Objective C: Administration of
the Office of Science and Technology and the Research Councils
Task 7: To examine the Office of Science and Innovation's
objectives and performance
21. In April 2006, the Government announced that
the Innovation Group within the DTI would be incorporated into
the Office of Science and Technology to create the Office of Science
and Innovation. The Director General of the Research Councils,
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, became the Director General of Science
and Innovation, and the Director General of the Innovation Group,
David Hughes, left the DTI. On 24 April, we took evidence from
the then Secretary of State, Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, Sir Brian
Bender, Permanent Secretary, Professor Sir David King, Government
Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Office of Science and
Innovation, and Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, Director General
of Science and Innovation. We discussed the impact of the changes
upon staffing, the focus of the OSI and reasons for the changes.
This session will form the basis of our OSI Scrutiny Report 2006.
Task 8: To monitor the work of the Research Councils
22. The previous Committee held separate scrutiny
sessions with each of the Research Councils over the course of
the Parliament and published Reports on each in turn. In October
2005, we decided to take a different approach to scrutinising
the Research Councils and we began a programme of thematic scrutiny.
In December 2005, we launched our first thematic inquiry focusing
on Research Council support for knowledge transfer. We considered
the work undertaken by each Research Council in relation to knowledge
transfer, the role of the over-arching body Research Councils
UK, and stakeholder engagement. Scrutiny across the Research Councils
revealed the wide variety of knowledge transfer schemes and different
approaches to knowledge transfer. We recommended that more effort
be made to share best practice across the Councils and highlighted
the work undertaken by PPARC and the Arts and Humanities Research
Council in this area.[49]
23. Our second thematic inquiry into Research Council
Institutes (RCIs) was announced in March 2006. We invited evidence
on the role of RCIs in maintaining the UK research and skills
base, the approaches of different Research Councils to supporting
RCIs, and the progress on current reorganisations involving RCIs,
including the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), the National
Institute for Medical Research and the Roslin Institute. In December
2005, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) announced
that it intended to restructure CEH by focusing its work at four
of its sites and closing the other sites over a four-year transition
period.[50] NERC held
a consultation on the proposals from December 2005 to February
2006. On 25 January 2006, we raised the question of the reorganisation
with Lord Sainsbury during Science Question Time.[51]
We recognised that NERC's proposals were controversial and on
15 February 2006 held an informal meeting with the Chief Executive
and Finance Director of NERC. On 13 March 2006, NERC Council confirmed
its plans to restructure CEH. We were particularly concerned to
ascertain the impact of the restructuring upon scientific research
in the UK. We have continued to monitor the situation and on 12
December 2006, as part of our inquiry into Research Council Institutes,
we took evidence from Professor Patricia Nuttall, Director of
CEH regarding the impact of the reorganisation.[52]
During the Research Council Institutes inquiry, we have also returned
to the topic of the previous Committee's Report, The Medical
Research Council's Review of the Future of the National Institute
for Medical Research.[53]
On 13 December 2006, we took evidence from representatives
from Amicus, the University and College Union, and the Medical
Research Council.[54]
24. Due to the number and variety of Research Council
Institutes, we decided that individual Members would visit different
Institutes and report back to the Committee. Between September
2006 and December 2006, Members visited the MRC Human Genetics
Unit in Edinburgh, the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge,
the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill, the
John Innes Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
in Norwich, the Centre for Terrestrial Dynamics in Sheffield,
the Institute for Atmospheric Composition in Leeds, the Proudman
Oceanographic Institute in Liverpool, and the Babraham Institute
in Cambridge. We found that this approach was an effective way
to discuss informally the issues involved with as many people
as possible. We expect to produce a Report early in 2007.
25. We have found our new thematic approach to scrutinising
the Research Councils to be effective. It results in continual
rather than periodic scrutiny for each Council and it highlights
best practice within the Councils. We have discussed this new
approach with the Research Councils and have heard informally
that it is working well.
