Table Of Content

HOUSE OF LORDS Science and Technology Committee 3rd Report of Session 2009-10 Setting priorities for publicly funded research Volume II: Evidence HL Paper 104-II Wa i = SS 22503113733 HOUSE OF LORDS Science andS pc aaU CBYaCeo mmittee 3rd Report of Session 2009-10 Setting priorities for Ermitely. funded research Volume II: Evidence Ordered to be printed 23 March 2010 and published 14 April 2010 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £36.00 HL Paper 104-II CONTENTS Page Oral Evidence Mr Feremy Clayton, Government Office for Science, Dr Graeme Reid, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Written evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Oral evidence (28 October 2009) 10 Supplementary written evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 18 Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a Member of the House of Lords Oral evidence (28 October 2009) 31 Supplementary written evidence from Lord Sainsbury of Turville 39 Professor Mark Welland, Ministry of Defence, Mr Paul Stein, Ministry of Defence, Professor Robert Watson, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Dr Miles Parker, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written evidence from the Ministry of Defence 41 Written evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 43 Oral evidence (5 November 2009) 46 Supplementary written evidence from the Ministry of Defence 54 Supplementary written evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 60 Further supplementary written evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 65 Professor Dame Sally Davies, Department of Health, Professor Tom Walley, Department of Health, Dr Andrew Steer, Department for International Development, and Dr Gail Marzettit, Department for International Development Written evidence from the Department of Health ; 70 Written evidence for the Department for International Development 74 Oral evidence (5 November 2009) 76 Supplementary written evidence from the Department of Health 85 Supplementary written evidence from the Department for International Development 90 Ms Miranda Kavanagh, Environment Agency, Dr Andrew Stott, Foint Nature Conservation Committee and Dr Andrew Wadge, Food Standards Agency Written evidence from the Environment Agency 96 Written evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee 98 Written evidence from the Food Standards Agency 102 Oral evidence (11 November 2009) 105 Supplementary written evidence from the Environment Agency 115 Supplementary written evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee 115 Dr Brian Bowsher, National Physical Laboratory, Professor Chris Thorns, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, and Mr Derrick Ryall, Met Office Written evidence from the National Physical Laboratory 118 Written evidence from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency 119 Written evidence from the Met Office 121 Oral evidence (11 November 2009) 122 Supplementary written evidence from the Met Office 131 Mr David Sweeney, Higher Education Funding Council for England Written evidence from the Higher Education Funding Council for England 132 Oral evidence (2 December 2009) 135 Mr David Sweeney, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Professor Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Professor David Delpy, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Dr Steven Hill, Research Councils UK, and Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Meaical Research Council Written evidence from Research Councils UK 140 Written evidence from the Medical Research Council 154 Oral evidence (2 December 2009) 158 Supplementary written evidence from the Higher Education Funding Council for England 172 Supplementary written evidence from Research Councils UK 172 Professor Sandy Thomas, Foresight, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Professor Chris Gaskell, Science Advisory Council, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Oral evidence (9 December 2009) 184 Mr Nick Dusic, Campaign for Science and Engineering, Professor Geoffrey Boulton, Royal Society of Edinburgh, and Professor Roger Kain, British Academy Written evidence from the Campaign for Science and Engineering 193 Written evidence from the Royal Society of Edinburgh 196 Written evidence from the British Academy 202 Oral evidence (9 December 2009) 205 Mr Colin Smith, Rolls Royce, Mr Simon Denegni, Association of Medical Research Charities, and Ms Anne Glover, Amadeus Capital Partners Written evidence from the Association of Medical Research Charities 213 Oral evidence (15 December 2009) 217 Supplementary written evidence from Rolls Royce 227 Mr Iain Gray, Technology Strategy Board, Dr Graham Hillier, Centre for Process Innovation, and Dr David Clarke, Energy Technologies Institute Written evidence from the Technology Strategy Board 230 Written evidence from the Centre for Process Innovation 232 Written evidence from the Energy Technologies Institute 236 Oral evidence (15 Decernber 2009) 238 Supplementary written evidence from the Technology Strategy Board 248 Supplementary written evidence from the Centre for Process Innovation 249 Professor Andrew Watkinson, Living With Environmental Change, Professor Sir John Bell, Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, Dr Graeme Sweeney, Energy Research Partnership, and Professor John Loughhead, Energy Research Partnership Written evidence from Professor Andrew Watkinson, Living With Environmental Change ard Written evidence from the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research 254 Oral evidence (12 January 2010) 258 Dr Paul Nightingale and Professor Andrew Stirling, Science Policy Research Unit, Sir Richard Brook, Leverhulme Trust Written evidence from Dr Paul Nightingale 268 Oral evidence (12 January 2010) 274 Supplementary written evidence from Professor Andrew Stirling 283 Professor Sir Martin Taylor, Royal Society, Dr James Wilsdon, Royal Society and Professor Dame fanet Finch, Council for Science and Technology Oral evidence (19 January 2010) 289 Professor fohn Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Written evidence from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser 299 Oral evidence (19 January 2010) 302 Supplementary written evidence from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser SIZ Professor Adrian Smith, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Oral evidence (4 February 2010) 316 Rt Hon Lord Drayson, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Oral evidence (4 February 2010) 324 Written Evidence Academy of Medical Sciences GY Ja Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs 334 Alzheimer’s Society SX ja Aporia 336 Biosciences Federation and Institute of Biology (now the Society of Biology) 338 Professor Donald W Braben 343 Breast Cancer Campaign 345 British Computer Society (The Chartered Institute for IT) 347 British Council for Ageing 348 British Heart Foundation 351 British Psychological Society 355 British Society for Development Biology 356 Cabinet Office olay Cancer Research UK 358 Committee on Radioactive Waste Management 363 Council for the Mathematical Sciences 367 Department for Children, Schools and Families 369 Department for Transport oyp| Department for Work and Pensions 373 Department of Communities and Local Government 379 Department of Energy and Climate Change 381 Dr Martin Dominik 385 Energy Research Partnership 386 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 388 Forensic Science Service Ltd 388 GeneWatch UK 389 Professor Luke Georghiou 395 Government Chemist 399 Government’s Chief Social Scientist 401 Mr Chris Harries 403 Health and Safety Executive 403 HM Revenue and Customs 406 HM Treasury 407 Home Office 412 Imperial College London 416 Institution of Chemical Engineers 419 Institute of Physics 423 James Lind Alliance 430 John Innes Centre 433 Professor Michael J Kelly 437 Linnean Society of London 442 Ministry of Justice 445 Office of the Vice Provost for Research, University College London 447 Dr James Ren 453 Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network 454 Roche 462 Roslin Institute 465 Royal Academy of Engineering, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Engineering and Technology, Engineering Council UK and Engineering and Technology Board 468 Royal Astronomical Society 472 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 475 Royal College of Physicians 477 Royal National Institute for Deaf People 479 Royal Society of Chemistry 482 Russell Group of Universities 485 Sustainable Development Group of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining 492 Syngenta 493 UK Computing Research Committee 496 UK Deans of Science 498 UK Government’s Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committees 502 Professor Christos Vassilicos 504 Wellcome Trust 505 NOTE: The Report of the Committee is published in Volume I, HL Paper No 104-I The Evidence of the Committee is published in Volume IT, HL Paper No 104-II an! ir e v, 7 fen teks eee hee in dovtsooe oat} 16 TS: oan ee a a | seed 308 we ogatins ei tarsoe ie 2s ett ire ae a pee rar, A Ad 7! Ti wih aioe ysh e—s SRR) «ag, SOON © ihMe RD n= Ri A e/a sikioas yiihs® | ook oo eee ; weg Belling) tel simone) bas aoe a ne! VOR Ay | AE 4 eee. ine | \4 ij She ' P r . CER ibis OR bind leis vi a eae * ; ; iia SEBS Weebl lie lies pi ss oe Séh Sy ae hs - Hays Mihtieals ale i ° | | oirO ov ases TES fined, ps ¥ new pz te PASS. i. fsaoe ! oba hes 10 99h ROR ryan tel , ) G3) —e ot a aD tres v9 an ayo ilarA wa ey ers3 F e| avd ey ee ae ‘yo dd subg ‘Pei cay wile COD EH aoe elh ecur i eatin Cas ah | vasaand mute Pusey 7a)a ti Be Peet weit sn aed te ob lavas np ta ety 1 bet ie, ALO ey tt hyiquseienl, A& vante) i iise e ’ rdtrbiont opt ls | 1 heli oooh kbiniliae a| e a means nana siied, ‘hath » ALE deena. > 8 Ai foc att he Ray chan | AS ay a. ae qolonsios T DO ae oy aes Lie: ‘\aine % igoimedoreds hin ee ade id “et sk) ug ee A j , dba, eaieibaatt to agate, cho VabeP alhy , ¥" j st bo A iynne RIE ig Rena Rial tema xl BBsLi pev adses aaligy Tiiynooead7l Cob , ; ” , abr ron, s ts f a pao} ‘Yo hein SO. P stp ; ! pe aig uh ’ ys savini es a— | sniteubA |i oa siai n at ok Dina1 Nik S.Ct a elit Utell eames seis a a snne bus 2 of £Ob |. 's Ae ty Set Me eer) oi) Oe , CHF Bik Raai st,S aatv isa ihe 3 Ore bP ey ne Kji a ws1 Sk dexy OSES So! 3 lotT yewese wet ee abiniter Ot pe By wie Ris ti kc i. LU-n20gfA :n e 0 9 aFok“ b : LParcueeni ll ee,4s he atHpe :t‘ weh nq ae é - iene ' f i ; 1 is % Minutes of Evidence TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER 2009 Present Broers, L. May of Oxford, L. Crickhowell, L. Methuen, L. Colwyn, L. Neuberger, B. Cunningham of Felling, L. Oxburgh, L. Haskel, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. (Chairman) Memorandum by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS This memorandum covers total BIS spend in science and research, which is relevant to the policy objectives of most if not all Government Departments. BIS funding includes: — The Science and Research Budget, including funding for the Research Councils and National Academies — HEFCE funding for research in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England — Technology Strategy Board funding — Asmall amount of policy-directed research. Altogether this comprises over half of all Government funding for research. 