Tomorrow’s Giants

1 July 2010 Hosted at Southbank Centre, London, by the Royal Society and Nature Introduction

Tomorrow’s Giants was a one day conference in July 2010, The three themes of the conference were: hosted by the Royal Society and Nature which brought Data together scientists and policymakers to gather a vision The challenge of curating and supporting databases of the next 50 years in science and discuss what would in the future and ethical concerns around the storage be needed to enable academic achievement of the highest and management of certain types of data. quality in the future. The conference was part of See Further: The Festival of Science + Arts which took place at Southbank Careers Centre, London to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Mechanisms for providing security and support for Royal Society. research careers. Over 200 scientists attended the event to discuss their Measuring and assessment future alongside a series of eminent speakers and leading The use of performance indicators and the challenge decision-makers. Professor Robin Williams (Director of of having appropriate checks without inhibiting research. the Research Centre for Social Sciences at the University This report outlines the main issues examined by Tomorrow’s of Edinburgh) Professor Dame Sally C Davies (Director Giants – which were those issues highlighted by researchers General of Research and Development and Chief Scientific who took part in seven regional workshops held by the Adviser for the Department of Health and NHS) and Professor Royal Society during the year leading up to the event. David Sweeney (Director (Research, Innovation and Skills) Nature also hosted an online forum which enabled at the Higher Education Funding Council for England) led discussions to continue after the meetings, and allowed breakout sessions; Professor Sir John Beringer (Former those who could not attend to have a voice. In total, over Pro Vice-Chancellor, ), Professor Julia 300 early stage career scientists across all disciplines Goodfellow CBE (Vice-Chancellor, ), took part in the consultation process and conference. Professor Tony Hey (Corporate Vice President of External The organising committee, Nature and the Royal Society Research, Microsoft), Dr Terence Kealey (Vice-Chancellor, programmed the conference according to the consultation ), Professor Adrian F M Smith FRS of the young researchers, as the Royal Society and Nature (Director General, Science and Research, Department for wanted to ensure the conference targeted the subjects Business Innovation and Skills) and David Willetts MP that early career scientists ‘tomorrow’s giants’ were (Minister of State for Universities and Science) took part most concerned about. in a panel discussion; and Professor Dame Wendy Hall FRS (University of Southampton) delivered an inspiring keynote speech. Forum Feedback

When given a list of issues to highlight to policy makers, respondents to the Careers Tomorrow’s Giants survey identified the following statement as being the most In a session led by Professor Dame Sally C Davies (Director General of Research and Development important relating to this theme: and Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health and NHS) scientists discussed the question “There are too many competing “What do we need to be successful?” demands on a scientist’s time for example, teaching, policy, The general theme for the discussion that followed was the career path needs to be taken. A non-traditional path could communicating, administration, importance of stability and continuity in a research career. As in fact help a researcher to become equipped with skills they had been the case in discussions around the country leading up would not gain by taking a traditional route and which might grant-writing, supervising etc to the conference, scientists raised the question of whether a give them advantages over other researchers. These negative and these are impacting on greater degree of stability could be offered. Multiple short term views could be discouraging some excellent scientists from scientists ability to actually contracts are not attractive to those who want geographical continuing in research. carry out their research.” or career stability. Many agreed that establishing a scientific In terms of career freedom there were also concerns about career took time and therefore this uncertainty was a threat the impact agenda, especially as some considered this to be to research, recruitment and retention. a driver towards a short term view. Combined with a push Whilst it was commonly accepted that good levels of training towards greater industrial involvement in projects, it was and mentoring were available, there were calls for other support. apparent that scientists felt a general tension between The importance of retaining highly skilled technical staff was investigating current issues and pursuing longer term highlighted. Given that not everyone could be, or even want targets that had the potential to yield genuinely ground to be, a Principal Investigator, could a range of attractive career breaking results. In questioning the relevance of the impact options be developed for the many excellent scientists not agenda it was commented that “good science always has, wishing to advance beyond postdoctoral level, but are none and will continue to have, an impact.” On a similar note in the less vital to their research groups. the concluding panel session, David Willetts MP expressed the view that, “The main issue is not the impact, but the The gender gap issue was raised and several expressed their impact agenda – the system of measuring and describing frustration at there still being a working culture within institutions social impact. I’m actually rather sympathetic to the argument that was unwilling to accept the realities and necessities of that there should be less of that bureaucracy, but people will parenthood. Furthermore, the negative perception of career always need to account for public money.” breaks – whether for raising a family or any other reason – also needs to be addressed. There is no reason why a traditional

