BACKGROUND ON THE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

  1. The Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the UK Government's top-level advisory body on strategic science and technology policy issues, reporting to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Devolved Administrations. The Council provides advice to government through written reports and regular meetings with ministers and senior officials.

  2. Members of the Council are respected senior figures drawn from across the field of science, engineering and technology. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and in line with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Its work programme is developed by Council members in discussion with government. CST can draw on additional expertise by inviting non-members to join subgroups that are taking forward specific pieces of work.

  3. The Council has a co-chairing arrangement; each co-chair has a distinct role. Professor Janet Finch was appointed as co-chair by the Prime Minister on 1 March 2007; she chairs those meetings where CST is discussing and developing its advice to Government. Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA), chairs those meetings where CST is preparing to report its advice to Government.

UNIVERSAL ETHICAL CODE FOR SCIENTISTS

  4. Following discussions at a Carnegie meeting[1] in 2005, Sir David King, convened a small working group, which included members of CST's Science and Society subgroup,[2] to help him to consider the issues around developing a universal ethical code of conduct for scientists. Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists was the product of the group's work.

  5. Sir David circulated the code to his G8 and EU colleagues, and also trialled it with government scientists as part of his role as the Head of Profession. He asked CST to look at how the code could be disseminated more widely and how, in practice, it could have a useful role. In May 2005, CST wrote widely to universities, professional bodies, research funders, industry bodies, schools and colleges and trade unions seeking feedback on the proposed code. Three specific questions were asked:

—  Do you think that the universal ethical code for scientists has the potential to fulfil the aims of: fostering ethical research; encouraging active reflection; and supporting constructive communication?

—  Would your institution(s) consider adopting or using the universal ethical code for scientists? If yes, what could this mean in practice? Which of the options that you have identified would seem most feasible and most worthwhile? If no, why not? Is your reasoning of specific relevance to your institution or one of more general principle?

—  Have you, or do you plan to take the opportunity to put the universal ethical code for scientists into use? If yes, could you describe briefly: how it was or will be used; and what impact it had or you hope it will have. How do you think others could be persuaded to take similar steps?

  A total of 67 responses were received, a summary of these (which was produced at the time) is at Annex A. Two main roles for the code were identified:

First, educating and training new scientists:

  6. Recent developments in GCSE and A level curricula, which require students to develop a greater understanding of the way science works and which are in part intended to increase young people's interest and engagement with science, mean that the code could provide a useful resource for teachers and students. At the university level, the code could contribute to taught courses on research ethics and methods at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level. Several universities gave examples of courses that they offer where the code might be used.

Secondly, informing and supporting the development of more specific codes:

  7. The consultation confirmed that many organisations had codes of conduct and ethical frameworks in place that were specific to their own needs. The code could therefore form a checklist of minimum standards for the content of more specific codes and could also sit alongside a supplement. For example: the Royal Academy of Engineering used the code to inform the development of their Statement of Ethical Principles for professional engineers; several professional bodies said that they would post the code on their website and bring it the attention of their members; and one University told us that they would be amending their own policies to bring out the expectation that scientists should "seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society".

  8. The consultation also suggested some more formal roles for the code, such as forming part of graduation ceremonies, being linked to employment and research contracts, or being adopted by institutions or individuals as a public statement of their working methods. There was almost no support for these proposals. The general view was that there is little to be gained from introducing an ethical code into formal structures unless it can be enforced, and it is very difficult to see how enforcement mechanisms could be applied to such a general code. CST observed that the code did not seem to have had the power to attract strong allegiance in the way the Hippocratic Oath does for medics, perhaps because of its general nature.

  9. CST received some relatively minor comments on the content of the code and on its title (particularly on the use of the word "universal") and judged that, while it may be appropriate to revise the wording of the code in the future, it should continue to be promulgated as it stands. It would, however, be useful to produce material to sit alongside the code that illustrates how its broad principles might be seen in practice. Indeed, this may be essential if the code is to be used in an education and training context.

