potential efficiency savings. I Professor Sir John Beddington: I would, first of all, think Bill Wakeham identified some in his Review of make it known to the Permanent Secretary. Physics where we could actually improve things. Some of the assistance in terms of some of the capital Q10 Roger Williams: In the Department? spend, the £200 million from the Department of Professor Sir John Beddington: In the Department Health going into the CMRI, will also help things. concerned and say, “Look, I’m really worried about I think it is looking attractive. If you look across to this for the following reasons”, and, hopefully, one other areas, one of the major spenders in R&D is the could have a debate that would resolve it. That would Ministry of Defence. You would have to talk to the be the first way. Permanent Secretaries will have a Ministry for exact details—I don’t think it is publicly letter. They know this is happening and will be known—but my understanding is that there is a expecting it. relatively good settlement for R&D at the Ministry In the event that there was a real problem, and I of Defence. suspect the main problem will be cross-Government, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Ev 4 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington

I would try to engage the discussion between the that we expect to occur, which are complete Permanent Secretaries in the Departments concerned independence, the ability to report and, if necessary, to widen it and hope to get it resolved there. report at the highest level within the Department. Ultimately, I suppose, it is a question for Ministers I am reassured at the moment, Mr Williams, and I to decide. Then I would raise it with the appropriate hope that it works out as well as I hope it will. Secretaries of State. That doesn’t mean to say they would agree with me but I do, at least, have the Q12 Roger Williams: I recently visited the John measures to raise the issue and have a rational Innes campus in Norwich and I was very impressed discussion about it. I think the fact that this is being with the work that they are doing there. They have done jointly with the Treasury is obviously important. just set up a new genome facility there. They spoke very highly of the partnership between the research Q11 Roger Williams: People have argued that one councils, the RDAs and the local authority to get that of the strengths of the system of quangos that we have facility established and put on a commercial basis. had in this country is that Government were able to With the abolition of the RDAs, do you think this receive very independent scientific advice on some will affect that type of development and UK science difficult issues. The perception amongst the people of in general? this country was that that was independent. There are Professor Sir John Beddington: I hope not. I know proposals to reduce the number of quangos that would another Committee has talked to David Willetts about give that sort of advice. What are your views on that? the RDA issue. This is work in progress in the sense Professor Sir John Beddington: I engaged very early that some of the RDA money will be going through on with the Cabinet Office in these discussions. One into the Technology Strategy Board. Decisions on of the main issues is that, first of all, some of the actual allocations to individual RDAs are still being organisations had lost their function. So I think that discussed, but I would hope that these entities like the the closure of those will have no particular deleterious John Innes, which are quite clearly world-leading, effect and in fact the benefit of some money-saving. have got to be preserved in the best way we can and However, quite clearly, across Government there are enhanced, indeed. Given that the John Innes is an a number of areas where we do need independent institute of the BBSRC, the funding will, at the very scientific advice. What I have actually got is a least, help on that. complete assurance that where there has hitherto been, I should add in, as a personal anecdote, that the new as it were, a non-department public body—a quango, director was a student of mine at the University of if you will—providing scientific advice, if the terms York a long time ago. To show how much better than of reference of that are moved to the Department and me he was, we both got elected to the Royal Society you have, as it were, within particular Departments an in the same year. advisory committee, those committees will still operate in exactly the way that is determined by the Q13 Chair: In terms of the departmental budgets, as COPSAC formula that we have actually set out and they become clear, in the interests of transparency, it by the principles for underlying scientific advice to would be extremely helpful if you could let this Government, which were accepted by the previous Committee know so we have a good picture starting Government and have been endorsed by the current to emerge because, clearly, we need to look at the Government and, indeed, incorporated in the impact of the CSR in the round, not just in the Ministerial Code. To the extent that those are context of— assurances, I am comfortable. Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes. I am happy to I held a meeting with the chairs of all the Science give you that assurance, Chairman. I think the only Advisory Committees prior to these announcements slight caveat has been that because of the cross- and indicated to them that this was broadly what I was Government nature of some of the discussions—for expecting and suggested that if there were cases to the the sake of argument, we are going to look at DEFRA chairs of these committees that there were problems next week, but there are implications of DEFRA’s they should initially take it up with the chief scientific decisions for another Department—it will take a adviser in their Department but also copy me in. I while. So I don’t think it would be appropriate to be have had a couple of pieces of correspondence where reporting after each one, but what I would hope to do there have been areas, but by and large they seem to is to give you a very clear idea in the round after we have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. have completed that process. So it is a very different looking arena but I feel confident that, at the moment, the assurances are there Q14 Graham Stringer: I don’t want to make a to ensure that there is no undermining of scientific special pleading for any quangos. The Government advice. The issue that “We only want scientific advice may not have gone far enough, as far as I am when it is convenient” I don’t think is going to be concerned, in getting rid of them. Of course you know the case. what is coming next. I’m going to make a special plea. What I would plan to do, though, is to continue to It is difficult to see how the Human Fertilisation and have meetings with the chairs of these committees on Embryology Authority will continue to work as well a regular basis and actually say to them, “Look, if you if it is absorbed into the Department of Health. Do have problems, please let me know and I will take it you agree with that? up initially with your chief scientific adviser and then, Professor Sir John Beddington: I think the straight subsequently, perm secs and so on” because I think it answer is that I don’t know. I hope it will. There are is absolutely essential that you have the sort of things the sort of assurances that I have actually had from cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 5

