1.  We commend the Office of Science and Technology for commissioning research into metrics for the Science and Engineering Base. This will have been of no use if weaknesses identified by the work are not remedied, however. In particular, the Government must heed the warning that, despite increased investment through the Science Budget, UK Government funding for R&D is in decline relative to its international competitors and that UK's share of global publications is slipping. Having developed better measures, the OST should stick with them so that performance over time can be measured. (Paragraph 12)

2.  We urge the OST to encourage all Research Councils to conduct a rolling programme of international reviews of disciplines within their remits to ensure that the UK retains strength in all research areas. (Paragraph 14)

3.  We hope that the OST makes the Chancellor aware of the data on the Science Base compiled by Evidence Ltd and stresses that the UK cannot be the best place to do science, as he says he wishes, while investment lags behind that of its competitors. (Paragraph 17)

4.  The Government has two choices, therefore: either it provides no information on the likely settlement for the Spending Review and leaves the Research Councils to make a case for what they feel the Science Base needs; or it provides clear and unambiguous advice. (Paragraph 19)

5.  It is not clear to us how Research Councils UK can use the results of its consultation exercise to develop priorities for its Spending Review bid. The scope of the Research Councils' themes for the 2004 Spending Review would have needed to have been fleshed out before meaningful views could be expressed. (Paragraph 22)

6.  We urge the Government to give priority to sustaining responsive mode funding in its settlement for Spending Review 2004. Scientists working at the cutting edge are best placed to identify the most fertile areas of research, not Government officials. (Paragraph 24)

7.  We welcome the Academic Fellowship initiative which demonstrates that the Research Councils can directly intervene to create more stable careers for scientists. We believe that the principle of obliging universities to provide open-ended contracts as a condition of securing future grants could be more widely applied as a means for reducing the number of contract researchers. (Paragraph 31)

8.  We welcome the introduction of the UK Research Base Funders' Forum and hope that it will bring much-needed coherence to public research funding and that it will result in careers in research becoming a more attractive and secure option. (Paragraph 32)

9.  Research Councils UK has been a useful initiative. We look forward to further progress in collaboration between Research Councils and greater convergence in administrative procedures and structures. (Paragraph 37)

10.  The establishment of the Science Review Directorate is a good initiative and we await its outputs with interest. We welcome the OST's commitment to publish the findings of the reviews in full. (Paragraph 39)

11.  The new Council for Science and Technology deserves a chance to succeed but the Government must not waste another five years. The Government should put it on a year's probation and have the courage to abolish it if it is not working. (Paragraph 43)

12.  The Government should acknowledge that the UK science community can benefit from the close proximity of large facilities, and that the prestige and profile of UK science can be enhanced. We urge the Government to provide the political will, and where necessary the finances, to support such ventures. (Paragraph 47)

13.  We welcome the Government's recognition of the benefits to the UK from building ITER in Europe and urge it to press the French case. The decision will inevitably be a political one but the science—and thus the success of the project—must not be compromised. Already, Spain has been invited to host the administration of ITER if France is successful. We urge the Government to resist any suggestion that the ITER project should somehow be split between France and Japan. (Paragraph 50)

14.  The Cambridge-MIT Institute is an interesting initiative and appears to be bearing some fruit, but the £65 million expenditure must be put in context. For the same amount of money, the Government could have provided the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council with around 5% extra funding over the same period. The investment is only slightly less than the combined cost of the stem cell and sustainable energy programmes in Spending Review 2002. For this reason, we reiterate the importance of making the evaluation of CMI available to us, in commercial confidence if necessary. (Paragraph 57)

15.   It is disappointing that the OST will not publish submissions to its consultation on dual support before it publishes its response. It is normal practice for the Government to publish at least a summary of submissions before reporting. It is reasonable that, where the authors have given permission, submissions are published as soon after the deadline as possible. If the Government's decisions are seen to be made in an open and transparent manner, the evidence being used to inform that decision should be freely available as soon as possible. (Paragraph 59)

16.  Charities such as the Wellcome Trust have made a huge contribution to UK research and it is important that their interests are represented at a high level in Government. We are concerned that the new Higher Education Research Forum does not include a representative from the research charity sector. We recommend that this oversight is remedied without delay. (Paragraph 61)

17.  A more coordinated approach to policy-making is needed. Science and research are in danger of being over-reviewed, wasting the time of researchers and lecturers who feel obliged to make responses, and the uncertainty they engender is demoralising for these staff. We can only hope that as a result of these reviews on science, research and innovation a clear timetable for implementation is drawn up. (Paragraph 63)

18.  We are concerned that the Government's piecemeal approach to research funding does not serve UK science well. We shall be monitoring developments in higher education science with interest over the next year. (Paragraph 66)

19.  We welcome the fact that the OST is commissioning academic studies to provide an evidence-based approach to policy-making. It is regrettable, therefore, that having done so, the Minister is content to disregard a study's findings. (Paragraph 67)

20.  The UK has a high level of research concentration. Should this trend continue, the UK risks whole regions being devoid of research capability in subjects, particularly the physical sciences and engineering, that underpin innovation. This undermines the Government's attempts to make universities the drivers of the knowledge economy in these areas because many universities that provide research support for regional and local industry and commerce would be starved of funding and their research would become unsustainable. In addition, the increasing prospect of debt is likely to force students to study nearer to home and the option to study physics, chemistry or engineering should not be denied them. It should be the Government's policy to maintain capacity in a full range of disciplines in each region. (Paragraph 68)

21.  The Science Minister has accepted that many issues concerning science, research and higher education are interrelated. It is reasonable to expect that he provide formal input into the deliberations of Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills and be able to articulate the policy as a whole in giving evidence to us. His statements give us no confidence that these issues are being considered by Government in a coherent manner. (Paragraph 73)

22.  The Government should consider establishing bursaries for undergraduates to study shortage subjects, such as physical sciences and engineering. These should cover the full cost of the charged top-up fee. (Paragraph 0)

23.  We are pleased that the OST has developed a coherent strategy for science and society following the collapse of Copus. We will follow its progress with great interest. The OST must ensure, however, that gathering statistics is not a substitute for action. The UK needs a more effective dialogue on scientific issues and we are looking to the OST to provide the impetus. (Paragraph 80)

24.  We welcome the opportunity to question the Science Minister on a more regular basis. This will result in a more productive dialogue between Parliament and Government on scientific issues. (Paragraph 83)