CST'S RECOMMENDATIONS

  10. CST recommended that the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI) should look to promote the code's role as a focus for reflecting on the ethical, professional and legal responsibilities of scientists. Three separate but interconnecting recommendations were made—the successful implementation of any one would be at least partially dependant on progress made with the others:.

—  OSI should publish the universal ethical code for scientists and promote it through the general and scientific media.

—  OSI should work with organisations that (i) support school science education ii) support the development of under and post graduate education, to identify how best to bring the code into curricula, including identifying what support materials might be needed.

—  OSI should work with networks of universities and professional bodies to encourage the review of their own codes and frameworks against the universal ethical code for scientists.

HOW CST DEVELOPS ITS ADVICE

  11. CST operates in a flexible way, depending on the particular needs and objectives of the subject matter in question. Whilst preparing advice CST has engaged with an extremely wide range of people and organisations inside and outside Government: Within Whitehall and Westminster CST has had detailed discussions with the Prime Minister and other ministers, MPs and Peers, departmental Chief Scientific Advisors, and senior officials. CST has been very keen to speak to the wider business and scientific community as well, having met Chief Executives and Chairs of leading companies, representatives of learned societies and individual academics, including a group of researchers at the start of their careers.

  12. The work agenda is developed both from within the membership, and in response to requests from Government, focusing on the medium to longer term. CST provide its advice through published reports, at meetings with the Prime Minister, departmental ministers and senior officials, in letters to Government, and through written responses to consultations by Government and other bodies. CST follows up its advice at regular intervals, reviewing Government's response and actions. The Council is keen to interact with policy makers at the beginning of the process and as policy is developed.

  13. CST reports are given a very wide circulation—within Government to the Prime Minister, Chancellor, ministers and senior officials with relevant policy leads, the Cabinet Committee for Science and Innovation and to the Devolved Administrations. CST also targets the major players in business, key public sector contacts, and a broad range of regional and professional bodies. For example, CST's Personal Datasets report was sent out to over 100 interested parties across Government and business.

  14. The Select Committee requested of evidence from CST in May 2006 when undertaking the inquiry "Scientific advice, risk and evidence: how Government handles them". An updated version of this memorandum is at Annex B, and includes advice CST has published since June 2006.

June 2007

INTRODUCTION

  During the latter half of 2004, Sir David King, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser, convened a small working group to help him consider the issues around developing a universal ethical code of conduct for scientists. The universal ethical code for scientists was intended to be a stimulus for reflection and discussion on the ethical and professional responsibilities of scientists. The group agreed that it would be most useful to develop a code that would: have an educational role, raising awareness; capture a small number of principles; be adopted voluntarily.

  Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists was the product of the group's work. Sir David King asked the Council for Science and Technology (CST), to look at how the code could be disseminated more widely and how, in practice, it could have a useful role.

  In May 2005, CST wrote out widely across universities, professional bodies, research funders, industry bodies, schools and colleges and trade unions seeking feedback on the proposed code.

  The consultation asked three specific questions:

—  Do you think that the universal ethical code for scientists has the potential to fulfil the aims of: fostering ethical research; encouraging active reflection; and supporting constructive communication? Please explain briefly.

—  Would your institution(s) consider adopting or using the universal ethical code for scientists?

—  Have you, or do you plan to, take the opportunity to put the universal ethical code for scientists into use?

  The first question relates to the purpose of the code, whilst questions two and three concentrate on how the code may be used in practice. Although the consultation did not ask for comments on the actual content of the code, there were replies that did specifically mention this point. These replies are acknowledged under the section content of the code.

  The total number of responses received was 67, of which 54 were broadly supportive of the development and promotion of the proposed code. A full list of responders can be found below.

PURPOSE OF THE CODE

  General themes around the code being useful as an educational tool, the applicability of the code and how the code would be enforced emerged from replies to the first question.

Discussion Document/Educational Tool

  The Royal Society, The Academy of Medical Sciences, University of Cambridge (Department of History and Philosophy of Science) Northumbria University, Writtle College, Kingston University, Staffordshire University, University of Ulster, University College London (Department of Physics and Astronomy), UK Council for Graduate Education, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Royal Society of Edinburgh, The Department of Health, The Wellcome Trust and York St John College to some extent all raised issues around the area of raising awareness/encouraging active reflection:

—  The code might be a catalyst for a more in depth consideration of the issues rather than the management of research ethics.