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington the Cabinet Office and from the Department of Health. that both the previous Government and the current I think the question would be that, if we feel it is not Government are committed to evidence—including working as well, then that needs to be drawn to the scientific evidence—based policy, and I think that is attention of both the Chief Scientist in the Department accepted. I think both the current Government and the of Health and myself, and we will look at it. At the previous Government were significantly committed to moment I wouldn’t want to say, a priori, Mr Stringer, the importance of the role of science and engineering that this will necessarily be a problem. The straight in the British economy and the ability to actually answer is I don’t know. I can understand the concerns. generate growth in the economy was recognised by I think the thing that would be so important here both Governments. So I don’t think there are any would be independence and the clear ability to significant changes there. actually make reports that are independent of the I have had very good access to Secretaries of State underlying Department. and the Prime Minister. I saw the Prime Minister about four or five weeks after the election with a one- Q15 Graham Stringer: Independence and speed of to-one interview at his request. I have subsequently decision when it comes to authorising stem cell seen a number of Secretaries of State. So I am not research and other issues. It is going to be much more seeing any change in the ability to get access at the difficult in the middle of a political Department, isn’t highest level in Government. I think it’s one of the it, to take those decisions independently and quickly. benefits of our system, really. Professor Sir John Beddington: If that does become In North America and in the United States, when there a problem, I will discuss it with the Department of is a change of Government, their Chief Scientific Health and see whether we can actually address that Adviser changes as well. So my equivalent in the problem. I understand your concerns. They are, if you USA, John Holdren, is essentially an Obama like, common sense concerns, but we can look at that appointee. If President Obama moves on, then a new as a problem and I will raise this, following this President will appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser. I remark, with David Harper and Sally Davies in the have been happily working for the previous Prime Department of Health, and say, “These are concerns. Minister and the current one and will continue. I think How will you address them?” that continuity gives our system an advantage over the one in the USA. In general, the obvious issue has been Q16 Chair: Again, we would be interested in those the fact that there was a significant determination to implications with other quangos that interface with cut Government spending by the incoming science—how you will manage the independence Government, and I think that that, obviously, had a aspects. Again, following on Graham’s remarks, it potential danger of indicating that science might lose would be helpful if you would keep us abreast of out. The results, as I said at the very start of it, show broader discussions. that the Government are committed to the importance Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes. Prior to this, of science and engineering. there were something like 65 such bodies in Government as a whole. My fear is that, if there is something that is really urgent and seems to be going Q18 Stephen Metcalfe: I would like to look at the wrong, then I should be addressing those immediately Foresight and the Horizon Scanning Programmes, if and trying to deal with them. But, in general, it is we may. You touched on those a bit earlier. Certainly important to get an overall picture of how it is on the Foresight Programme, following the spending working. So perhaps one of the things I might usefully review, do you see changes in the work that you are do is come back to you round about now next year undertaking on that side of things? Will it have an with a view to saying, “This is my overall assessment. impact on it or have you allowed for that already in This is what is happening”, and I would be happy to what you are doing? take that on as an obligation. Professor Sir John Beddington: I think our resources I think I would have some nervousness about giving are somewhat less, and we would expect that to be so. you responses in the interim, let’s say, by Easter or In terms of administrative structure, I think we are something, because I just don’t think the full picture trying to resolve it so that the Horizon Scanning work, is out there. But if there are particular problems that which was almost independent from the Foresight, I are identified I would be more than happy to come think that was not a sensible way of running the and discuss those particular problems if anyone has operation. So we are getting efficiencies by largely raised them with me at any time. amalgamating the Horizon Scanning work with the Foresight work. They are very similar. So that is part Q17 Stephen Mosley: So far, Sir John, you have of the administrative response to that issue. given some very detailed answers to some quite I don’t feel at the present that we will be producing, specific questions. Can I look at the bigger picture a on average, less Foresight reports than we have in the bit here and ask this? With the change of Government, past. One of the things that I was slightly concerned how do you feel that that has affected the role, the about was the length, size and duration of some of the work and the aspirations of the Government Office for Foresight reports. We have one Foresight report which Science? Indeed, how do you view the way that the is operating on a much faster time scale than new Government does science, and does this differ in previously, which is looking at international climate any way from the way that its predecessor worked? change and its effect on the UK. That is operating, Professor Sir John Beddington: I wouldn’t say that probably, from start to finish, it will be about a year there is anything fundamentally different in the sense as opposed to some of the other Foresight projects cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Ev 6 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington which, typically, run nearly to two years, so we are attractive technologies, that we will be addressing addressing that. them and seeking to see whether there is an appetite In terms of deciding what next, as I mentioned, we for investment in them or, indeed, to stimulate that have the project on looking at computer trading in investment. I see it very much as providing useful markets. That’s just started. We will be looking to start information for decisions made by the Technology another project in the next three or four months, and Strategy Board, by BIS and so on. So that is operating. we are in the process of consulting fairly widely about That has been a substantial project, as you might where there could be most benefit. We will be seeking imagine, surveying the potential roles. the views of a whole series of stakeholders, as we In terms of what is in the pipeline, we haven’t decided usually do, looking at shortlists and then having some yet. We were waiting to see what the CSR was before discussion about what we should do next. To that we did it. Horizon Scanning projects are of a much extent, we are open for business but we don’t know shorter duration than Foresight, so they can be turned quite where we are going. on and off rather more easily. We will be looking In terms of the results, one of the good things, I think, about taking that forward now. about the Foresight Programme is that it just doesn’t stop when there is a report on the shelf. We have a Q20 Stephen Metcalfe: Is there anything particularly team that is involved in following up the individual that you, though, think we should be looking at on the reports so that they have some impact. That I feel very Horizon Scanning Programmes? comfortable with. The Food and Farming is the one Professor Sir John Beddington: That’s an interesting that is going to be reporting probably in the new year. question. We have been looking at food generally, at It is obviously of international scope. There are a climate change generally, but I do think that the whole whole series of events and engagement at the issue of water is rising up the agenda. I believe that international level that we are seeking to have water needs to be looked at seriously. There is a following that theme. For example, I will be making question whether that should be done by asking about some presentations in North America at the AAAS particular areas. For example, with Horizon Scanning, meeting in February on the Foresight Report. We are where are we with water? Have we got technologies already engaging with the World Bank where it is which will actually address significant problems? concerned about the future of farming and the Some of them are already addressed. For example, agricultural sector generally. So we will be doing a lot you know, there are programmes to look at plants that of engagement. That will certainly not be reduced. I are tolerant to saline or drought conditions. That is think that is rather important. happening. But I am not sure that, with water, There are some interesting issues. We need to ponder particularly, for example, in hygiene and the fact that a little bit on the Foresight process. At the moment, we have major issues of urbanisation in the world and we have historically looked at, typically, maybe 50 that the number of people living in urban communities years ahead—40 or 50. So the Food and Farming one is increasing and is expected to be about 60% over is looking out to 2050. I think there is an argument the next 20 years, we have a way of actually looking that we should be having projects that look at a properly in the different environments at water, both slightly shorter time scale. For example, in food, I in terms of technology but also in terms of think that the time scale to 2030 is extremely management. So I think that is one that is in the important. Of course the ability to address uncertainty forebrain, and I will be posing a question, why don’t is actually rather better the nearer you look into the we look at water, at some stage? If there is a good future. I don’t want a Foresight study which looks at answer I will accept that answer, but it is one of the the next three years. That would be absurd, but I do questions I will be posing to the team. think we probably need to be addressing slightly shorter time scales as part of the process. So Food and Q21 Pamela Nash: The recent GO-Science’s SEA Farming will look to 2030 but also beyond to 2050. Review into the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills reported that scientific and engineering Q19 Stephen Metcalfe: Does that mean that the advice was not given the priority that it should be Horizon Scanning Programme is looking further into given. Did this come as a surprise to you? the future now or is it just looking at different things? Professor Sir John Beddington: I’m really sorry. Is it a question of time or is it a question of subject Could you say that again? I’m slightly deaf in my left matter? On the Horizon Scanning, could you give us ear. I will turn round and give you my best right ear. some examples of the sort of areas that you are looking at at the moment, just briefly, just project Q22 Pamela Nash: The recent report “Government outlines? Office for Science’s Science and Engineering Professor Sir John Beddington: The one that will Assurance Review of the Department for BIS”, which report next week is looking at the technologies which was published earlier this month, showed that the could, arguably, benefit Britain, where we have scientific and engineering advice wasn’t given the competitive advantage and so on, where there is a priority that it should be given. Did that surprise you? market out there. In fact we will have a list of Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes, I think it’s a something in the order of 50 technologies, of which real concern. We have had an issue in BIS that the 15 or 20 we are singling out as being particularly Permanent Secretary of BIS moved off to run the attractive. We will be expecting to do something like Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Simon Fraser. that. The time scale of those will vary in the sense So his temporary successor inherited that review. I that we might be expecting, if we have particularly met with Martin Donnelly, who is now the appointed cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 7

