DOCSLIB.ORG

Innovation, Universities, Science & Skills Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE & SKILLS COMMITTEE PUTTING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT POLICY Memoranda of Evidence INDEX No Submission from: 1 Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2 Unite the Union 3 Prospect 4 The Natural History Museum 5 Royal Aeronautical Society 6 UK Computer Research Committees 7 Met Office 8 Energy and Utility Skills 9 AstraZeneca 10 Geological Society of London 11 British Science Association 12 Confederation of British Industry 13 BRE Global 14 Institute of Physics 15 Concatenation Science Communication 16 UK Deans of Science 17 Royal Statistical Society 18 The British Academy 19 Council for Mathematical Sciences 20 Academy of Social Sciences 21 Science and Technology Facilities Council 22 Genewatch UK 23 Research Strategy Office, Imperial College London 24 Council for Science and Technology 25 Arts and Humanities Research Council 26 John Innes Centre 27 The Royal Society 28 SSC Science Cluster 29 Semta 30 RCUK 31 Dr Paul Marchant, Leeds Metropolitan University 32 British Aerospace Companies 33 Association of Medical Research Charities 34 Campaign for Science and Engineering 35 Regional Studies Association 36 Biosciences Federation 37 UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology 38 Academy of Medical Sciences 39 The Science Council 40 Royal Academy of Engineering 41 BAE Systems 42 Royal Society of Edinburgh 43 Universities UK 44 Royal Society of Chemistry 45 The Wellcome Trust 46 Sense about Science 47 Food Standards Agency 48 Council for Science and Technology (Supplementary memorandum) 49 Unite the Union 50 National Physical Laboratory 51 UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC) 52 Royal Aeronautical Society 53 The Geological Society of London 54 Finmeccanica 55 Royal Astronomical Society 56 Dr Martin Dominik 57 Professor Peter J Dobson 58 The British Academy 59 UK National Commission for UNESCO 60 Medical Research Council 61 AIRTO 62 John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Sainsbury Laboratory 63 The Institute of Physics 64 Semta 65 Mathematical, Physical & Life Sciences, University of Oxford 66 The Royal Society of Edinburgh 67 The Bioindustry Association 68 Universities UK 69 The Royal Society of Chemistry 70 SURF, University of Salford 71 The UK Industry Association for Space (UKspace) 72 Biosciences Federation 73 AMRC (Association of Medical Research Charities) 74 GeneWatch UK 75 Campaign for Science & Engineering 76 AMEC 77 NERC 78 UK Deans of Science 79 RAE (Royal Academy of Engineering) 80 Royal Society 81 Open University Memorandum 1 Submission from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The UK’s economic success over the last ten years is based to a substantial degree on its successful use of science, engineering and innovation, whether in pharmaceuticals, aerospace and defence, communications, financial services or in a wide range of innovative small businesses. In addition the ten year framework for investment in science and innovation and succeeding policy documents have formed a strong basis for continued and increased investment in the UK’s research base and in innovation, and for improving the use of science and engineering in Government. These are policies for the long term and are being maintained through the current economic challenges so that the UK is well placed to benefit from the upturn when it comes. In addition the National Economic Council is actively seeking ways of using the UK’s excellence in science and engineering to bring forward investment in industries and activities which will both reduce the depth of the downturn and put us in a stronger long term position. This memorandum is structured to reflect the two broad related themes identified by the Committee: • The contribution of science and engineering to Government policy, and • Government policy on science and engineering. These themes overlap and interact, so some of the issues discussed in the memorandum relate to both themes. 1.1 Cabinet sub-Committee on Science and Innovation The importance placed on the use of science and engineering in policy-making was made clear by the Prime Minister’s recent creation of a Cabinet sub-Committee on Science and Innovation (ED(SI)). Through his chairmanship of this Committee, the Science Minister, Lord Drayson will drive implementation of science and innovation policy, including ensuring that science and engineering make a central contribution to policy development. The Committee is well placed to deliver cross-cutting action, working as it does across departmental boundaries so that linkages across government on policy development and delivery are better identified and exploited. It will also serve as a forum where good practice can be shared and poor performance robustly challenged. The Committee meets monthly and addresses issues such as innovation and procurement, R&D strategies, science and society, investing in science and innovation, STEM skills, and the management and use of science by departments. The Chair reports quarterly on progress to the Prime Minister. 