—  The code will be useful for stimulating debate and raising awareness at both under and postgraduate level.

—  Code is a useful vehicle for encouraging scientists to reflect on issues rather than a set of guidelines, which can be adopted and enforced across the research community.

—  The dissemination of such a code could serve to remind institutions of their duties in this field.

—  As an educational tool, the code may be effective in introducing future scientists to ethical concerns.

—  The Code would make an excellent form of mission statement within the area of research ethics.

Applicability

  Fourteen[3] organisations made the following points and raised questions about whom the Code should apply to:

—  Occupations in science, or that use science are wide ranging, as are the organisations that employ scientists. For the Code to be universal it must be applicable to all scientists, wherever they work.

—  Principles espoused in the Code are applicable to engineers, social scientists, in fact anyone undertaking research. Maybe the code needs to be broadened to encompass those working in humanities research.

—  Significant differences of approach and standards in some areas of the social science compared to natural and physical sciences.

—  A Code across all scientific disciplines in all institutions where research is carried out makes excellent sense.

—  Would the Code include industrial and military research?

Enforcement

  The following organisations picked up on the area of how the code would be enforced.

  The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), Department for Education and Skills, The Royal Meteorological Society and University of York (Biology Department), The University of Aberdeen and the UK Council for Graduate Education, The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, De Montfort University and The Wellcome Trust asked similar questions:

—  For a system to be taken seriously by the public, there needs to be clear systems for monitoring.

—  Who could police such a code, and how?

—  If the Code were violated who would make jurisdiction and what sort of sanction would be put into place?

—  The general nature of some of the provisions of the Code might make it difficult to enforce and may discourage institutions from actively adopting or using the code.

  University of Oxford make the following point about their existing code, which also alludes to the area of enforcement:

—  University already has individual codes of practice relating to academic integrity and conflict of interest, and procedures for dealing with research involving animals and human participants. It is not entirely clear how these existing codes and procedures might relate to the universal Code in terms of how one might deal with breaches of the latter as opposed to breaches of the former, where the issue of action following breach is clear.

  RSC and Canterbury Christ Church University make the following point:

—  The reference to lawful activity in the Code is tricky. What is lawful, or considered acceptable in one country or culture, may not be in another. Scientists work internationally.

  Research Councils UK makes the point:.

—  That for the Code to encourage active reflection and consideration of ethical issues it should formally be adopted into conditions of working and funding.

  Human Genetics Commission, Scientists for Global Responsibility and University of Surrey all make the point of:

—  Establishing whistle-blowing charters to ensure effective ethical practice.

HOW COULD THE CODE BE USED?

  General themes around how the universal code would relate to existing codes and how the code could be used across schools, colleges and universities in a training capacity emerged from responses to the second and third questions.

Existing Codes

  Twenty-nine organisations[4] stated that—they already had a code in place; were thinking of developing one; may develop a code at some stage in the future. Of these twenty-nine, thirteen stated to some extent that:

—  The proposed universal Code enhanced existing institutional codes of conduct and governance.

—  The universal code could be used as a set of guidelines or as a checklist for institutions that are in the process of establishing their own code.

—  Code supplements policies and procedures that are already in place.

—  Code offers a good comparison of standards, policy and practice across scientific disciplines.

  Sixteen organisations stated that they:

—  Already have their own ethical code, code of practice, ethical guidelines in place (or are developing one) or an existing research ethics framework, which had been tailored for their own particular circumstance.

—  Considered the code as representing minimum threshold levels to an existing code, or that the principles encapsulated in the code are already promoted through an existing code.

  EC UK states that they believe that their guidance embraces all the requirements of the Code. Furthermore as it is designed to recognise all the circumstances in which a professional engineer exercises his/her responsibility they believe it goes a great deal further.

