MALCOLM WICKS MP

21 MARCH 2007

  Q20  Dr Iddon: What other engagement do you have with the DfES to persuade students to go on beyond ordinary level sciences into A level sciences and, hence, hopefully on to university?

  Malcolm Wicks: There is quite a lot of engagement. Although I used to be, I am not going to pretend to be an education minister, as it were, because I am not one, but we are very heavily engaged. I have mentioned the discussions I have at ministerial level and my officials are engaged. Clearly, from our departmental point of view, given the importance of building a knowledge economy, which in many respects needs to be a science-based economy, we need good numbers, and I would like to see rising numbers of people going on to do the A levels and the university degrees, postgraduate, et cetera. That is our scientific and economic interest in this. We are very heavily engaged. We are also very heavily engaged, for example, in what I think could be a very important development, that of establishing science and engineering clubs. We launched those clubs during science week, which we have just come to the conclusion of. I went to Seven Kings School in Ilford, Essex, to launch that and Bill Rammell was in York. If we could get such clubs involved in more schools, if scientists and engineers from industry and the public sector could get involved in those clubs. We have a very good ambassador scheme, as you know, already. Science ambassadors, often quite young people in the public sector, in industry, are giving up some of their time, often with enthusiastic backing from the likes of Rolls Royce. If we can get those things going, then I think we stand a very good chance of engaging more young people in this enterprise.

  Q21  Mr Newmark: You have talked about the knowledge economy, as has the Chancellor, yet the perception out there for those at the sharp end—and there was a report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published last year on science and teaching in schools—is of a problem with funding for the maintenance and improvement of school science laboratories. I am wondering what the Government is doing just to deal with that very basic need in schools.

  Malcolm Wicks: I am surprised to hear you report that.

  Q22  Mr Newmark: I am only reflecting what was in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report of November 2006.

  Malcolm Wicks: Their Lordships, I am sure, will know that we are now engaged in a very major school building programme and improvement programme which is going to touch every secondary school in the country over time. That will enable us to build new laboratories fit for purpose. I think we are already seeing but we will see in the future huge improvements in laboratory facilities in schools.

  Q23  Mr Newmark: You are talking about new schools. Are you talking about retro-fitting laboratories in existing schools as well?

  Malcolm Wicks: There is an improvement programme as well, yes. I think the figures are available. When we talk about school building programmes, we are not just talking about 5% or something over 20 years. This is a colossal investment of funding to rebuild many of our secondary schools.

  Q24  Mr Newmark: I understand that, but I asked you a very specific question to do with sciences and funding laboratories and so on. So there will be more than adequate funding—because you have used this phrase "adequate funding".

  Malcolm Wicks: Just as my department has enabled the universities to have huge numbers of new laboratories—which is one of the great achievements of this Labour Government of which I am sure we are both proud—to bring about—

  Q25  Mr Newmark: I am sure the chemistry department at Exeter and other universities that are shutting down would not say that.

  Malcolm Wicks: I know, but look at this more objectively and you will see major new investment in laboratories and universities and, in parallel with that, we are seeing similar developments over coming years in our schools.

  Q26  Mr Newmark: Once the students have had their degrees and so on or their A levels, what steps are the Government taking to improve the quality of careers advice relating to STEM subjects?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think careers advice, as ever, remains a very live subject. There is a lot of excellent careers advice being given by the Connexions service, for example. One of the things we need to do is not just to focus on the career service or Connexions but also we need to enable more teachers themselves to have direct experience of modern day science. We often talk about work experience for pupils and I think we also need to focus on, if you like, work experience for teachers, so more teachers can go into high-tech, bio-science facilities and gain an improved understanding of what science careers and related engineering technology have to offer children.

  Q27  Mr Newmark: On that subject, there is a shortage of specialist physics and chemistry teachers. Do you think this will stimulate more people to take up teaching careers in chemistry, physics and so on?

  Malcolm Wicks: I hope so. There are of course facilities so that a science teacher of, say, biology can study physics, to come up to scratch, as it were, on that. There are the "golden hello" awards to try to attract scientists into teaching. Quite a good deal has been done.

  Q28  Mr Newmark: Why is there this challenge that we are facing at the moment? We have this great aspiration from all parties. We recognise there is a huge challenge out there with what is going on in India and in China with the huge numbers of science graduates coming out. We see this challenge, this competitive risk to our economy, our excellence in science and so on, yet there is this shortage of teachers willing to go in and teach subjects such as physics and chemistry, and a declining interest, it looks like, in students wanting to go into the sciences. How are we dealing with this challenge? It is a big problem.

  Malcolm Wicks: It is a big problem. I have mentioned the "golden hello" programme.

  Q29  Mr Newmark: You need more than a "golden hello". That is just a cash thing. There needs to be something else out there.

  Malcolm Wicks: Cash is not unimportant. When it comes to those studying, say, at A level one needs to look at the data rather carefully. In certain subjects, I think the student numbers are holding their own or even maybe—and it depends where you compare—slightly increasing. In some areas we do have some serious problems, like physics, where there has been a decline since 1997, if I am reading the data correctly—which I am, in terms of the numbers doing physics. I do not think any of us can be complacent about these things. Getting physicists into teaching and finding ways of doing that, which the Department of Education are seeking to do, is crucial to this. Of course it is.

