MALCOLM WICKS MP

21 MARCH 2007

  Q40  Graham Stringer: Do you not think it is working against clustering elsewhere?

  Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not. I think it would be foolish, as it were, to do down that golden triangle.

  Q41  Graham Stringer: I am not trying to do it down. I am trying to do up other areas.

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I think we should do up (if that is not a slightly inelegant phrase) other areas. I know about the excellence of science in Manchester. I have visited the university to discuss aspects of energy science when I was Energy Minister. I hope to visit Manchester again. I am very aware of the importance there. Yesterday, I was discussing with the RDA Yorkshire Forward and academics from Yorkshire how we can, as it were, develop the excellent science that takes place in Yorkshire. I recently visited Newcastle, because it is a science city and there is a conference going on there, and I had the opportunity of meeting academics and scientists there doing very important work. One of the things I learned there was the importance of the proximity very often between, if you like, academic science, pure science and clinicians and I met people who were both doing science and clinical work. I do not want to play it both ways. I am committed to pure research but sometimes we can exaggerate the gap between pure and applied when it comes to clinical requirements.

  Q42  Dr Iddon: Cooksey recommended the creation of OSCHR, which we have discussed, but also the Translational Medicines Funding Board, which we do not appear to be hearing much about. Indeed, at the first meeting of OSCHR, we were told that OSCHR seems to be intent on stripping that second board of its funding role, which Cooksey recommended it should have. Also, Cooksey recommended that we should analyse the funding streams applicable to the translation of health research to identify any gaps. That part of Cooksey seems to being watered down, according to reports that are appearing in the press, in The Guardian for example of 27 February. Do you have anything to tell us about that second board?

  Malcolm Wicks: I would like to say that translational research is very important. There are plans to improve translational research. Exactly where that discussion is in the process I am not certain and perhaps the sensible thing for me to do would to write to the Committee about that.

  Q43  Dr Iddon: That would be helpful. Thank you.

  Malcolm Wicks: Clearly translational research is at the very heart of what we are now about and what Cooksey was recommending, part of the raison d'être for the establishment of OSCHR. That is what we are all seeking, is it not, to get this balance right between the pure and the applied? Translational research is, by definition, one way of getting that balance right.

  Q44  Chairman: Before we leave this particular area, one of the concerns the Committee had was that the Department of Health would in fact set priorities in terms of clinical research, that that would impact on the overall budget and resources would then come out of the MRC part in order to meet health department priorities. Have you had any discussions on that? Could you write to us on where that particular issue is?

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes, if I can write to you usefully on that I will. We do not see this as a diminution of the funding or the importance of the MRC, but clearly there needs to be some flexibility in funding between the two organisations, given our objectives.

  Q45  Chairman: We are concerned that the Department of Health would not in fact start to determine the agenda for the basic research. That is an area of concern which we raise. We would be grateful if you would write to us on that.

  Malcolm Wicks: I think that is being too tribal.

  Q46  Chairman: Too tribal?

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes.

  Q47  Chairman: That was your comment, Minister. We are never tribal, as a committee. Our last question is on public engagement.

  Malcolm Wicks: By which I meant obviously that when you reorganise things you seek better to align, say, two organisations. There will be suspicions and concerns of course there will, but I think they can be dismissed.

  Q48  Chairman: That never entered our heads.

  Malcolm Wicks: No.

  Q49  Chairman: We believe that all government departments work smoothly and harmoniously together for the benefit of the nation.

  Malcolm Wicks: It has been my experience of select committees too, Chairman.

  Q50  Chairman: Yes. On public engagement, what recent steps has the OSI taken to increase public engagement with its activities?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think a number of things. First of all, let me state the obvious, that this is really very important because of the importance of the knowledge economy. I am very concerned to argue, as I think we all would now, that gone are the days when we should regard science as this absolutely fascinating thing done by very clever people but slightly on the sidelines of society. It is very central to what we have described as the knowledge economy and also to many of the issues that confront us as a society: climate change, the need to attack these debilitating medical conditions, the potentiality of stem cell research and many, many other issues. I was at the Food Standards Agency yesterday talking about the importance of science in their work, as we seek to become a fitter nation and attack the scourge of obesity. These are very central issues now in our society. We do not just need a knowledge economy; we need (to use a slightly pompous term) a knowledge democracy. We need a democracy that can participate in these difficult and sometimes ethical debates, so that we are engaging the public in many ways. The Sciencewise programme is part of that. I mentioned the developments educationally. One of the things I have initiated, Chairman, since I last met this Committee, is what I hope will be a monthly roundtable meeting. We had the first one on stem cell research, which we held at Imperial College. I invited some of the leading stem cell scientists to tell me as Science Minister but also in plain English as a lay person where we are on stem cell research. I am delighted that they were able to come and they did that brilliantly. It was a fascinating period. I was asking them questions about how close or how far we are from applying this to some of the medical conditions and how we get the balance right between hope and hype on that. I invited certain science correspondents from the media to listen to the hour's discussion and then for 20 minutes they were able to ask the scientists questions. I am pleased that three or four newspapers reported that. I want to do that on a monthly basis. The next meeting will be on the biology of ageing, for example, and I think we will have another on the issues around rising sea levels and the experience from Antarctica which I had the privilege of visiting recently. Chairman, my initiative is to try to bridge the gap that sometimes exists between science and society.