Schools

  The Royal Society response went into detail on how the code be put into practice at the 14-19 age group in the field of education and awareness raising:

—  This relates to the changes to the science curriculum at Key Stage 4 and the development of GCSEs and A levels that give greater emphasis to the way science works, to controversial issues and to the ethics of science. Publication of such a Code is timely for teachers and for 14—19 year old students.

—  It was suggested that CST works through existing organisations and networks in order to communicate the Code and its messages into schools in the most constructive way.

  Thinktank, the Birmingham Science Museum, held events in September and October with twenty Key Stage 3 students and forty Year 12 students. A session on research ethics was held that was based on the CST universal ethical code. Students were given the code and asked to compare and contrast this with their own efforts. At the end of the exercise the students were asked for their opinions on the use of a code of conduct and its role within the scientific community (including schools).

  Below is a summary of the conclusions drawn from the above event:

—  It was clear from the written comments that the students created, that they believed very strongly in the need for a code of conduct.

—  When shown the CST code, most of the students agreed with the ideas promulgated.

—  The majority of the students felt that they had a responsibility to follow the code and nearly 70% of the Year 12 students claimed that they would try and follow the code in their own work.

—  Around 30% of the students felt that knowing the code would soon be in place actually made science a more attractive career option and also increased their trust in scientists.

Universities and learned societies

  Within this area responses ranged from general comments on how the code may be used within university life/culture to more specific suggestions/aspirations/policies on actually using the Code practically.

Membership

  The Royal Astronomical Society, Lancaster University and London Mathematical Society state that:

—  The Code would be included with material sent to new fellows ie accepting it would form part of the conditions for joining the society, sent to research student supervisors and to new members.

Training

  Sixteen organisations[5] made reference to how the Code could be taken forward and established via training. These responses ranged from general comments such as:

—  Ethics education for scientists being is and should be a core aspect of training from undergraduate level onwards. Without training the main objectives of the code will not be achieved.

—  The Code could serve as a focus for discussion in the research-training programme for research students and discussed in research ethics sessions for all students.

—  Encourage students and members alike to familiarise themselves with the code.

—  The code is more likely to achieve the desired impact if institutions offer training to ensure that all researchers know what the provisions mean, and how they are required to act in order to comply with them.

  To some more specific proposals from the following organisations:

  Northumbria University envisages:

—  A collaboration within Universities in the North East to provide a module on research ethics for postgraduate research students on which this code will impact.

  University of Portsmouth say that in the short term:

—  The Code is likely to be used in recent curriculum developments, for example Ethics in Computing and Research Methods.

—  At least one department has agreed to use the Code as support for ethical commitment in RAE documentation.

  And longer-term aims include:

—  Insertion of the Code into department handbooks.

—  Use it as part of personal and professional development studies.

  Kingston University state that:

—  They could envisage publishing a statement to the effect that as an institution we subscribe to the values set out in this Code and expect all staff and students to do likewise.

Web-sites

  The following organisations all stated that they would place, would actively consider placing (or have links to) the Code on their web site. British Psychological Society, Royal Astronomical Society, Lancaster University, University of Sheffield, London Mathematical Society, Sheffield Hallam University, The Wellcome Trust, Kings College London.

CONTENT OF THE CODE

  It was not the intention of the consultation to seek to change the wording of the code or amend the actual code itself. There were however responses that commented on the general content of the code.

  The following organisations suggested drafting amendments to the Code—The Royal Society, Imperial College London student society Pugwash, RCUK, Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

  Nuffield Council on Bioethics suggest that the positive contributions of science should be commented on rather than negative images that come across in section 2 of the Code: Respect for life, the law and the public good.

  Queen Mary, University of London felt that the statement would have greater value if it addressed issues such as plagiarism, open publication and ethical peer review.

  ECUK state that professional engineers influence health and safety, commercial transactions and public understanding of the role of science and technology in society to an enormous extent and that the support of CST in this area would be welcome.

NEXT STEPS

  The common theme that ran through many of the responses (supportive or not) was one of being kept informed of developments. The number of responses received suggests that the consultation process has stimulated debate in this area, which was one of the intentions of the Code.

LIST OF ORGANISATIONS THAT RESPONDED TO UNIVERSAL ETHICAL CODE CONSULTATION

  The Academy of Medical Sciences.