26. As well as undertaking thematic inquiries, we
also scrutinise the work of the Research Councils during other
broader inquiries and in one-off evidence sessions. Our new inquiry
into space policy will focus, for example, upon the work of PPARC.
During our inquiry into human enhancement technologies in sport,
we have considered the role for the Research Councils in funding
research in this area. On 30 November 2005, we also held a one-off
evidence session to consider the Medical Research Council's support
for research into avian influenza.[55]
This evidence session was undertaken in response to the confirmation
of the presence of the H5N1 virus in poultry in Turkey and Romania.[56]
Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the MRC, Dr Alan
Hay, Director of the World Health Organisation Influenza Centre
at NIMR, Professor Andrew McMichael, Professor of Molecular Medicine
at the MRC Human Immunology Unit at the University of Oxford,
and Professor Anne Johnson, Deputy Chairman of the MRC Infections
and Immunity Board from University College London gave evidence
covering vaccine development, funding and R&D. Our work in
this area complemented the inquiry into contingency planning for
avian influenza that was undertaken by the House of Lords Science
and Technology Committee.[57]
Task 9: To scrutinise major appointments made by the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry
27. We have examined new appointees to important
posts in the science world. It has not proved necessary to publish
short Reports in the period covered by this Annual Report. Although
we have no power to ratify or to veto appointments, such sessions
provide us with the opportunity to satisfy Parliament that the
post has been filled with someone of sufficient calibre; to establish
the views and the principles that the new incumbent brings to
the job; to alert them to our interests and concerns; and to heighten
awareness of our role in scrutinising the work of organisations
with an impact on science policy and of the individuals that work
within them. In October 2005, we held an introductory session
with the new Chief Executive of NERC, Professor Alan Thorpe.[58]
In January 2006, we held an introductory session with the new
Chief Executive of PPARC, Professor Keith Mason.[59]
Further such sessions are planned for the forthcoming year.
Task 10: To examine the implementation of legislation and
major policy initiatives, following up earlier Reports by the
Committee
28. We have followed up Reports published by our
predecessor Committee in a number of ways: holding one-off oral
evidence sessions; publishing a follow-up Report; initiating debates
in Westminster Hall and on the floor of the House; writing to
the Department involved; and holding informal meetings with those
affected by our Reports.
29. In April 2005, the previous Committee published
a Report on strategic science provision in English Universities.[60]
We received the Government Response to this Report in July 2005.[61]
We were dissatisfied with the Government's rejection of several
of the Report's recommendations, in particular the idea of a "hub
and spokes" model to ensure science provision throughout
the regions. On 2 November 2005, we held a follow-up evidence
session with Bill Rammell MP, Minister of State for Lifelong Learning,
Further and Higher Education, Department for Education and Skills,
and Sir Howard Newby, Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE).[62]
During this evidence session, we raised several issues that concerned
us, such as the role of HEFCE and the Government's market-led
approach to strategic science provision. On 12 March 2006, the
University of Sussex announced that it was reorganising its Chemistry
Department and creating a Chemical Biology Department.[63]
We were keen to ascertain to what extent HEFCE had been involved
in the process and took evidence on 27 March 2006 from Professor
Alasdair Smith, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, Dr
Gerry Lawless, Head of Chemistry at Sussex, and Mr Steve Egan,
Acting Chief Executive at HEFCE. On 4 May we produced a short
Report, Strategic Science Provision in English Universities:
A Follow-up, that used the developments at Sussex to draw
out lessons of general relevance to strategic provision of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects.[64]
On 15 May 2006, the University of Sussex announced its plans to
retain chemistry provision at the University.[65]
We have since raised the subject of the strategic provision of
STEM subjects in the UK with the Science Minister at Science Question
Time and we will continue to monitor developments.
