INTRODUCTION

  1.  This memorandum provides the requested up-date to the Government's Response, published on 19 June 2007, to the Committee's Scrutiny Report of the Office of Science and Innovation.

  2.  Following the Government Response, the Prime Minister announced a series of Machinery of Government changes. These included the creation of a new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) to enable effective investment in research, science, enterprise and skills, embedding these into the heart of the Government's competitiveness strategy. The new department is leading work to deliver the Government's long term vision to make Britain one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. It is also leading work to ensure that the UK has the skilled workforce it needs to compete in the global economy.

  3.  In recognition of the strategic positioning of science and innovation as a core part of DIUS, the Secretary of State announced on 20 July the creation of a Government Office for Science within DIUS. The Government Office for Science is headed by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, and has taken over the functions and resources of the Transdepartmental Science and Technology Group, part of the former Office of Science and Innovation (OSI). The other part of the former OSI, Science and Innovation Group headed by Sir Keith O'Nions, continues in its previous form as a key component of DIUS, supporting John Denham, Secretary of State, Ian Pearson, Minister for Science & Innovation and Ian Watmore, the Department's Permanent Secretary.

  4.  The third Annual Report setting out progress on the Science and Innovation Investment Framework was published in July. Key highlights include:

(a)  The UK remains second only to the US in global scientific excellence, despite increasing international competition.

(b)  The numbers of spin-outs, increasing licensing and consultancy income indicate knowledge transfer and commercialisation activities from the science base are showing a healthy upward trend.

(c)  Increased capital expenditure is improving research infrastructure in universities.

(d)  There has been an encouraging increase in the proportion of young people reaching expected levels in mathematics and science, and applications for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects at undergraduate level have also increased.

(e)  Business investment in R&D is growing in real terms and is keeping pace with GDP growth, though more rapid growth is needed to meet the long-term ambitions set out in the 10-year framework.

(f)  The Technology Strategy Board (TSB), which became an arms-length body on 1 July 2007, will have an enhanced leadership role in driving up future levels of UK innovation performance.

FROM OST TO OSI

Objectives of the reorganisation

(Recommendation 1)

  The OSI must remain alert to the potential of closer integration with the DTI to compromise its role in looking at science across the whole of Government and its duty to promote the health of UK science, including basic research as well as innovation and economic returns. This may argue for a separate Ministry of Science and we recommend that the Government consider this in any future change to the machinery of government. (Paragraph 14)

  5.  The creation of DIUS has reinforced the importance of science and innovation at the heart of Government, and will further help us to ensure that we are effectively using science across Government and that the UK remains a world-class research base and destination for top quality science. The Government continues to be committed to the strategy and approach outlined in the Science and Innovation Investment Framework.

Role of the Director General for Science and Innovation

(Recommendation 2)

  The departure of the previous Chief Scientific Adviser was an opportunity for the DTI to change its stance on appointing its own independent CSA. We hope that the DTI will keep the arrangement whereby the DGSI also undertakes this role under review. It must be prepared to consider separating the roles, should it become apparent that the job of the DGSI has become overloaded. (Paragraph 16)

  6.  The role of Chief Scientific Adviser for DIUS is under consideration.

The review process

(Recommendation 4)

  We expect to receive earlier notification of any structural changes to the department which involve the OSI in the future. (Paragraph 19)

  7.  The integration of the work of the former OSI into the newly created Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was part of a series of Machinery of Government and other changes announced on 28 June by the Prime Minister.

The Technology Strategy Board

(Recommendation 5)

  The need to appoint new members in October 2007 should provide an opportunity for a review of the Technology Strategy Board's activities in order to inform decisions on new appointees. We recommend that this review be carried out before October. (Paragraph 23)

  8.  The Technology Strategy Board became operational as planned as an Executive Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) on 2 July 2007. The members of the governing Board were appointed in June, bringing a strong business focus as well as the skills and expertise necessary to make an impact across a wide spread of the UK economy.

  9.  The formal relationship between DIUS (as the sponsor department) and the Technology Strategy Board has been agreed and is set out in a management statement and financial memorandum, underpinned by a framework letter setting out the Government's policy priorities for the Technology Strategy Board. A strategic plan and delivery plan covering the next spending review period will be agreed once the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review is know.

OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The OSI performance management system

(Recommendation 6)

  We accept that it is necessary to adapt the output frameworks used to measure the performance of the Research Councils as it comes fully into use in order that it remains a practical and useful document. We are concerned, however, that the measures should be firmly established in order to allow comparison from year to year. There must not be too many changes once the system has been allowed to bed down. It would be helpful for the OSI to highlight in the introduction to future output frameworks reports exactly which metrics have been amended and which are causing difficulties in terms of data collection or meaningfulness. (Paragraph 27)

  10.  The Delivery Plan reports for 2006-07 and draft populated output frameworks were submitted to DIUS at the end of June 2007. All the reports have been published on the Research Councils/RCUK web sites. The Second Annual Report on the Output Frameworks will be published in the autumn.