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

  British Heart Foundation.

  British Psychological Society.

  Canterbury Christ Church University.

  Council for Industry and Higher Education.

  Courtauld Institute of Art.

  De Montfort University.

  Department for Education and Skills.

  Department of Health.

  Engineering Council UK.

  Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Human Genetics Commission.

  Institute of Biology.

  Imperial College London.

  Imperial College London Student Society Pugwash.

  Kings College London.

  Kingston University.

  Lancaster University.

  London Mathematical Society.

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

  Loughborough University.

  Northumbria University.

  Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

  Queen Mary, University of London.

  Queen's University Belfast.

  President of the Royal Society.

  Research Councils UK.

  Royal Astronomical Society.

  Royal College of Music.

  Royal Geographical Society.

  Royal Meteorological Society.

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

  Royal Society of Chemistry.

  Scientists for Global Responsibility.

  Sheffield Hallam University.

  Staffordshire University.

  The Royal Academy of Engineering.

  The Royal Society.

  The Royal Society of Edinburgh.

  Trinity College of Music.

  UK Council for Graduate Education.

  University College Chester.

  University College London (Department of Physics and Astronomy).

  University of Aberdeen.

  University of Birmingham.

  University of Cambridge (Department of History and Philosophy of Science).

  University of Exeter.

  University of Kent.

  University of Lincoln.

  University of Oxford.

  University of Plymouth.

  University of Plymouth (Deputy Director—Research and Innovation).

  University of Portsmouth (Department of Mechanical and Design Engineering).

  University of Portsmouth (Department of Geography).

  University of Sheffield.

  University of Sunderland.

  University of Surrey.

  University of Teeside.

  University of Ulster.

  University of Worcester.

  University of York (Biology Department).

  Universities Scotland.

  The Wellcome Trust.

  Thinktank.

  Writtle College.

  York St John College.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  The Council for Science and Technology is the UK Government's top-level advisory body on strategic science and technology policy issues, reporting to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Devolved Administrations. It is an independent body with its work programme developed by Council members in discussion with government. The Council provides advice to government through written reports and regularl meetings with ministers and senior officials. Recent advice has covered energy strategy, public dialogue, and the use of personal information by government. Examples of the impact CST has had on the development of policy since it was re-launched in 2004 are provided below.

CST'S REMIT AND WAYS OF WORKING

  CST focuses on issues that cut across Government departments within the medium to long-term. CST was re-launched in 2004 with new terms of reference and ways of working, these are published on the Council's website, www.cst.gov.uk, together with published reports and notes of meetings.

  Members of the Council are respected senior figures drawn from across the field of science, engineering and technology (list at Annex). They are appointed by the Prime Minister and in line with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. CST can draw on additional expertise by inviting non-members to join subgroups that are taking forward specific pieces of work.

  The Council has two chairs, each with a distinct role. Professor Janet Finch, the independent co-chair, chairs any meeting where CST is discussing and developing its advice to Government. Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, chairs those meetings where CST is reporting its advice to Government.

  CST is an independent body and its work programme is developed by members in discussion with Government. However, the Government can and does ask CST to consider particular issues. The Council decides the approach to each area of work on a case-by-case basis, considering how best it can add value. It can also choose to deliver its advice to Government by various routes including: publishing reports; through confidential written advice; and through discussions with ministers, officials and special advisers. The Government is required to respond to CST reports.

  The Council gathers its evidence through commissioning studies on specific topics, organising meetings and workshops bringing together individuals from across Government and other bodies, and has organised dinner discussions with top UK business people. The full council meets four times a year, with guests invited to speak on topics of relevance to CST's work programme. CST may also ask for written submissions.

  After reports have been published, CST continues to monitor developments, revisiting its reports periodically, and feeds their recommendations into its other work. For example, CST's report on how better public engagement can lead to improved policy making (Policy through dialogue) has helped shape the conclusions on our energy and public health reports

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT

  In March 2004, the Government published a consultation on its Science and Innovation 10-year Investment Framework. CST wrote to the Chancellor setting out its views on the emerging framework and offering to assist Government with reviewing progress on implementing the framework. The Government published its 10-year framework in July 2004 which acknowledged a role for CST in providing advice on the prioritization of strategic research issues.