2 THE CONTRIBUTION OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING TO GOVERNMENT POLICY Under the leadership of Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) from the lead science-using departments meet regularly to discuss strategy, current issues and priorities with each other and with Research Council and Technology Strategy Board CEOs. In addition the GCSA meets regularly with the other Heads of Analysis (statistics, operational research, economics and social research) in Government. A key objective is to identify opportunities for synergy, reinforcement, and improved delivery paths across the science and other evidence base and policy. This is more important than ever in the current economic climate. Policy makers in Government are trained actively to seek and use analytical evidence, including that derived from science and engineering. This expectation has been formalised in the Professional Skills for Government (PSG) core skill of “Analysis and Use of Evidence” for all civil servants. Departments and Agencies with substantial R&D spend have in place science and innovation strategies that place the role of science and engineering more clearly within the wider policy and resource context. A Government Social Research Unit study1 in 2007 described changes over time of the contribution that analysis (including science and engineering) generated with or commissioned by departments makes to government policy. The GSRU painted a generally positive picture but with some reservations. For example, in some cases, policy-makers did not acknowledge the importance of the evidence base, giving as their reason that it failed to provide unambiguous conclusions. In response, the Government Office for Science has commissioned a project with the Risk and Regulatory Advisory Council to develop guidance for civil servants on risk, with a particular focus on risk communication and a better understanding of the opportunities and limitations of scientific and engineering evidence. During 2008, in response to feedback from departments, there has been a thorough independent review of Science Reviews, peer reviewed by the Heads of Analysis Group and the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee. This has concluded that the time is right to adopt a two-tier system of evaluation of the use by departments of scientific and engineering evidence. These reviews will be co-owned by the GCSA and the relevant Permanent Secretary. The expectation is that most reviews will be “lighter touch”, unless the department requests or agrees to an in-depth evaluation of a particular area of concern. The new approach will be faster and more focused on departmental business objectives, whilst also having the flexibility to respond to issues that cross departmental boundaries and engage more than one analytical discipline. The new approach will be piloted early in 2009. The Government’s strategy for science in Government, due for publication in the first part of 2009, will further reinforce the aim of excellent policy-making supported by a 1 Analysis for Policy: Evidence-based policy in practice (GSR, 2007) - www.gsr.gov.uk/downloads/resources/pu256_160407.pdf more sophisticated understanding of science and engineering advice throughout Government. In recent years the GCSA and GO-Science have led the way in strengthening the place of science and engineering inside departments. All major science-using departments have accepted the case for appointing their own CSAs. Professor Beddington is working closely with the community of CSAs to build a cross- government approach to identifying and taking forward research priorities which address major policy challenges such as understanding and responding to the complex inter-relationships between climate change, energy, water, food, and migration. 2.1 Council for Science and Technology The Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Prime Minister's top-level independent advisory body on strategic science and technology policy issues, and engages with all Government departments as appropriate to the issue under consideration. The 17 members of the Council are respected senior figures drawn from across science, engineering and technology (including social research and economics). The CST has made valuable contributions across a wide range of key policy challenges that include its reports, Policy through Dialogue (March 2005), Better use of personal information:
Recommended publications
  • Factsheet: Research and Innovation in Scotland

