METRICS FOR THE SCIENCE BASE

1.(a)   Having established more sophisticated metrics following the report from Evidence Ltd, what more specific targets will be established for the research base?

  The Evidence Ltd report established a wide basket of metrics for measuring the health of the UK science and engineering base. This is a helpful piece of evidence in many respects but, in itself, is too wide ranging to judge our performance in "improving the relative international performance of the Science and Engineering Base", which is our Public Service Agreement target agreed with HM Treasury. We are now in the process of agreeing with HM Treasury a small basket of measures against which to measure this. We expect these to include measures covering aspects of scientific excellence, production of trained people and productivity. These are not yet agreed but will be published in due course.

 (b)   The report showed a relative weakness in the physical sciences, particularly engineering. What evaluation has there been of the reasons for this?

  We will be looking into why physical sciences and engineering are relatively weak to see whether there is any action we should take, including recruitment of world-class scientists from other countries, or increasing the supply of young scientists, new facilities or extra funding. Obviously, any specific measures will be subject to the Spending Review settlement next year.

  Whilst the Evidence Ltd report noted a relative weakness in the physical sciences and engineering, it is important to note that the UK's share of citations in both disciplines remains high—4th, behind the USA, Germany and Japan, in each field—and that in the physical sciences there is evidence of a recent growth in citation share, with the UK gaining on those ahead of it.

SPENDING REVIEW

2.   Among the proposed multi-Council themes for Spending Review 2004 are:

—  Changing Ourselves;

—  Conditions for Life; and

—  Scales of Complexity.

  (a)   What research are these intended to encompass?

  (b)   What comments have RCUK received so far into the merits of these suggestions?

  (a)  These three multi-council themes are part of a wider library of single- and multi-council themes which are being presented during the SR2004 process, showing that the Research Councils and AHRB are not "opportunity limited" in undertaking exciting new science and research. These three multi-council themes, along with five others, have been discussed by each Council's normal advisory structure. These three themes encompass the following research:

  Changing Ourselves: This programme is based on two contrasting phenomena: on the one hand advances in medicine, biology and technology are increasingly allowing us to take control of our bodies and health; while on the other hand there is a considerable body of evidence associating different lifestyle and behavioural factors with health. The research programme will study the causes and consequences of changes in behaviour and, in addition, research change in technology and medicine, to improve health.

  Conditions for Life: Through the exploration of the Earth, the extreme conditions that support life will be identified. The characterisation of other planetary systems and the indirect detection of cool Earth sized planets will enable us to understand how common life sustaining conditions are within the Universe. Combined with an understanding how life arises, the range of environments life can develop in and the likelihood of survival, it will be possible to quantify the probability of life in the Universe.

  Scales of Complexity: Interactions with complex systems affect every aspect of daily life from the transport system, having your child immunised, adapting to changing weather conditions or assessing the value of your share portfolio. Understanding the behaviour of such large complex, typically non-linear, systems is of critical importance to modern society. The interactions between the components give rise to an overall behaviour that cannot be easily be understood in the terms of the behaviour of the individual components. The goal is to move beyond an understanding, to an ability to intervene effectively in their behaviour.

  (b)  As part of the consultation process, RCUK have received comments from a wide variety of stakeholders including industry, their representative bodies (such as the CBI), the public and the wider academic community. All eight multi-council themes have met with a very favourable response, with some respondents expressing a great interest in the specific outcomes from the research and how it will affect them. For example, the CBI commented that "complex systems was flagged up as being particularly important for a range of businesses".

SCIENCE ACROSS GOVERNMENT

3.(a)   How many Departments have yet to appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser? What are the timescales for new appointments? The science strategy says that Professor King will be involved in the appointment process. What has this meant in practice?

  The Cross Cutting Review of Science and Research recommended that Departments which conduct or commission an appreciable amount of research should have a Chief Scientific Adviser accountable to the Secretary of State and Ministers for science procurement and advice within the Department. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Treasury do not have science budgets and have not appointed a CSA on those grounds. Cabinet Office has no CSA but does have a Chief Social Researcher. DCMS is presently awaiting the outcome of the review by OST's Science Review Directorate before deciding whether and on what basis to appoint a CSA. Several Departments (such as DfID, DWP and the Forestry Commission) have appointed existing postholders to the role of Departmental CSA.

  Sir David King has been consulted on the appointment of several departmental Chief Scientific Advisers. In practice this means that his views are taken into account—the GCSA does not have the final word on such appointments.

 (b)   On what basis were the first Departments chosen for the programme of science reviews?

  A number of factors were taken into account. These included:

—  The potential for the reviews to add value to Departments' procurement and use of science.

—  The opportunities to establish a base of best practice.

—  The build up of the review team.

FUSION

4.   What scenarios have been developed for UK fusion on the basis of the site chosen for ITER? Does it make any difference which site is selected?

  The international ITER partners are in the process of selecting the location for the facility. The choice is between a Japanese site at Rokkasho and an EU site at Cadarache. The decision is expected to be made by the end of this year, There are two options, each of which has specific consequences for the UK fusion programme.

  Scenario 1—ITER in Japan: If ITER goes to Japan, the Japanese Government will contribute 48% of the cost of ITER, leaving 12% for the EU to fund once the other international partners have contributed. There will be fewer synergies with the European fusion programmes if the facility is located in Japan.

  Scenario 2—ITER in France: If ITER goes to France, the EU will contribute 48% of the cost of ITER, with 36% coming from the European Commission and 12% from France. This will leave little additional money in the current Framework Programme budget for Accompanying Programmes. In this situation, the UK fusion programme will be more focussed on supporting and contributing to the ITER project.

  We are strongly of the view that ITER should come to Europe. As well as the long-term industrial and economic benefits, its proximity to the UK will allow us to make a significant technical contribution. It will also maintain Europe's lead in this field and ensure that our European partners continue their strong support for fusion. We will be making the case for an Accompanying Programme from increased Framework Programme funding.

5.   Do you have any more details on the Research Forum announced on 24 November, ie members, terms of reference, operation and time to establishment?

  The Higher Education Research Forum has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir Graeme Davies, Vice Chancellor of the University of London. The Forum will create a sounding board for the Ministerial Group implementing research reform and promote dialogue on key issues including the link between teaching and research, and developing greater research collaboration. The Forum will bring together representatives of key stakeholders in the sector (Vice Chancellors, HEFCE, Research Councils, Teaching, Business, Regions and Learned Societies) and will be encouraged to gain views from as wide a range of interests as possible. The Forum will start work later this year in the expectation that it will conclude in the early summer of 2004.

December 2003