  In November 2004, CST wrote to the three lead departments (DTI, DfES and the Treasury) welcoming the Government's clear recognition of the strategic importance of science and technology to our society, and flagging up a number of areas that the CST sees as key issues for government and for the science base. CST will assist Government wherever possible in taking forward the aims of the framework document. CST will be responding to the Government's discussion paper Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-14: next steps published with the 2006 Budget.

  CST has produced a number of reports and recommendations to Government. During 2005-06 CST has focused on five main areas of work: innovation and wealth creation, the use of personal information by Government, energy, public health and the UK's research endeavour.

  Recent reports are described below, with examples of the impact CST has had on policy development. The work on Real Options Analysis has a direct bearing on the Select Committee's interest in the treatment of risk within Government.

AN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY STRATEGY FOR THE UK—MAY 2005

  The CST report recommended:

(i) immediate investment in large scale, low-carbon, energy generation facilities to meet the Government's carbon dioxide reduction targets;

(ii) keeping the nuclear option open and placing more emphasis on carbon sequestration and tidal power;

(iii) Government investment in R&D should be aimed at new and renewable fuel sources, energy management, storage and improving the supply and training of skilled workers in the UK;

(iv) developing the transmission network to facilitate distributed and diverse generation; and

(v) addressing the regulatory issues arising from this form of generation. The report also highlighted the collapse of energy RD&D budgets over the past 15 years, and the accompanying reduction in workforce supply and training.

  CST wrote to Malcolm Wicks in April 2006, responding to the Government's Energy Review. We provided advice on the process for arriving at energy solutions—in particular the importance of market solutions and how particular technologies could contribute to the four energy goals. We have looked at a set of timelines for the range of energy technologies as we believe there is an urgent need to identify the fiscal and other drivers that will create the framework to encourage deployment of these technologies, as well as putting policies in place to overcome the barriers to their successful deployment.

  We also provided advice on the need for public dialogue and engagement as an important component of a successful energy policy.

  Together with the Royal Academy of Engineering, we arranged a conference "Energy 2100" which looked at a range of emerging technologies which might help power the UK and the world 100 years from now. It brought together 150 experts in the field and provoked stimulating debate.

  Our energy work is a very good example of how CST has developed its relationship with Government on a specific issue in providing independent advice as the agenda develops.

BETTER USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS—NOVEMBER 2005

  In November 2005, CST published a report that set out how the use of personal data by Government offers enormous benefits, with the potential to create more efficient and accessible public services, but that risks must be addressed in order to secure these benefits. Key recommendations included:

—  extensive public engagement with the public and civil society groups;

—  regulatory and governance frameworks to minimise the risks;

—  research into privacy enhancing technologies; and

—  the creation of a focal point within Government to plan and coordinate a joined-up approach.

  CST commissioned a number of case studies and arranged for a focus group exercise to engage in dialogue with the public on the key issues. The case studies and focus groups report are available on our website.

  The report is having a far-reaching impact within Government departments and beyond. The Department for Transport's then Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Frank Kelly, came to meet the Council, and discuss the report's recommendations with respect to the Government's "Data Grand Challenge". Professor Kelly and Mark Walport (who chaired the CST subgroup) debated these issues at a Foundation for Science and Technology meeting in May 2006.

  The report has been praised at the most senior levels across Whitehall, and is being fed into the Ministerial Committee on Data Sharing, to which CST is expecting to give evidence. The Information Commissioner has also recognised the value of CST's recommendations, citing them in his response to the Cabinet Office consultation on "Transformational Government—Enabled by Technology" and in other fora.

  CST will be continuing its interest in the use of personal data, relating this work to aspects of public health.

POLICY THROUGH DIALOGUE—MARCH 2005

  In March 2005, CST published a report encouraging Government to do more to engage the public in the development of science and technology based policies, without which the economic and social gains expected from the 10-year investment framework for science and innovation were at risk. CST commissioned cases studies to identify how public dialogue has influenced policy development and decision-making in science and technology.