30. At the beginning of the Parliament, we also received
the Government Response to our predecessor Committee's Report
on forensic science.[66]
We held a one-off evidence session to clarify the Government's
Response on 23 November 2005 with Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney
General, Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State for the Department
for Constitutional Affairs, and Andy Burnham MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Home Office.[67]
During the evidence session, Lord Goldsmith stated that "the
report of the Committee ... has been enormously helpful. It has
meant that a lot of key information has been shared across the
agencies. We value that."[68]
In order to bring this Report to the attention of the House, we
initiated a debate in Westminster Hall on 20 April 2006, which
was responded to by the Home Office Minister, Andy Burnham. The
Minister said that:
"the Committee is not celebrating its achievements
enough. The publication of the report ... has led to an unprecedented
focus on forensic science, certainly in this place ... I do not
believe that there has ever been so much scrutiny or focus in
Parliament on such matters. That focus is to be welcomed, and
the Committee's report has played a vital role in stimulating
the process."[69]
31. We have also kept developments in relation to
the previous Committee's Report, Human Reproductive Technologies
and the Law, under review.[70]
On 3 July 2006, we debated the Report on the floor of the House
and on 12 July 2006 we held a follow-up evidence session with
the Minister of State for Public Health, Caroline Flint MP. We
will continue to monitor changes in this area with interest.
32. In July 2006, we published a Report on the classification
of illegal drugs as part of our over-arching inquiry into scientific
advice.[71] We welcomed
the Government's review of the classification system, criticised
certain aspects of the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse
of Drugs (ACMD), highlighted anomalies in the classification of
individual drugs, and recommended that the Government consider
decoupling penalties from classification. The Government published
its response to our Report in October 2006.[72]
It rejected several key recommendations including the decoupling
of penalties and classification, and stated that the Government
had decided not to pursue its review of the classification system.
The ACMD published a separate response that was heavily critical
of our Report.[73] We
held a follow-up evidence session on 22 November 2006 with Vernon
Coaker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Policing,
Security and Community Safety, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins,
Chairman of the ACMD, and Professor David Nutt, Chair of the ACMD
Technical Committee.[74]
During the evidence session, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins admitted
that criticisms made in the ACMD's response had arisen from a
misunderstanding of our Report.[75]
33. Another area of policy that we have kept under
review is the development of science education in schools. In
2002, our predecessor Committee published a Report on science
education from 14 to 19.[76]
This Report followed by a report on science in schools by the
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in March 2001.[77]
On 14 February 2006 we held a joint informal meeting with the
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to hear from representatives
from the Nuffield Curriculum Centre about how these reports had
influenced the curriculum. The meeting involved a panel discussion,
presentation on the new 'Twenty-First Century Science Curriculum',
and a question and answer session.
34. During 2006, we have monitored the developments
on several Reports by writing to the Departments involved for
updates. We sought information from the Home Office in relation
to The Scientific Response to Terrorism Report and the
Department for International Development about the Report on the
use of science in UK international development policy.[78]
Both of these Reports were also referred to during our inquiry
into scientific advice. The Report on the scientific response
to terrorism had noted weaknesses in the scientific culture in
the Home Office that were subsequently reiterated in the Forensic
Science on Trial Report.[79]
When giving oral evidence during the scientific advice inquiry,
the Home Office Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, Paul Wiles,
stated:
"I am painfully aware you have also been highly
critical of the Home Office and science within the Home Office.
Indeed, to some extent the reason why I am CSA was in response
to some of those criticisms. You were right to be critical. I
think there were a number of things first of all to do with the
organisation and influence of science in the Home Office, not
particularly the number of scientists, the Home Office has always
had quite a lot of scientists—good scientists—but
you were right to be critical".[80]
In the same evidence session, the Departmental Chief
Scientific Adviser at the Department for International Development,
Sir Gordon Conway said that "I am very conscious that in
some respects I am a kind of child of this Committee", referring
the indirect effect of the Committee's The Use of Science in
UK International Development Report in creating his post in
the Department.[81]
Task 11: To hold Ministers to account
35. Our scrutiny of science policy across Government
leads us to take evidence from Ministers in many different Government
departments, depending on the inquiry (see table 4 below). We
have taken evidence from Ministers representing six departments:
DTI, the Home Office, DoH, DfES, the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.Table
4: Ministerial evidence to inquiries