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington

Permanent Secretary in BIS, and said, “We have could be done better. That we will have to see. So, in serious concerns about the science and engineering a ranking, I would say that BIS has a problem, work that is actually being done in BIS.” One of the Transport has slightly less of a problem and Education recommendations of that review—and it was very came out very well. clear; we had a very distinguished panel—was that they were extremely concerned about the quality of Q24 Chair: Just as an aside to that, with the move science and engineering advice, not that they were of the Perm Sec to the FCO, did he take with him a criticising the Chief Scientific Adviser, Brian Collins, good understanding of the need to have good science who they thought was doing an excellent job, but they counsellors in our principal embassies? Given the cuts really felt that the resources that had been devoted to that are going on, do you think that is going to be science and engineering within BIS were inadequate. a problem? I discussed that with Philip Rutnam, who was the Professor Sir John Beddington: Obviously, I talked Acting Perm Sec, fairly early on as soon as the report to Simon Fraser about this and Adrian Smith, where was out. His view was, “I note this, but I’m the Acting the international unit is embedded, and I think we all Permanent Secretary and this is a problem that my recognise how important it is to have that group out successor will have to take.” I will be engaging with there. I think the change in focus of the Foreign Office Martin Donnelly on that in some detail. We have to actually engage in trade speaks to the need to have, already discussed it briefly and we will be thinking if anything, more people and perhaps with a slightly about ways to do it. Of course in the context of different pattern of locations. That’s work in progress. significant administrative cuts it presents difficult David Clary, who is the Chief Scientific Adviser in problems, but I do believe that the recommendations the Foreign Office, will be working closely with from the panel were unequivocally that BIS needs to Simon Fraser. We will wait and see but the agenda is devote more science and engineering resources within there. I think the importance that the Foreign BIS, largely to enhance the role of the Chief Scientific Secretary has placed on using the Foreign Office to Adviser and his team. I think that is where we are at help UK trade and UK exports means that we have the moment. It is work in progress, Ms Nash, but you got to engage in these ways. can be assured that I will be continuing to engage with While we are talking on the international level, I will the BIS Permanent Secretary and his staff. be shortly going, in November, to a meeting of the Carnegie Group, which is the G8+5 now, which is a Q23 Pamela Nash: Do you find similar problems in meeting of Chief Scientific Advisers but also Science the Departments for Transport and Education in Ministers from the G8+5. That is a forum where we those reviews? actually do get the opportunity to discuss at a fairly Professor Sir John Beddington: The Department for high level the sort of priorities we see for science and Education—I think the review of that came out and it engineering into the future. was truly excellent. The review is published. That was Also, quite clearly, we need to engage with key a review that did not involve, primarily, natural economies to develop scientific co-operation. During science, obviously. There we were able to get social last year I signed a Memorandum of Understanding scientists, statisticians and economists involved to with the Thai Government for increased enhanced co- assess the quality of the work, so it was wider than operation between Thailand and the UK. That has pure science. We got inputs from the other heads of moved on. There are a number of things we could analysis, particularly in statistics. The point to of that success. I had signed one in the recommendations were that the work was pretty previous year in Brazil, and we have already got some excellent. There were a number of recommendations excellent co-operative work with Brazil. Clearly, we but these were not, “We are very worried”-type recommendations. They were, “Well done. Would you have a Science Commission with Japan, we have one think about doing something like that?” with Russia, we have one with China and we have Transport was somewhere between the two. There one with India. All of those are on-going and we meet were issues raised in transport. I think I will be regularly, sometimes every year, sometimes every two discussing those, and I have already had a discussion years. So there is quite a lot going on, as it were, with the then Permanent Secretary. A bit of a move within my own office as well as the network. around is going on at the moment. I had a meeting The SIN network has been fantastic in supporting with Robert Devereux about our recommendations. these sorts of things and I have nothing but very high He accepted the recommendations but indicated that, praise for them. with the Spending Review, the response of the Department for Transport to those recommendations Q25 Graham Stringer: When you were before our would have to wait a little while. That is understood. predecessor Committee, you said that global warming They will be looking at it and we will be engaging is happening. It is induced by human activity. This is with them. Robert Devereux, as has been announced, unchallengeable. Given that the Royal Society has re- will be moving to the Department for Work and written or clarified its position—perhaps that is a Pensions as Permanent Secretary there. His successor better word—on global warming and put it in terms in the Department for Transport has not been more of probabilities rather than certainties, and New announced yet. I suspect that this is going to be Scientist seems to tell us that the physical laws change slightly work in progress until the Permanent depending on which direction you are looking in the Secretary settles in. I think the recommendations from last edition, is it wise to be so certain? There is no the panel were that there were a number of things that ambiguity or probability in your study at all. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Ev 8 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington

Professor Sir John Beddington: I could have David Willetts has actually charged Adrian Smith and caveated it and said, “This is almost certain” or “It’s me to examine this issue in a lot more detail, looking nearly unequivocal”, but, actually, I think that would at the complexities, and that is work in progress. be playing with words, Mr Stringer. There are a lot of Maybe we will announce a consultation but that hasn’t uncertainties in climate science, but I don’t think there been firmly decided. But, certainly, I think that is a are uncertainties about some of the basic physics and real issue. some of the basic information. I think those are the In the case of some of the climate data, the problem things that are clarified in the Royal Society’s report you have is that the collection of these kind of data as being completely unambiguous. was actually taken on the basis of some degree of You may be aware that, on the Government Office of confidentiality. This was given to the Met Office and Science’s website I have set up a whole series of said, “You are very welcome to work with it, but it’s pieces of scientific information which go to the global our data and you mustn’t pass it on to a third party.” warming issue. We’ve put this out for comment. It’s That is a problem, obviously, and we are actually very much John Beddington’s review of the science, dealing with it. The question is: should we refuse such having talked to the climate scientists in its data? I don’t think we should. I think we should use compilation. We have not had anyone as yet write in it as best we can, but there are quite thorny issues and say, “This is nonsense”, which I would not claim out there and I don’t have any slick answers on it at won’t happen, and possibly me making that statement the moment. will virtually guarantee that I will be getting such commentary. I think the general picture is this. I think that the fundamentals of the physics, of the Q27 Chair: You recall the Council for Science and amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases Technology’s reports on how academia and that have been going into the atmosphere, the general Government can work together in 2008? issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and Professor Sir John Beddington: Yes. so on, are all pretty unequivocal. There is, obviously, a scientific uncertainty in all matters, but I feel that Q28 Chair: In this seamless transition that there has that science is pretty much unchallengeable at the been from the old Government to the new one, moment. Things may change. It is not impossible that perhaps even with you steering the ship there in the there will be a totally different understanding. I don’t field of science, has the 10-point plan been accepted believe that is very likely. These things are examined by the incoming Government? enormously carefully, but it’s not to say that there is Professor Sir John Beddington: I am sorry, no uncertainty. The big uncertainties are, obviously, to Chairman. The bell rang just when your final question do with the shorter time scales. The ability to actually started. I got the preamble but it was the actual predict weather is a problem because of the question. fundamental characteristics of the weather system. Climate is the statistics of weather. That point is that Q29 Chair: You will recall that the report had a 10- we will always have uncertainties. I think the key point action plan. Has that been accepted by the thing here is that we are fairly open with those incoming Government? uncertainties. Professor Sir John Beddington: I can’t comment on In terms of the scientific process, I think you have heard me say before that the climate science could, that, Chairman. If I may, I’ll get back to you. First of all, embarrassingly, I don’t remember those 10 points, with merit, be more transparent, that data, where it is 1 freely available, should be made available for people but, if I may, I’ll write to you and respond