  The report described how Government should adopt an explicit framework for the use of public dialogue to inform science and technology related policies, and emphasised a set of specific processes that should be followed. The principles from the report have underpinned much of CST's other work.

  The Government accepted all of CST's recommendations in its response (published in September 2005) with parts of the report incorporated into the updated "Guidelines On Scientific Analysis In Policy Making". To address CST's call for the development of a "corporate memory", Government is undertaking a scoping study to establish the remit of a cross-Government resource on public dialogue, and has invited CST to conduct a thorough review within three years of the response.

  CST acted as a catalyst within Government, by initiating contact between the Home Office Civil Renewal Unit and OSI's Science and Society Directorate. "Together we can", the Government's action plan to get citizens and public bodies working together was published soon after, and refers to the report.

REAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS (ROA)—MAY 2005

  CST has investigated the methods, tools, and systems available to Government in making strategic investment choices between different technologies to aid investment and monitor progress in relation to the 10-year Science and Innovation Framework. The report found that at this stage ROA was primarily useful as a qualitative rather than quantitative tool for stimulating thinking about the range of possible options available, and helping to make decisions on which to invest in.

  This is an important piece of work which is starting to have an impact in a broader arena, for example on the treatment of risk within Government, and processes which Government might use to make choices.

INNOVATION IN THE SERVICES SECTOR—SEPTEMBER 2006

  The objective of CST's services sector project was to understand more clearly the needs of services sector companies—which comprise over 70% of the economy and in some of the highest value-added areas—and how better to connect them to both the science base and Government. CST established a study group with DTI and Treasury to examine why apparently so little R&D expenditure is being performed within the UK services sector.

  The challenge for Government is to understand services company needs, foster innovation, find ways to connect them to the research base and universities and develop an overall strategy to interacting with these important and high value-added sectors of business.

  CST's recommendations, sent to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer covered five broad areas:

—  the need for a better strategic focus for the services sector in Government;

—  metrics—the level of innovation and R&D in the services sectors is not adequately captured;

—  the misunderstanding between services companies and the science base because of different understandings of language—services businesses talk about knowledge, or know-how; universities talk about research, development;

—  the lack of architecture for knowledge transfer between academia and the services sectors—vital if services businesses are to continue to innovate and grow and an area where Government should play a role; and

—  the perception that the regulatory burden has increased at the expense of innovation, commercialisation and growth.

  Since taking up these topics, CST has been pleased to see them being addressed by Government. In the "Transforming Government Procurement" document from the Treasury, it is recognised that "the Government needs to make the most of innovations being developed in the world-class UK science base" and that departments will be encouraged to interact with the science base on major complex procurements where advanced technology can play a role. DTI is also establishing a team to provide better cross-departmental focus for the services sector.

HEALTH IMPACTS—A STRATEGY ACROSS GOVERNMENT—DECEMBER 2006

  The focus of this project was how potential health impacts are assessed and used in policy-making across Government other than the Department of Health. In defining the scope of the project CST wanted to consider examples of where policy making is successfully joined up, and those where it is not.

  A set of case studies were developed to identify and describe policy processes, which demonstrate the benefits of assessing potential health impacts by Government departments or processes, which lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. A workshop was held in March 2006, attended by stakeholders from the research community, academia and Government to assist CST in developing recommendations.

  CST's report, Health Impacts—a strategy across Government was published in December 2006. The key message was that improving the health of the population as a whole, as well as reducing health inequalities, should be the business of all Government departments and not just the Department of Health. Similarly, the positive effects stemming from the large investments in modernising the NHS could be blunted if other Government departments did not take into account the health impacts of their policies.

  The Report's recommendations covered the following areas:

—  Consistency of the policy-making process—embedding health considerations at a very early stage of policy development and in a common and consistent way across Government;

—  the quality and availability of the evidence; and

—  public engagement and dialogue.

NANOTECHNOLOGY REVIEW—MARCH 2007

  CST reviewed progress on actions set out in the Government's response to the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report "Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties". The Review concluded the Government had made good progress in many areas, including metrology, support for standards, dialogue with industry and international engagement, but that it must commission more work on the toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.