    Factsheet: Research and Innovation in Scotland

    Research and innovation in Scotland Scientific research and innovation drive the economy, create and innovation across public services, universities, colleges jobs and enrich and advance our society. In recognition of and business, as well as attracting global investment. But this, there is broad consensus across the political spectrum what does delivering this target look like for Scotland? to increase total investment in UK research and development (R&D). The UK government has committed to ensure that This document provides an insight into the current total investment in UK R&D reaches 2.4% of UK GDP by 2027. research and innovation landscape in Scotland to inform The Royal Society is calling for investment in R&D to reach discussions over how people across Scotland can have 3% of GDP by 2030. To achieve this, the UK must create a the opportunity to contribute to and share the benefits vibrant environment that fosters and encourages research of R&D investment in the UK. How much is spent on R&D activity in Scotland? FIGURE 1 R&D spend in Scotland1. 8.2% of the UK’s population £2.7bn 7% of £498 is based in Scotland2. in 2018 UK total per capita Who performs R&D in Scotland? FIGURE 2 Percentage distribution of R&D spend in Scotland and UK wide3. Government Private Government Private and UKRI non-profit and UKRI non-profit 7% 1% 7% 2% Higher Higher Education Education 42% Scotland 24% UK wide £2.7bn £37.1bn Business Business 50% 68% RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SCOTLAND – MAY 2021 1 Where does R&D take place in Scotland? FIGURE 3 Map of R&D activity in Scotland4.
  • Challenging Social Hierarchies and Inequalities

    Challenging Social Hierarchies and Inequalities

    Challenging Social Hierarchies and Inequalities BSA Annual Conference 2019 Glasgow Caledonian University Wednesday 24 - Friday 26 April 2019 CONTENTS Welcome ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Delegate Information ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Conference Programme at a Glance ............................................................................................................................... 11 Conference Programme Grid .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Plenary - Satnam Virdee.................................................................................................................................................. 25 Pleanry - Nonna Mayer ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Plenary - Imogen Tyler .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Stream Plenaries ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Special Activities ............................................................................................................................................................
  • 2019 Trustees' Annual Report and Financial Statements

    2019 Trustees' Annual Report and Financial Statements

    Science Council Annual Report and Financial Statements For the year ended 31st December 2019 Registered Charity no. 1131661 1 Science Council Reference and administrative details Annual Report and Financial statements for the year ended 31st December 2019 Contents Page Title Page Number Reference and administrative details 2 Chair’s report 3-4 Chief Executive’s report 5-6 Board of Trustees’ Annual Report Structure, governance and management 7-16 Achievements, performance and plans for future periods 17-32 Financial review 33-35 Statement of Trustees’ responsibilities 36 Independent auditor’s report 37-39 Statement of financial activities 40 Balance sheet 41 Statement of cash flows 42 Notes to the financial statements 43-54 1 Science Council Reference and administrative details Annual Report and Financial statements for the year ended 31st December 2019 Reference and administrative details Registered Office Fora Space, 71 Central Street, London, EC1V 8AB Charity number 1131661 Bankers HSBC 39 Tottenham Court Road London W1T 2AR Accountants Excluserv Limited 1 Fore Street Avenue London EC2Y 9DT Legal advisers Bates Wells Braithwaite 10 Queen Street Place London EC4R 1BE Auditors Kreston Reeves LLP 37 St Margaret's Street Canterbury Kent CT1 2TU Website www.sciencecouncil.org 2 Science Council Board of Trustees’ Annual Report Financial statements for the year ended 31st December 2019 Chair’s report Welcome to the Science Council’s Annual Report 2019. As I write this, the government has announced sweeping measures to manage the impact of COVID-19. There is no doubt that the impact will be significant and long-lasting. In a time when it seems that evidence and scientific expertise have not always been used to inform public policy, it is encouraging that the UK government has stated that its strategy to minimise the spread is being informed by the science.
  • Innovation Toolkit Science and Innovation Network