Continued Online forum comments: “It is a major concern of all doing research that they are facing conflicting demands due to the diverse responsibilities (teaching, Careers (continued) research, administration). The impact of each of these is leading to a sense of On the issue of intellectual freedom, there was debate about In concluding, Professor Davies expressed concern about disillusionment that we are trying to the extent to which funding bodies were facilitating or directing recurring views regarding scientists’ expectations around do too much and the quality of each is research. Many indicated a preference for the facilitator mode, the varied and numerous elements in their career. suffering.” (Dr Philip Williamson, University indicating that this was more likely to encourage and foster of Southampton) Communications, teaching, policy, preparing grant proposals tomorrow’s giants. After the event one of the panel members, and supervising were considered to be time-consuming as “As a university lecturer, the many Professor Sir John Beringer, commented: “We need to examine well as requiring specialist skill sets. Are modern scientists demands on my time and my desire how to adjust funding mechanisms to foster original thinking being taken away from their core skills and prevented from to both teach well and carry out top and, perhaps even more importantly, how to identify young using their most productive abilities? Given current emphasis class research result in considerable scientists who have the potential to become ‘giants’. It will on public relations and communications, is tomorrow’s giant stress and the need to work long also be important for organisations such as the Royal Society a scientist, or a salesman? Acknowledging these concerns, hours. This is one of the factors that to work with the best universities to see how career structures Professor Davies asked whether it was imperative for scientists discourages women from careers in can be developed for outstanding research scientists which to be expert at all of the things mentioned or was it sufficient academia and needs to be addressed are not driven by the present drivers of excellence in teaching, for them to be a specialist in one. by providing more support in terms of administration and research. We are losing our research core posts eg. technical and postdoctoral institutes fast and universities need to adjust to compensate positions and administrative support. if long term and innovative research programmes are to be Many research institutes provide this able to flourish.” and university lecturers are thus at a double disadvantage.” (Professor Christine J Watson, ) Forum Feedback

When given a list of issues to highlight to policy makers, respondents to the Data Tomorrow’s Giants survey identified the following statement as being the most Tomorrow’s giants will live in a world of big data. Methods of data access and curation will need to adapt important relating to this theme: and evolve rapidly to keep up with the rate of data production. Scientists were excited about the amounts “Policies supporting a move of data being produced, and led by Professor Robin Williams (Director of the Research Centre for Social towards more free access Sciences at the ) a group debated the possibilities opened up by a world of big data. to data on the web would be of great benefit to the With a wide variety of disciplines being represented the It was emphasised that as well as being accessible, scientific community.” question of the diversity of data was one of the first to be published data should be understandable. Raw data raised. Noting the wide differences in the kind of information without interpretation could easily be misunderstood being used, stored and shared immediate questions were: or misrepresented resulting in a need for safeguards Online forum comments: What are the most effective kinds of data to be shared? to prevent this. “The advent of high throughput How do we share them? technology in genomics makes it Best practice across the disciplines was discussed and imperative that guidelines be laid down On the issue of who would take responsibility for this task, compared. Some commented that it was relatively easy to balance between the public’s need to some asked whether publicly funded research should even to obtain funding to set up a database; however funding know and personal data protection. Most be available for public scrutiny. Would models such as for maintaining a database was difficult to obtain. Others individuals would not object to the use of requiring publishers to maintain databases be preferable? highlighted the potential for commercial databases such their genetic data by medical experts but Regardless of the method of data curation that works best as those that already existed in the field of crystallography. would probably draw the line at its use in general, it was asserted that there was a need for flexibility Post-conference, reflecting more generally on the topic by commercial entities or government in governance due to the differences in the types of data of data creation, sharing and curation Professor Robin sources without justification. In my being produced between disciplines. Williams commented: opinion eventually, being mindful of Furthermore, some data are sensitive (NHS data, human ethical considerations, all data should “What stood out for me was that these issues are being genome data etc) and this raises issues relating to privacy. be in the public domain as doing so addressed by diverse scientific communities in relative There was a call from participants for legislation to step in would prevent its misuse.” (Dr Qasim isolation one from another, and that there are potentially and “regulate the conflict between freedom of information Ayub, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute) enlightening differences between these communities. From and data protection.” Regardless of the sensitivity of the data, this, three further points follow: there may be a need for fora “As datasets expand and become there are issues around intellectual property which may also in which different kinds of scientists can interact and share increasingly complex I think there need the intervention of policy and legislation to facilitate experience; comparative research may make an important is a great need to balance freedom improved regulation of database access. contribution; and the institutional fragmentation e.g. between of information and data protection. Several commented that data sharing was already commonplace diverse research funding councils, between higher education I think that rapid advances in genetics amongst many within the science community. However there institutes, and between library and information services may and genomics - the ability to sequence were concerns that the public perceived scientists as secretive impede effective policy making and policy implementation.” complete human genomes in a matter with respect to data and knowledge sharing. This perception of days - have left the legislative should be challenged, with scientists taking the opportunity framework trailing behind.” (Dr Ian to explain more widely what they do. Majewski, Netherlands Cancer Institute)