  Q51  Linda Gilroy: Minister, what do you think the OSI can do to help repair the Government's reputation regarding public engagement following the court case over its nuclear energy consultation, nuclear power stations?

  Malcolm Wicks: I suppose I should declare an interest as someone asked by the Prime Minister to lead the Energy Review. We felt we conducted the Energy Review in a very open way. Certainly I participated in meetings across the nations on this. Greenpeace, our good friends there, have asked for a judicial review and the judge has made his judgment on that.

  Q52  Linda Gilroy: It was quite critical.

  Malcolm Wicks: He found the consultation to be at fault, in his opinion. Obviously we take that seriously and we are now developing a new consultation on nuclear energy.

  Q53  Linda Gilroy: Do you think there are general lessons to be learned by the Government in how it sets out its public engagement? It was very critical of there being insufficient information and making no proposals in the consultation.

  Malcolm Wicks: Obviously we take the judgment very seriously. On this instance of nuclear energy we will now carry out a consultation in the spirit of the judicial review judgment.

  Q54  Linda Gilroy: On getting younger researchers involved, the Royal Society, as you will know, published a report on various factors which affect that. One of its concerns was that the number of young researchers from institutions with higher RAE ratings were not so involved. How can we change that? How can OSI play a role in encouraging younger researchers and those from institutions with higher RAE ratings to participate in public engagement?

  Malcolm Wicks: Partly through the scheme I mentioned earlier, the Science and Engineering Ambassador scheme. Some of us were in the House to present awards only last week.

  Q55  Linda Gilroy: Yesterday.

  Malcolm Wicks: I think that is tremendously encouraging. One should not be ageist, but the fact that many of those ambassadors are really quite young themselves is very good in terms of their engagement with young people. I have mentioned the new science and engineering clubs. I am encouraged really that so many young scientists and engineers see a duty to be ambassadors.

  Q56  Linda Gilroy: Do you think there are incentives that could be given to scientists in general but to those in particular to get involved?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think the incentive is that this is the right thing to do and it is a job well done.

  Q57  Linda Gilroy: Can I suggest to you that there are some 80 science centres, including the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth. We have done a lot to increase access to museums by making access free. Do you think there is a role for OSI to look at those centres as hubs for scientists to perhaps engage with and engage the public with?

  Malcolm Wicks: As you know, at your invitation I saw some excellent Plymouth science, if I can call it that. It is clearly rising in importance—rather like Plymouth Argyle, I think, is rising in importance.

  Q58  Linda Gilroy: Indeed.

  Malcolm Wicks: And in terms of some of the marine work.

  Q59  Linda Gilroy: It is quite expensive, for instance, for the public to get into them, but could you perhaps consider lobbying the Treasury to make science centres free, at least for scientists and young students in schools?

  Malcolm Wicks: I would need to get some advice on that. I am sorry, this is a new idea for me but I see a funding bid. It is not a bad day to hear a funding bid, although perhaps slightly late! Generally, Chairman, I am encouraged by the way in which more scientists now are participating in public debate, including in some quite difficult areas about animal experimentation. I think more scientists feel they need to get out of the laboratory, as it were, and engage in public discourse. The fact that so many companies support the Ambassador scheme I think is very encouraging. Could I say, Chairman, that I am very, very committed to this agenda of how we get the balance right between science and society and any ideas from this Committee I would take most seriously.

  Chairman: Could we also say that the Royal Society of Chemistry ran a remarkable day with Voice of the Future last week, which you attended, to see many young scientists engaging very positively with all those issues. I think that is a positive note on which we will finish this session. Could we thank you for a very frank exchange of views. Thank you very much, Minister.