  Q30  Chairman: I know it is sometimes unfair to ask you questions which are—

  Malcolm Wicks: But it will not stop you, Chairman, I know.

  Q31  Chairman: No, I try to be generous and helpful.

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I know.

  Q32  Chairman: I accept that this particular line of questioning is very much the DfES's frontline responsibility, but would it be possible for you or your officials to drop us a note outlining where you are connecting; where there is some joined-up government between your department and the DfES in terms of these core issues of how we develop good science in our schools; how we make sure the issues which Brian has raised of 21st Century Science gets a proper airing; and where the connections are between your ministry and the DfES. Perhaps you could let us have a note on that.

  Malcolm Wicks: I think that would be very helpful, because we could tell you about the strategy group on STEM, in which my department and DfES are involved, and about the meetings I am having with Bill Rammell and colleagues.

  Q33  Chairman: It would be useful to get that on the record. Could we move on, then, to Cooksey and the Cooksey Review. What discussions has OSI had concerning the implementation of Sir David Cooksey's recommendations for UK health research reforms?

  Malcolm Wicks: There is a lot of work going on. We are heavily involved in that. Keith O'Nions sits on the interim oversight group, which has been established by John Bell to assist this development in advance of the OSCHR board being created. So there is a great deal of work going on, not least to develop the joint CSR bid for the establishment of OSCHR itself.

  Q34  Chairman: Could I turn to something which concerned us when we met Sir David Cooksey about the role of OSCHR. How has OSI worked with OSCHR in terms of putting together this spending review, particularly in relation to the MRC funded research? It seemed to be quite clear in terms of what was happening with the NHS clinical research funding, but what is happening in terms of the relations between OSI and OSCHR, which traditionally would have been your responsibility?

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes. There is a lot of work going on at official level. The details and the structure of OSCHR itself are still being discussed. I believe you are about to publish a report on this, is that right?

  Q35  Chairman: We are, yes. Tomorrow.

  Malcolm Wicks: We will respond to that in due course.

  Q36  Dr Harris: Could I correct that. We published a report on Cooksey last week. It is a different report we are publishing tomorrow on Research Councils.

  Malcolm Wicks: The details and structure of OSCHR are still being discussed. As you know, we see this as a rather light-touch organisation, somewhere between only five to ten staff, jointly funded by the department and the Department of Health. Obviously we have a great deal of interest in MRC. It is one of our Research Councils. We see MRC as essentially retaining the same institutional structure as it now has. I just want to emphasise, if it needs emphasising, that, just as the review itself recognised, we certainly recognise the sheer importance of basic research, which is very much the hallmark of the MRC, but of course we remain very committed to the idea of a better alignment between the work of the MRC and health research within the healthcare system.

  Q37  Dr Harris: The OSI are the sponsoring department for the pharmaceutical industry and Cooksey made a number of recommendations about trying to speed up the drug pipeline. Some people interpret his report as suggesting that we should use MRC and NAIHR funds to add structures to help the pipeline along in certain areas. As far as you know, are you aware whether the DTI has responded to the Cooksey Report and Review supporting those proposals or are they still being discussed?

  Malcolm Wicks: We are committed to that principle you have outlined for all sorts of obvious reasons. One is that it could enhance healthcare and patient care. That is the main reason. We are very good at pharmaceuticals; we need to maintain our international position. We are very good at bioscience and we need to maintain that. I do think we now have a great opportunity, not least through the connecting for health proposals, to improve the situation further in Great Britain. If we can get a better alignment between pure research, applied research in the National Health Service, the capacity for clinical trials and so on, with connecting for health, I think we can really see a step-change in the future.

  Q38  Dr Harris: Could I put another view to you and ask you for your reaction. Some people feel it is not really the job of the MRC and the NAIHR to fill in gaps and help the pipeline along, partly because it distorts the priorities away from public health research which does not involve drugs and, indeed, other forms of health intervention which again do not involve drugs, and so maybe it is best left to pharma to do pharma and for public sector medical research, including pharmaceuticals, to do what it thinks is necessary rather than being pushed towards helping drug development.

  Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry, I do not see this whole development of involving that "push" as you put it. There are certain basic principles about the importance of what some people call "basic research". Even more important are principles about healthcare. How do we improve the healthcare of the nation? They are the crucial things. As you have reminded us (if we need reminding) that does not just include drugs and pharmaceutical companies. I do not see that potential distortion to which I think you are alluding, but I do think if we can have serious discussions about how we can enhance bioscience, how we can make sure Britain remains a good place for pharmaceuticals but with a better alignment with the National Health Service, that would be in the interests of patient care. But this is not just going to be driven by any one industry. Of course it is not.

  Q39  Graham Stringer: There is a feeling, Minster, as research is streamlined and better directed, that there is over-influence of the golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London, and that there is an unfairness of the spatial distribution of research when it comes to the consideration of, for example, Newcastle, Manchester—basically the hospitals and universities outside that triangle. Are you aware of that? Do you think that feeling has substance? I am thinking particularly about the decision on the biomedical research facility in Manchester recently—or not in Manchester, as it turns out.

  Malcolm Wicks: I would certainly like to see more clusters of excellence. The golden triangle in this part of the world is a fact of life and I think is delivering many benefits.