Forum Feedback

When given a list of issues to highlight to policy makers, respondents to the Measuring and assessment Tomorrow’s Giants survey identified the following statement as being the most important relating to this theme: A group of scientists discussed the issue of measuring and assessment with Professor David Sweeney (Director (Research, Innovation and Skills) at the Higher Education Funding Council for England). “Current methods of measuring and assessment encourage They began with questions such as: What motivates you to do At several of the regional meetings before the event, publication a short term approach and science? How as a scientist do you know if you are a success? and citation rates were debated at length with arguments for inhibit fundamental or ‘blue Those present explained that they did science because of their and against their usefulness as a performance indicator. At the curiosity, fascination and passion. Several commented that conference itself however, the issue was scarcely mentioned, skies’ research.” they enjoyed the opportunity to influence or change the world. although it was commented that citations were not a valid or They described success as “getting the job done”, “making dependable indicator of excellence across disciplines. a difference” and “being recognised by their peers”. Online forum comments: During discussions some questioned whether current methods “The problems facing humanity As the discussion progressed it became clear that the group of measurement caused scientists to adjust their work according now (as a direct consequence considered the challenge towards assessment presented to the impact plan, others queried whether there was enough of our scientific/ technological a problem by virtue of the complexity and the breadth of evidence to demonstrate that pathways to impact are successful. development and accompanying a scientist’s career and that any single matrix could not The general consensus at this event and the regional meetings population growth) are of a global provide a fair assessment to any degree of satisfaction. was that there should be no discrimination between fundamental and fundamental nature. They will It would also be difficult to quantify key factors such as and applied science. At the conference there was further require solutions from developments ‘making a difference’ or incremental progress towards agreement that, in every case, the driver should be towards in science that we cannot easily foresee, solving some of the big problems. excellence. Some also suggested that there could perhaps be plan or foster using short-term impact There was, however, considerable discussion about a bonus for high-risk research. There remains a fine balance driven approaches. To maximise our the interaction between science and society. Participants between allowing scientists freedom, whilst retaining chances of finding solutions we should were challenged to consider the extent to which scientists accountability, especially in a challenging economic climate. keep funding excellent fundamental should be accountable to the tax-payers who fund their As Professor Sweeney observed: “We have to support career research.” (Professor David Leys, research. Although science is an international enterprise scientists while also supporting the occasional individual who ) much of the research carried out in the UK is funded by excels. Our international reputation depends on just 1% of our “UK science is currently too conservative, the UK and it would be understandable if the public wanted research. How tempting for the treasury to see that bottom with safe projects by established groups to know more about the impact of UK science, both line and make cuts? But that 1% relies upon a broad base taking the lion’s share of the funding. nationally and internationally. During the debate one of of basic, necessary research.” Short term economic impact is likely to the group asserted that “scientists are tax-payers too” result from an incremental change in a – a reminder that scientists are not separate from society. technology rather than game changing In general, the scientists at Tomorrow’s Giants displayed transformative research, for which the an enthusiasm for interacting with society. This was noted economic impact may come further by Professor Sweeney, who commented on participants’ down the line.” (Dr Simon Titmuss, commitment towards maintaining an outward focus and ) their willingness to engage. Survey feedback

Following the conference participants took part in a survey* Participants were asked to identify the main statements to assist with highlighting the most important issues raised they would like highlighted for policy makers. They had by the event. As a result of attending the conference 70% six statements to choose from, two from each theme, of participants reported a change in their perceptions of the and the most popular for each theme has been noted in topics covered. Furthermore 82% of attendees suggested that the discussions above. As a range of views were represented they were going to, or were likely to, do something differently in these statements, the following table is a powerful indicator as a result of attending the conference. for policy makers of the issues affecting early career stage scientists as they consider their futures.