to that. to look at it because it is such an important issue for policy. So, on that, I am very strongly in favour. Q30 Chair: And also some assessment of what you would expect to see from the implementation of Q26 Graham Stringer: What do you think the those recommendations? implications for the Freedom of Information Act are Professor Sir John Beddington: If I may, I’ll write to from the reviews into the University of East Anglia you. I feel reasonably pleased about the way that the affair? Apart from freedom of information, are there CST has gone, that their infrastructure report has been any other things that you would like to say about that? accepted, the report on the relationship with academia Professor Sir John Beddington: I won’t comment on and Government has been accepted, I think, in the East Anglia. I think that has been a well-worn area of round, but those particular recommendations I’ll write discussion in terms of the East Anglian e-mails. But to you about, if I may. in terms of the scientific data, I think there are some really quite difficult issues. First of all, I think the Q31 Graham Stringer: This Government like the basic principle is that, if it is publicly funded science, last Government may think that their policies are then the data should be available. This is funded by evidence-based. Why on earth are we still funding taxpayers; it should be available. Within that, there are homeopathy? obviously some constraints on timing. I think we need Professor Sir John Beddington: I talked to your to be pondering quite how data collected on, say, a predecessor Committee, and you, Mr Stringer and particular research grant—you do at least give the others on this. I think I can say as follows. I have principal investigator a chance to publish it first, but made it completely clear, and I believe a number of then the data should be available. I think there are some quite thorny issues there. 1 Ev 10 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:44] Job: 007450 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/007450/007450_S&T 101027 GO-Science HC 546-i FINAL.xml

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 9

27 October 2010 Professor Sir John Beddington colleagues have, that there is no scientific basis for the public will think there is real efficacy for some of homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and there are the serious conditions. I believe we have to work on serious concerns about its efficacy. that and make clear that this is not correct. I have discussed this at meetings with the new I was particularly worried when there were reports Ministers and Secretary of State of Health and coming out that certain private homeopathic indicated that. Decisions have been taken which are practitioners in Scotland had actually been indicating to do with public choice which are actually beyond that there were homeopathic remedies or vaccines for the realm of science, but I can give you an assurance some of the rather serious diseases. Indeed, I that there is no ambiguity in the scientific advice that understand that there is some poor man who actually the Department of Health is getting. We do not believe used a homeopathic vaccine for malaria shortly before there is any scientific basis for homeopathy beyond a he caught malaria. This is the sort of thing that we placebo effect. I think it is really important that we need to be thinking about. Whether it is illegal or not think about the communication issues, and the fact I can’t judge, but it is certainly completely that homeopathy is still being funded by the unacceptable as a practice. Department of Health through the National Health Chair: Thank you very much for attending this Service. We have to put that in the context that there morning, Sir John. We look forward to meeting you is no real evidence for efficacy. There is a danger that again shortly. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:43] Job: 007450 Unit: PG02