    Innovation Toolkit Science and Innovation Network

    INNOVATION TOOLKIT SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NETWORK INNOVATION IN THE UK Powered by INNOVATION IN THE UK: UNDERSTANDING AND CONNECTING WITH THE UK INNOVATION SYSTEM - CLICK A SECTION TO GET STARTED - > > > Introduction to the UK Comparative performance Understanding UK innovation system of UK innovation Innovation policy INTRODUCTION TO THE UK INNOVATION SYSTEM INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE UNDERSTANDING UK INNOVATION A UK INNOVATION SYSTEM B PERFORMANCE OF THE UK C INNOVATION POLICY TOOLKIT INNOVATION SYSTEM 4 PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION IN THE UK (FEATURES AND CONDITIONS) CREATING KNOWLEDGE EXPLOITING KNOWLEDGE Stable, independent science and Ranked one of the best countries research funding sector: in the world for University- business interaction: Research Councils provide competitive grants for specific projects and programmes. !! Specific competitive funding streams for knowledge exchange such as the •! Intermediary Higher Education Innovation Fund Higher Education Funding Councils provide • Universities block grant funding to Universities on the ! organisations (HEIF). basis of quality measured by the Research •! Public Sector •! Technology Assessment Exercise. • Research transfer offices !! Growing networks of university ! exploitation funds like Fusion IP Establishments •! Business £5.85bn govt spend for science and research incubation and IP group. •! Research from the budget in 2015-16 including both Funding bodies •! Science & resource and capital expenditure. innovation parks !! Large and diverse public and private commercialisation
  • Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data 2014-15 to 2018-19 Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data

    Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data 2014-15 to 2018-19 Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data

    Diversity results for UKRI funding data 2014-15 to 2018-19 Diversity results for UKRI funding data Contents Executive summary 03 Background 04 Diversity characteristics 06 Diversity analysis 09 Award rates 11 Award value 13 Studentship starts 15 References 16 2 Diversity results for UKRI funding data Executive summary In June 2020, UK Research and Innovation 3 Award values also differ by diversity characteristics. (UKRI) is publishing data for diversity Our analysis indicates that female and ethnic minority awardees tend to apply for and win smaller awards. For characteristics of its funding applicants example, the median award value for female awardees and recipients for the past five years. This is approximately 15% less than the median award publication differs from previous data values of males (£336,000 vs £395,000). Similarly, the releases in the following ways: median award value for ethnic minority awardees is approximately 8% less than that of white awardees (£353,000 vs. £383,000). This finding highlights a need ■ For the first time, data have been harmonised across to understand whether ethnic minority and female all research councils applicants tend to apply for smaller awards, or whether ■ The publication includes new, previously unpublished, there is an influence of other factors such as career data on award values stage and discipline, which in turn affect award value. ■ The data are being made available in a range of formats to facilitate access and analysis by the community We advise against using these findings alone to draw conclusions on the relationship between protected characteristics and application and award rates.
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy

    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy

    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
  • Appendix List of JSPS’S Overseas Counterpart Institutions (86 Institutions in 44 Countries and 2 International Organizations)

    Appendix List of JSPS’S Overseas Counterpart Institutions (86 Institutions in 44 Countries and 2 International Organizations)

    JSPS 2009-2010 Appendix List of JSPS’s Overseas Counterpart Institutions (86 institutions in 44 countries and 2 international organizations) Fellowships Bilateral Programs Multilateral Research Country Counterpart Institution Invitation Postdoctoral Researcher and Other Projects/ Region Fellowship Fellowship Exchanges Programs Seminars Bangladesh University Grants Commission (UGC) ○ ○ Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) ○ ○ ○ Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) ○ ○ Ministry of Education P.R.C. (MOE) ○ ○ ○ China China Scholarship Council (CSC) ○ Chinese Academy of Medical Science (CAMS) ○ National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) ○ ○ Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) ○ ○ Indian National Science Academy (INSA) ○ ○ India Department of Science and Technology (DST) ○ ○ ○ Asia Directorate General of Higher Education, Department of National Education (DGHE) ○ ○ Indonesia Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) ○ ○ Korea, Rep. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) ○ ○ ○ ○ Malaysia Vice-Chancellors’ Council of National Universities in Malaysia (VCC) ○ Mongolia Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS) ○ Philippines Department of Science and Technology (DOST) ○ ○ Singapore National University of Singapore (NUS) ○ ○ Thailand National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) ○ ○ Vietnam Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology (VAST) ○ ○ Australian Academy of Science (AAS) ○ ○ ○ Australia Australian Research Council (ARC) ○ ○ ○ Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) ○ ○ ○ ○ Oceania New Zealand Foundation
  • House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: Inquiry Into Open Access: Response from the Royal Astronomical Society