Current methods of measuring and assessment encourage a short term approach and inhibit 28% fundamental or ‘blue skies’ research.

There are too many competing demands on a scientist’s time for example teaching, policy, 22% communicating, administration, grant-writing, supervising etc and these are impacting on scientists ability to actually carry out their research.

There should be no discrimination between theoretical and more direct impact, excellence 20% should be the driver and there is a greater need for policy to help support this.

One of the major problems with careers in academia is the negative perceptions attached to 12% time taken out from research. This can be especially problematic when raising a family.

Policies supporting a move towards more free access to data on the web would be of great 12% benefit to the scientific community.

There is a need for legislation to more comprehensively regulate the conflict between freedom 8% of information and data protection. This is particularly relevant for data involving humans.

*24% of participants attending the Tomorrow’s Giants conference responded to our survey With special thanks to

Organising Committee: Dr Philip Campbell (Editor in Chief, Nature), Dr Maxine Clarke Summary conclusions (Publishing Executive Editor, Nature), Professor Nigel Brown (Vice-Principal and Head of the College of Science and The Royal Society and Nature developed the Tomorrow’s Giants The Royal Society and Nature would like to thank all of those Engineering, University of Edinburgh), conference, online presence and regional events as who have contributed to this process. The views that have Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow (Vice- an international forum for early career stage scientists, across been presented are a challenge to both policy-makers, who Chancellor, University of Kent), Dr Martin disciplines, to give their views on how to encourage excellence will need to provide an environment for UK science to retain Charlton (Southampton University), Dr Tamsin Mather (Oxford University) and Dr in science in the future and draw attention to issues which its international leadership, but also to tomorrow’s giants Peter Cotgreave (Director of Public Affairs, may impede this path. The issues presented in this document themselves who will need to continue to pursue these issues The Royal Society). are a reflection of the views presented in this forum and are and lobby leadership in order to ensure that they can create Event Rapporteurs: Dr Edmund Cussen not necessarily a representation of the views of the Royal the scientific landscape required to nurture growth and drive (University of Strathclyde), Dr Tom Dunkley Society or Nature, who served merely as facilitators. excellence in science. Jones (), Dr Cristina Lazzeroni (University of Cambridge), Dr As science advances, there will be a range of issues around Daniela Schmidt (University of Bristol) its practice and application that will present challenges to and Matt Brown (Nature). creating the ideal environment for tomorrow’s giants to be Event administration: Sue Deeley (Nature), created and thrive. However it is widely agreed that regardless Catherine Lawrence (Royal Society) and of changing social, economic or political changes, scientists Jason Codrington (Royal Society). will always need the space and freedom to take professional risks. Tomorrow’s Giants has provided the opportunity to highlight some of the crucial considerations that can enable this. The Royal Society Nature The Royal Society is a Fellowship of more than 1400 Nature is the world’s foremost weekly scientific journal outstanding individuals from all areas of science, and is the flagship journal for Nature Publishing Group mathematics, engineering and medicine, who form (NPG), publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in a global scientific network of the highest calibre. The all fields of science and technology on the basis of its Fellowship is supported by over 130 permanent staff originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, with responsibility for the day-to-day management accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. of the Society and its activities. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and In our 350th anniversary year and beyond we are working arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming to achieve five strategic priorities: trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public. • Invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation Nature distills weekly the best in science: landmark papers, cutting-edge issues, leading comment and broad opinion • Influence policymaking with the best scientific advice of important, topical scientific events. • Invigorate science and mathematics education Recently named ‘journal of the century’ by the Special • Increase access to the best science internationally Libraries Association (SLA), Nature aims to be informative, • Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and excitement stimulating and accessible to scientists in any field. of scientific discovery

nature.com royalsociety.org

Internal images: ‘An early attempt at photography from Norwich’, a photogenic drawing by C. B. Rose, ca 1840. © The Royal Society. DES2155. Registered Charity No 207043