Ev 10 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

Written evidence

Letter from Professor Sir John Beddington to the Chair of the Committee, 2 December 2010 Academia and Government Working Together During my evidence session before the HoC S&T select committee on the 27 October the Committee expressed interest in the response to the CST report How Academia and Government can Work Together and the recommendations it posed. Specifically I was asked if the 10-point Action Plan had been accepted by the incoming Government, and what we might expect to see from the implementation of those recommendations. I agreed to respond in writing after consulting David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science. In setting out their findings and recommendations the CST concluded that there is a great deal of good will between academics and policy makers. The CST also recognised that much had already been achieved through the Government investing in a world-class science base, appointing Chief Scientific Advisors in Government departments and clearly committing to evidence based policy. However, the report identified four areas for improvement: — The working relationships between academics and policy-makers needs to be more professional. — There is some ignorance on both sides of what good engagement can deliver, and both sides can fail to value the relationship. — Both sides needing to better appreciate the constraints that each is operating under—and not just time pressures, though these can be important. They need to keep open dialogue going throughout and mutual trust is crucial. — Both sides needing to recognise ways to value the relationship based on beneficial outcomes. Creative solutions are needed from both sides. In response to this report the Government Office for Science developed a 10 point action plan which is attached at Annex 1. This was published on the GO-Science website in July 2009. Since then the actions have been co-ordinated by the Government Office for Science working with delivery partners and other key stakeholders. The CST and Government are of the shared understanding that this is a wide ranging and long term agenda, and therefore the planned actions are in various stages of development and delivery. Ultimately, the action plan promotes good practice in policy making in line with the established priorities of GO-Science, BIS and the Cabinet Office. We should expect to see better policy development and delivery as a result of demonstrably closer working between Whitehall and Academia, in the short and long term. As previously indicated, I have discussed the CST Recommendations and Action Plan with Mr Willetts and he is supportive of the need to improve the ways in which Government and Academia can work together in order to improve the evidence base underpinning government policy development and delivery. He agrees that this remains as important, and cost-effective, in today’s challenging times as it was when CST completed their report. Professor Sir John Beddington Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Head, Government Office for Science 2 December 2010

Annex 1 STRENGTHENING ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND GOVERNMENT ACTION PLAN The Council for Science and Technology’s report How Academia and Government can Work Together1 identifies opportunities to promote the use of academic research in policy making. The report makes recommendations to both academia and Government to strengthen engagement by focusing action in three areas: — Build relationships and communication. — Build capacity to ensure a more productive engagement. — Rate, value and reward the engagement. The Government welcomes the Council for Science and Technology report and accepts its recommendations. This 10 point action plan sets out how the report will be implemented. The actions will be co-ordinated by the Government Office for Science in partnership with key stakeholders. The action plan identifies new approaches to be piloted and opportunities to enhance ongoing activities with the aim of strengthening engagement between academic research and Government policy making. The pilots 1 CST (2008) www.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/#Academia cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:43] Job: 007450 Unit: PG02

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 11

will be reviewed by the Government Office for Science and an initial report on what has been learned will be published by the summer of 2010. The action plan also aims to enhance communication among key stakeholders to promote more co-ordinated, coherent and effective approaches to strengthening engagement between academia and Government.

Build Relationships and Communication 1. Promote placements for civil servants to academia — Work with the Government Science and Engineering Profession to launch a pilot programme to place civil servants in academia. Based on experience gained during the pilot explore ways to extend the placement scheme to the wider civil service. Explore the potential for civil servant placements to support those Higher Education Institutions developing new capabilities and structures for engaging with Government (see Action 7).

2. Promote National Academy pairing schemes — Work with the Royal Society to support its pairing scheme between scientists and civil servants. — Work with the British Academy and Royal Academy of Engineering to explore establishing equivalent pairing schemes.