    House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: Inquiry Into Open Access: Response from the Royal Astronomical Society

    House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: Inquiry into Open Access: Response from the Royal Astronomical Society Executive summary 1. This is the formal submission to the BIS Committee inquiry into Open Access from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). With around 3750 members (Fellows), the RAS is the leading learned society representing the interests of astronomers, space scientists, planetary scientists and geophysicists. 2. Our response centres on three of the four key points raised by the Committee; namely the acceptance of the Finch Group Report, the costs of Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the level of ‘gold’ open access uptake in the rest of the world. 3. The RAS is concerned about the implementation of the Finch recommendations by Research Councils UK (RCUK). The resulting guidelines endorse the ‘gold’ model for Open Access publishing, but do not give a clear policy steer on the way in which researchers in higher education institutions will be able to access APCs. Furthermore, there is no guidance on how research groups should handle international collaborations, in particular where a UK researcher is not the lead author on a paper. 4. The Society has additional concerns about the cost of APCs. For the most active research groups and for most journals, these are likely to be significantly higher than their current institutional subscription. 5. We also urge MPs to investigate the issue of international competitiveness further. It appears that no other nations (including other EU members, China, Japan and the United States) have so far adopted the Open Access model being implemented in the UK.
  • Nurse Review of Research Councils Response by the Wellcome Trust - April 2015 Key Points

    Nurse Review of Research Councils Response by the Wellcome Trust - April 2015 Key Points

    Wellcome Trust CONSULTATION RESPONSE Nurse Review of Research Councils Response by the Wellcome Trust - April 2015 Key points The UK is renowned for its research excellence and much of this can be attributed to the Research Councils and the dual support system. The Councils effectively champion their separate disciplines. However, we do not think that they collaborate successfully to support interdisciplinary research that addresses major scientific or social challenges. One way to address this could be reconfiguring Research Councils UK (RCUK) so it becomes a true umbrella body, with sufficient authority and budget to enable it to fund and coordinate cross-cutting challenges, and provide oversight and management of national, international and multi-disciplinary facilities. There is a role for both response-mode and more targeted funding in the science portfolio. The Government has a key role in setting strategic priorities, but this should be done transparently and with input from expert advisers. Final funding decisions must be based on excellence. The Research Councils must better support and incentivise industry collaborations and entrepreneurship to promote translation and innovation. Introduction 1. The Wellcome Trust is a global charitable foundation dedicated to improving health. In 2015, we will invest around £750 million in biomedical research and the medical humanities — a figure that we plan to increase over the next five years. Our breadth of support includes public engagement, education and the application of research, and the majority of our funding is currently spent in the UK as a direct result of both the excellence of the research base and the Government’s commitment to science.
  • Geoffrey Deverteuil Curriculum Vitae 26 September 2019