2. OBJECTIVES OF PUBLICLY-FUNDED RESEARCH Research enables us to deepen our understanding of our world and of our universe, and this knowledge underpins a wide variety of economic outcomes. These include drivers of productivity and competitiveness including innovation and skills creation. This justifies government intervention to ensure that enough investment is undertaken to guarantee the maximum benefit for society and the economy. The research funded by BIS, and its economic impact, is key to the success of Government policy in economic development, health, education, defence, the environment and many other areas. Although private firms do undertake investments in Research and Development, they normally only consider the effects of these expenditure on their own profits, ignoring the wider benefits on other firms and society at large. Given that the social benefits of investment in Science and Research exceed those accruing to the firms themselves the private investment will fall short of the socially desirable amount. Therefore Government must provide public funds to fill the gaps left by the private activity. Public intervention in this area is to fill this gap in two ways. On the one hand to fund directly the kind of research that because of its uncertain and long term nature would not find space in the private initiative, so called basic research. On the other hand to provide indirect incentives for the private initiative to invest more by providing tax credits and subsidies and through joint ventures. Government also has a lead role in influencing or supporting the environment for innovation. Through the funding and activities of the Technology Strategy Board, BIS looks to stimulate business innovation in those areas which offer the greatest scope for boosting UK growth and productivity. This supplements the contribution oft he research base to innovation and economic exploitation. The Government laid out in detail its approach to making targeted interventions to help the economy of the future in the policy statement Building Britain’s Future—New Industry, New Jobs, published on 20 April 2009. Public funding for research is governed by the principle of excellence. This means that the quality of the research, as judged by the research community, is the prime criterion for the allocation of funding. Experience shows that this approach consistently produces the highest quality research base and generates the greatest impact. 2 SETTING RESEARCH AND FUNDING PRIORITIES: EVIDENCE 3, ALLOCATION OF RESEARCH FUNDING The mechanisms for allocating research funding are intentionally different for each funding stream, reflecting the different aims and purposes of each stream. In particular, the Haldane principle (that researchers are best placed to make detailed funding decisions and that Government should set the over-arching strategic direction) applies to research that is, as Haldane put it, “for general use”. Haldane was also clear that “many Departments must retain under their own control a distinctive organisation for the prosecution of specific forms of research.” Government is clear that this type of policy-directed research should not be covered by the Haldane principle. Funding is supplied to HEIs, and also to a number of Research Council Institutes, which provide facilities and carry out research of a type or scale that would not be possible for HEIs. 3.1 Science and Research Budget As has already been noted, the Science and Research Budget funds research “for general use”, and as such is rightly governed by the Haldane Principle. This budget is the subject of a separate Request for Resource from Parliament, and is ringfenced by HM Treasury. The Government remains committed to the Science and Research ringfence, as was made clear by the Prime Minister on 27 February this year: “We will maintain the ringfence we have placed around science funding—protecting money for science from competing demands in the short-term and providing the sustained support the research community needs to deliver world-class results in the medium and long term.” Before allocating the Science and Research Budget following the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, the then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills collected evidence on the activities and performance of all funding from this Budget. All the Research Councils and the national Academies provided detailed delivery plans, which set out what future spending would deliver against the overarching objectives. The following factors were taken into account in determining the Science Budget Allocations to individual Research Councils and Academies: — a thorough assessment of draft Research Council and Academy Delivery Plans for CSR07; — the strength of the case for increasing the investment in any particular area of research in CSRO7, which takes account of the quality of the research base in particular fields; and — a full evaluation of the performance of each of the Research Councils and Academies through the SR04 period. Once each Research Council and Academy receives its allocated funding, it makes the detailed decisions on allocation, in accordance with the Delivery Plan agreed with Government for the Spending Review period, and with the Haldane Principle. The Government has already committed to improving this process by consulting more extensively in the run up to the next Science and Research Budget allocation. However, the Government sees no case for fundamental change to this system. Because of the strategic nature of its funding, the Large Capital Facilities Fund (LFCF, part of the Science and Research Budget) is not allocated to any one Research Council. For the same reason, it is one of the few cases in which Ministerial involvement is required. To determine which projects should be earmarked for funding from the LFCF a project selection and prioritisation exercise, led by RCUK (Research Councils UK) takes place every two years or so. LFCF projects are prioritised by RCUK according to published criteria. The most recent version of the resulting RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap was published in 2008. A consultation with the scientific community has just been launched by RCUK on its revision. Once a prioritised list of projects has been agreed by the Research Councils, it is submitted to the Director General Science and Research, (DGSR), for consideration by Ministers against the available LFCF budget. 3.2 The Dual Support System Government funding for research in HEIs in England is channelled through the Dual Support System: Research Council funding supports specific projects and postgraduate training and the HEFCE Quality- related research (QR) block grant provides strategic underpinning support.