3. Work with Research Councils to support placements from academia to Government — Work with RCUK to develop and extend across Research Councils placement schemes enabling academics to spend time in Government, building on the public policy placement schemes run by ESRC, NERC and AHRC. — Work with Research Councils to build on the success of research council funded PhD policy internships, in the context of the overall effort to build the skills of future PhD students.

Build Capacity to Ensure a More Productive Engagement 4. Include awareness of the research process as part of Civil Service training — Work with the National School of Government to ensure that training provided on the analysis and use of evidence includes awareness of the research process and practical steps for engaging with academic research. In the first instance review how these topics are included within Fast Stream training and the Top Management Programme.

5. Support Heads of Analysis, Scientific Advisory Councils, Departmental Chief Scientific Advisors in their role as promoters of engagement between academia and Government — Work with the Heads of Analysis Group to strengthen the role of the Government analytical professions in contributing to policy making. — Support the community of Departmental Chief Scientific Advisors through promoting effective networking and sharing of good practice. — Work with Departments to explore the potential to establish Science Advisory Councils across a broader range of Departments, and support the sharing of good practice.

6. Revise Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making — Include updated guidance on working with academia and other external research organisations. Through the guidelines promote the use of National Academies, other learned societies and Research Councils as sources of expert advice.

7. Support universities as they seek to improve their capabilities and structures for engaging with Government — Work with Higher Education Funding Councils to explore how well dedicated knowledge transfer funds (such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund) are being used to support knowledge transfer from academia to Government. — Work with knowledge transfer professionals to promote the sharing of good practice in academic engagement with Government. — Promote the placement of civil servants to those Higher Education Institutions, National Academies and other learned societies that are seeking to improve their engagement with Government policy making (see Action 1). — Work with Higher Education Institutions, National Academies and other learned societies to identify and share examples of good practice in training and guidance on how Government works and how to engage effectively with policy makers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [13-01-2011 09:43] Job: 007450 Unit: PG02

Ev 12 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

Rate, Value and Reward the Engagement 8. Raise the profile of skills that policy makers acquire through engaging with academia — Strengthen the "analysis and use of evidence" core skill in the Professional Skills for Government competency framework, including by working with the Government Heads of Analysis Group, Government Skills and other key stakeholders to identify good practice in engaging with external sources of research.

9. Include engagement with external research in the Science and Engineering Assurance exercise — Ensure that Government departments have in place the capability, systems and culture to access, quality assure and use science effectively. — Work with all Government analytical professions to ensure that the importance of engagement with external sources of research is recognised and assessed through departmental self-evaluation. — Ensure that Government departments act on results of the self-evaluation of analytical capabilities through Government Heads of Analysis Group input into departmental Capability reviews.

10. Promote the recognition of policy engagement as a valued part of academic careers — Work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and other stakeholders to ensure that policy engagement is explicitly valued in the Research Excellence Framework. ACTIONS AGAINST CST RECOMMENDATIONS CST Recommendations (core recommendations in bold) Actions

1: World-class internship and secondment schemes 1, 2, 3 2: Support networks between academics and policy-makers 1, 2, 3, 7 3: Training courses for both academics and policy makers 4, 7 4: Empower Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers, Scientific Advisory Councils, 5 and Heads of Analysis 5: Universities to improve their capabilities for engaging with Government 7 6: Government should make greater use of bodies such as Learned Societies, CST and the 2, 6, 7 Research Councils 7: Highlight the importance of the social sciences to Government policy 4, 5, 6 8: Promote effective knowledge management within the Civil Service 5, 9 9: Government should play close attention to the outcomes of the Departmental Science 9 Assurance exercises 10: Strengthen role of Heads of Analysis Group 5 11: Government should support and engage with universities setting up structures to liaise 1, 7 directly with Government 12: Identify criteria to assess quality within the major categories of academic 10 engagement with Government 13: Recognise and reward engagement with Government through academic career 10 development 14: Officials engaging with academia should have the skills they learn valued and 8 rewarded in their career progression 15: Guidelines on remuneration should be established 5

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St. Clement’s House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ –Fax 01603 723000

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 1/2011 7450 19585