The DTI Performance Report

(Recommendation 7)

  There is room for improvement in the transparency and presentation of information about how the performance of the OSI and its associated bodies is to be assessed across the board and we urge the DTI and OSI to address this. (Paragraph 28)

  11.  There were a number of performance management arrangements in place for the former OSI and the Department for Education and Skills. Since the formation of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, these arrangements are being reviewed to ensure clear and consistent measurement of performance across the new department.

(Recommendation 8)

  We welcome the work going on to identify meaningful and accessible output measures for the OSI and the Research Councils. We expect to receive updates as the work progresses in this area and before the changes have been finalised. (Paragraph 32)

  12.  The Government has developed a revised reporting framework to measure how investment in science and innovation delivers economic benefits at the aggregate economy level. This framework was developed with input from the Research Councils, industry and academic community. A draft version of this framework was placed on OSI's website at the end of May 2007 to enable public scrutiny, (at www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39754.doc, but now changed to www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39754.doc), and a number of useful comments received.

  13.  The first annual report of indicators and evidence based on this framework was published on 23 July 2007, alongside the annual report on the Science and Innovation Investment Framework, available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40398.doc. A separate publication reporting baseline information on the economic impact of the Research Councils will also be published in autumn 2007.

SCIENCE ACROSS GOVERNMENT

(Recommendation 16)

  We expect the review of the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees to address the concerns raised in our scientific advice report, and we look forward to examining the new Code when it is published. (Paragraph 60)

  14.  A Review of the Code of Practice is being undertaken. Within the Review we commissioned a Public Consultation of the Code, which ran from 25 June to 16 September. As part of the Consultation a workshop was held on 5 September as an additional method of obtaining stakeholder views. We aim to complete the review by the end of 2007.

(Recommendation 17)

  We recommend that the OSI again review the resources available to its Science in Government team, with a view to increasing the turnover and production of departmental science reviews. We also recommend that the OSI publish a more realistic assessment of timetables for each review and for the programme as a whole. In general, we recommend that far greater attention is paid by the OSI to updating its website. The OSI should be expected to set an example in communications and the use of IT to inform the public and stakeholders of its work. (Paragraph 65)

  15.  The Science Review team is now resourced to carry out three reviews concurrently. The first stage of the Home Office review reported in May 2007 and a final report is expected in December. A report on the first stage of the review of the Department of Health is also expected in December. A further review will be announced shortly, as will a provisional forward programme of reviews. This will be placed on the DIUS website, which is currently being developed following the creation of DIUS and the Government Office for Science.

  16.  As an interim measure, while the DIUS website is being developed, we have updated the information on the existing website (which can be found following the science link on the DIUS website (www.dius.gov.uk)). We have also made some structural changes to enable quick and easy access to the key information relating to the review programme. In particular the website now includes the formal departmental responses to reviews as well as information on completed and current reviews showing key milestones and a timetable for the programme as a whole.

SCRUTINY OF THE SCIENCE MINISTER

(Recommendation 19)

  We recommend that the OSI outline in its response to this Report the new dialogues and initiatives within the OSI established since November 2006 to encourage the creation of a "knowledge democracy" and spread the use of science throughout Government and beyond. (Paragraph 69)

  17.  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)'s public dialogue project to support their public consultation on the ethical and social implications of creating human/animal embryos in research took place over the summer, including a public meeting in June. HFEA announced their decision on two licences on 5 September.

  18.  The BBSRC and MRC have conducted a tender exercise to select a contractor to deliver the public dialogue programme to bring scientists and the public together to identify public expectations, aspirations and concerns about stem cell research.

  19.  The Human Genetics Commission announced a new Citizens' inquiry into the use of DNA and genetic information to fight crime. HGC has advertised for an external contractor or consortium to deliver a series of dialogue activities to find out people's views about DNA and the forensic use of genetic information, with particular reference to the National DNA database.

  20.  Sciencehorizons, the first ever mass public engagement programme designed to get the nation talking about how science and technology could affect our lives in the next 15-20 years ran public events between January and June. Approximately 3,000 people took part in three strands of engagement: deliberative workshops with same group of people over two separate full days; facilitated workshops run by science centres, museums, schools, Women's Institutes etc; and a large number of small discussion groups run informally and self-facilitated by a range of groups. All the results have been posted on the project website and were presented at the BA Festival of Science on 12 September. This will now feed in to both development of policy for the Horizon Scanning Centre's Wider Implications of Science and Technology (WIST) programme and future Sciencewise activity.

  21.  Sciencewise has published four case studies so far of funded projects as part of the development of the Expert Resource Centre for Public Dialogue on Science and Innovation (ERC).

Strategy and Communication

  22.  The four year Beacons for Public Engagement pilot programme, funded by Research Councils UK, the higher education funding councils and the Wellcome Trust has shortlisted bids from Universities and is expected to make a decision on the successful applicants in the autumn.

  23.  Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, held a workshop at the BA Festival of Science on 12 September to launch a new leaflet on the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists. Support for this continues to be received from Departments and Agencies across Whitehall following a letter from the CSA, and a number of these and external organisations also took part in the workshop, sharing their experiences of putting this into practice.

September 2007