  The main points of the review are as follows:

—  Lack of progress on research into toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.

—  However the current risk of exposure to workers or the public is extremely low.

—  The Government has done well in setting standards and metrology.

—  It has developed a valuable dialogue with industry on minimising the presence of nanomaterials in waste streams and in workplace exposure.

—   A number of good public engagement initiatives have been conducted but the Government needs to engage more deeply as the field develops.

—  The UK has played a strong role in the international organisations concerned with nano-technology —in ISO, the OECD and the EU—but there are concerns that future engagement may be jeopardised without a strong UK home research effort to bring to the table.

CURRENT PROJECTS

Research Endeavour

  The subgroup is considering how to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the international research endeavour over the next 20 years, through a sustainable structural base, and access to a pool of bright, creative people whose capabilities meet business and society's needs. The report will be published in summer 2007.

Strategic Focus

  To advise Government on what the best areas to focus resources on science, technology and innovation which could lead to applications in around five years time.

CST MEMBERSHIP

  Sir David King—Government Chief Scientific Adviser.

  Professor Janet Finch—Appointed independent co-chair of CST in March 2007, Vice-Chancellor, University of Keele.

  Professor Sir John Beringer—Chairman of the John Innes Centre Governing Council, previously Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol.

  Professor Geoffrey Boulton—Vice Principal and Regius Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Edinburgh.

  Dr Peter Davies—BP, Chief Economist.

  Professor Alan Gilbert—President, University of Manchester.

  Professor Wendy Hall—Professor of Computer Science, University of Southampton.

  Dr Hermann Hauser—Venture Capitalist: co-founder of Amadeus Capital Partners Limited.

  Professor Alan Hughes—Director of the Centre for Business Research (CBR) and Professor of Enterprise Studies at the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.

  Dr Sue Ion—Member of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, previously Executive Director of Technology, British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Sir Paul Nurse—President, Rockefeller University, New York.

  Sir Keith Peters—Interim Director of the National Institute for Medical Research, Emeritus Regius Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge and previously President of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

  Dr Raj Rajagopal—Chief Executive, BOC Edwards and Executive Director, BOC Group plc.

  Dr Philip Ruffles—Director of Engineering and Technology Rolls Royce plc.

  Professor Michael Sterling—Vice-Chancellor, University of Birmingham.

  Professor Kathy Sykes—Professor of Public Engagement in Science and Engineering, Bristol University.

  Dr Mark Walport—Director, Wellcome Trust.

2   The members of the group were: Sir David King (Chair), Dr David Coles, Dr David Fisk, Baroness Onora O'Neill, Professor Michael Reiss, Professor John Uff QC; and CST members: Professor Geoffrey Boulton, Professor Janet Finch, Professor Kathy Sykes, Sir Paul Nurse, Dr Mark Walport. Back

3   Engineering Council UK, Queen Mary (University of London), University College Chester, University of Birmingham, University of Portsmouth, University of Lincoln, Canterbury Christ Church University, Research Councils UK, Loughborough University, University of York, University of Plymouth, Kings College London, Queen's University Belfast, Lancaster University. Back

4   Universities Scotland, The British Psychological Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Queen's University Belfast, University of Kent, Northumbria University, Sheffield Hallam University, University of Lincoln, Institute of Biology, Royal College of Music, The Wellcome Trust, University of Birmingham, Kings College London, Engineering Council UK, Council for Industry and Higher Education, Queen Mary (University of London), University of Plymouth, University of Cambridge (Department of History and Philosophy of Science), Staffordshire University, University of Oxford, The Royal Academy of Engineering, Imperial College London, University of Portsmouth, Canterbury Christ Church University, University of Worcester, Lancaster University, University of Sheffield, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Sunderland. Back

5   Kings College London, University of Portsmouth, Kingston University, Northumbria University, The Wellcome Trust, UK Council for Graduate Education, Human Genetics Commission, Imperial College London, Loughborough University, Imperial College London, Writtle College, University of Ulster, The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Imperial College London student society Pugwash, University College London, University of Surrey. Back