Volume 2

The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research : sixth report of session 2009-10.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2010
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research : sixth report of session 2009-10. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/248 (page 3)
    20. The Department of Health is the only department to have a ring-fenced R&D budget. At the moment, the only protection for other departmental R&D budgets is that the Treasury and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser are meant to be consulted prior to a department taking funds from them. With fewer resources at their disposal, government departments will need to ensure that their policies and public services are effective—this will only be known through research and analysis. Departmental R&D budgets should therefore be published for the spending period and protected. 21. It may also be appropriate for some cross-departmental evidence needs to be serviced by a cross- departmental research budget, coordinated by the Government Office for Science. STEM EDUCATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 22. There was an increased intake of STEM students in 2009 following the government’s decision to allow 10,000 additional places in those subjects. There is considerable tension between expanding places in STEM subjects and the sustainable financing of them. Prior to this decision and cuts to higher education, CaSE was concerned about the funding ratio of |.7 for science and engineering courses. Although it has been extremely difficult to determine the right ratio, 2 would provide for a more sustainable financing of those strategically important courses. IMPACT AND EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE POLICY 23. The government should separate out two different objectives that have become increasingly interwoven within its impact agenda. The first is what options there are for increasing the impact of the research the public funds. The second is how to assess the impact of research that the public has funded, in order to justify investment in it relative to other areas of public expenditure. 24. There have been many concerns about the Research Council examining impact statements as part of their funding process. There is a shortage or lack of evidence evaluating the ability to predict the future impacts of research yet to be conducted. However, the Research Councils are not actually asking researchers or grant assessors to do this. Research Councils have done a poor job of articulating what they want from researchers in terms of impact statements and what their purpose is. 25. It is sometimes possible, but extremely difficult, to assess the impact of research retrospectively. The development of the impact component of the proposed Research Excellence Framework should have been piloted and evaluated before there was a commitment to its inclusion within the assessment process. 26. Government departments, including BIS, the Treasury, Government Office for Science and major - R&D spending departments, should fund research to inform debates about the impact of different investments in research. The US has developed a programme in this area called the science of science and innovation policy. A similar programme should be developed to inform the next long-term strategy for science and engineering in the UK. POLITICAL COMMITMENT 27. Cuts to science and engineering are not necessarily an inevitable consequence of the recession and the public expenditure constraint that will follow it. It is critical that all political parties recognise and develop long-term policies to strengthen the UK’s capacity in science and engineering research and skills. February 2010 Witnesses: Lord Broers, a Member of the House of Lords; Professor Brian Cox, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester; Nick Dusic, Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering; and Sir Peter Williams, Vice-President, The Royal Society, gave evidence. Q1 Chairman: Could I welcome our distinguished witnesses to the first of our evidence sessions where the Committee is looking at science budgets ahead of the next General Election but in the light of the confusing scenario which currently surrounds where resources are being allocated or where they are not being allocated. We are very grateful indeed that we have with us Sir Peter Williams, one of the Vice- Presidents of the Royal Society and the Treasurer, and we are delighted that the Royal Society is with us this morning; Lord Broers, welcome again to you, Professor Brian Cox from Manchester University and, of course, Nick Dusic, the Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering. I wonder if I could start with you, Lord Broers. Could you say, briefly, why you feel that investment in science actually matters? Have we not spent enough on it over the last 10 years? Lord Broers: We have spent quite a lot. We have a very strong science base, but, of course, science is important not only from a cultural standpoint but to support our science-based industry, and it is science- based industry that re-emerges as the mainstay of our economy. The problem I see at the moment is that we have not had a linked linear relationship between the science base and our science-based industry. While the science base has been strong and getting stronger our science-based industry has been