    Geoffrey Deverteuil Curriculum Vitae 26 September 2019

    Geoffrey DeVerteuil Curriculum Vitae 26 September 2019 School of Geography and Planning email: [email protected] Cardiff University phone: +44(0)29 2087 6089 Glamorgan Building web: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/about-us/staff/geoff-deverteuil CF10 3WA, Cardiff Wales UK Citizenship Canadian; UK Indefinite Leave to Remain July 2012+ (permanent residency) Present Appointment Reader, School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University Previous Appointments Lecturer, University of Southampton Geography, July 1st 2007- January 25th 2014 Visiting Scholar, University of Auckland, Summer 2004 Visiting Scholar, University of Sydney, Spring 2011 Assistant Professor of Geography (granted tenure, December 2006), 2001-2007 University of Manitoba, Canada; Adjunct Professor (2007-2009) Academic Qualifications 2001 Doctor of Philosophy (Geography), University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA Dissertation: “Welfare Reform and Welfare Neighborhoods: Institutional and Individual Perspectives”, (Jennifer Wolch supervisor) 1995 Graduate Diploma (Geographic Information Systems), Université du Québec à Montréal (en français), Montreal Canada 1993 Master of Arts (Community and Regional Planning), University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada 1991 Bachelor of Arts (Geography), McGill University, Montreal Canada Research Interests Urban geography; facility location; welfare reform; homelessness and housing; local state; health geography; substance abuse treatment; therapeutic landscapes; social policy; global cities; resilience Medium and Major
  • Bibliographical Index

    Bibliographical Index

    Bibliographical Index BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCESS TO THIS VOLUME Bacon, Roger. Opus Majus. 305, 322, 345 Basil, Saint. Homilies. 328 Three modes of access to bibliographical information are used Bede, the Venerable. De natura rerum. 137 in this volume: the footnotes; the bibliographies; and the Bib­ ---. De temporum ratione. 321 liographical Index. The footnotes provide the full form of a reference the first Cassiodorus. Institutiones divinarum et saecularium time it is cited in each chapter with short-title versions in litterarum. 172, 255, 259, 261 subsequent citations. In each of the short-title references, the Cato the Elder. Origines. 205 note number of the fully cited work is given in parentheses. Censorinus. De die natalie 255 The bibliographies following each chapter provide a selec­ Chaucer, Geoffrey. Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. 387 tive list of major books and articles relevant to its subject Cicero. Arataea (translation of Aratus's versification of matter. Eudoxus's Phaenomena). 143 The Bibliographical Index comprises a complete list, ar­ ---. Letters to Atticus. 255 ranged alphabetically by author's name, of all works cited in ---. De natura deorum. 160,168 the footnotes. Numbers in bold type indicate the pages on --. The Republic. 159, 160, 255 which references to these works can be found. This index is ---. Tusculan Disputations. 160 divided into two parts. The first part identifies the texts of Cleomedes. De motu circulari. 152, 154, 169 classical and medieval authors. The second part lists the mod­ Cosmas Indicopleustes. Christian Topography. 143, 144, ern literature. 261 Ctesias of Cnidus. Indica. 149 TEXTS OF CLASSICAL AND MEDIEVAL ---. Persica. 149 AUTHORS Dicuil.
  • China Science and Technology Newsletter

    China Science and Technology Newsletter

    CHINA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER Department of International Cooperation No.09 Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST), P.R.China May 15 2016 News Updates - International S&T Cooperation 1st Inter-agency Meeting on China-ROK Innovation Park Held in Beijing Vice Minister Yin Meets Ambassador Robert Holleyman Director General of International Cooperation Jin Xiaoming Meets Vice Chancellor of Nottingham University 1st Workshop on China-Ontario Young Scientists Exchange Program Held Science Popularization over 12th Five Years Benchmarks of Science Literacy Issued National Science Week 2016 Held Successfully In Retrospect: Progress of Science Popularization during 12th Five-Year Plan Period News Updates - International S&T Cooperation 1st Inter-agency Meeting on China-ROK Innovation Park Held in Beijing The first session of China’s inter-agency meeting on was held in Beijing on April 29th 2016. The meeting the China-ROK Innovation and Entrepreneurship Park reviewed progress so far, discussed relevant matters and Monthly-Editorial Board:54,Sanlihe Road Beijing 10045,china Contact: Liu Bin E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] http://www.cistc.gov.cn 1 policy measures, and made arrangements for key areas in put forward three requirements. First, it is important to the upcoming work. better understand the overall interest and recognize the Science Minister Wan Gang conveyed messages from importance of the project. Second, efforts should be made Premier Li Keqiang and other leaders of the State Council to study on policy measures and initiative proposals so before elaborated on the organization and rules of work as to provide momentum for the project.