Oral evidence: The science budget, HC 340Wednesday 15 July 2015
Oral evidence, 15 July 2015.
Witnesses
Sir Paul Nurse, President, The Royal Society, Professor Richard Parker CBE FREng, Chair, Research and Secondments Committee, Royal Academy of Engineering, Lord Stern of Brentford, President, British Academy, and Professor Sir John Tooke, President, Academy of Medical Sciences, gave evidence.
Chair
Welcome, and thank you very much for making time to come here today at rather short notice. We are very grateful to all of you. As you heard from the previous evidence, we are launching an inquiry into science spending in the hope that we can submit some evidence and make a contribution to the CSR in the autumn, given the significance this will have to science and innovation in the United Kingdom. My first question to you collectively, though I hope you will answer individually, is whether you would give the Government marks out of 10 for how they are making progress on their plan for growth in science and innovation. They set out six elements in how they want to make the UK the best place in the world for science and business: first, deciding priorities; secondly, nurturing scientific talent; thirdly, investing in our scientific infrastructure; fourthly, supporting research; fifthly, catalysing innovation; and, sixthly, participating in global science and innovation. Sir Paul, perhaps you might like to start on marking the Government on how well they have been doing since they produced one of their many reports.
Sir Paul Nurse
I think that in a time of austerity we would give them seven out of 10. In the brave new dawn that we hope we are entering, I am hoping that they will be more generous to science. We have been a little muted in the past because, compared with other spending cuts, we have been protected. We now have to look forward to what science can bring for society, which is a great deal, and how we can promote the greatest science in the UK. I would like the Chancellor to think of himself as a science chancellor, and I hope he may think about that. I think that in the Chancellor we have somebody who does support science, but we now need that translated into extra cash. We heard the Minister, who I believe also supports science, say that it is a matter for the Chancellor. I am sure, and hope, that he will make the case for that. You did not actually ask him that question, but it is very important that the Minister makes that case because, as was hinted at, our total spend on R and D is now just under 0.5% compared with the OECD and the EU 15 at 0.67%. This is not good. Of course, it is a piece of elastic; I am not saying that there is any really clear value which is the right one, but we are definitely slipping behind, so seven out of 10. Let’s try to make it nine out of 10 for the future.
Professor Parker
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would agree with Paul. I think seven out of 10 in the current climate is fair. In terms of setting priorities, we had some clear priorities from the previous Government in the eight great technologies, of which there are now 10, and the focus in the industrial strategy on key wealth-producing sectors in the UK. I hope both of those will continue in the new industrial approach. In terms of encouraging and growing talent in the UK, I think we are doing a good job. It is still a very attractive place for people to come from abroad, if they are allowed to, and bring their talent with them. We need to continue to show we are open for business in that way. In terms of investment in infrastructure, again we have seen some impressive schemes with the new research institute here in London and the Royce Institute in Manchester, to which the Minister referred. We must remember, as you pointed out, Madam Chair, that the infrastructure alone, if it is not part of a sustained system with revenue spending to follow, support, staff and everything else, is a bit of a waste. The whole system needs to be supported. The area where they have done well but could do more is on the innovation side. Again, Chair, you pointed out that the innovation budget strays over the edge of the ring fence. It is a vitally important area. We spend just £440 million on Innovate UK, the Technology Strategy Board as was, compared with several billion on creating the research base, so the balance between pulling technology through from our research base into wealth-producing products and services for the UK does not seem to be quite right, and any threat to that would be deeply disturbing. I think seven out of 10 is a fair call in the current climate.
Lord Stern
I hope you will bear with me. I spent the night on a plane coming back from Ethiopia.
Chair
You are heroic to be here.
Lord Stern
I might be marginally less fluent than I would otherwise have been. It is an example of what investment in research does in the UK. I was talking to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, a country of nearly 100 million people and a pole of stability in a very difficult part of the world, about the future of their economy. They are going to middle income, probably in the next 10 years, without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, so it is a remarkable story. I am not here to talk about that, but I wanted to underline that what we do as academics internationally is a very important product of the UK’s education and research system. I am sure that all the others on this platform have their own examples. I happened to give mine because it was yesterday. I think the Minister did give reasons to score something like seven out of 10, which is obviously a bit mechanical. He also gave reasons why the basis is there to do much better. I spent three years in the Treasury and I am professor of economics at the LSE, but you do not have to have that to recognise that you expand your areas of activity where the returns are the highest. The Minister said very clearly that this is an extremely productive place. He said it with pride—justified pride. The economics of that are that you invest where the returns are highest. Those are the criteria the Treasury implies, and the Minister has given an example for not just ring-fencing but, rather more positive than that, increasing, because that is the fundamental basis of any serious growth story. In the decade up to the crisis, something like half the UK’s growth was around innovation, and that is built on research. This is not a minor thing. It might be minor in terms of the half per cent or so of public GDP that goes in this area, but the returns in terms of the growth of the British economy could be really substantial. The Government have a growth story and a productivity story, but I think it is fair to say that it is work in progress. The growth story has not been fully articulated; some of it has, but this is absolutely key to the growth story. I hope you will ask the Minister again about what the consequences of his statement that our research is so productive are for the allocation of funds to research. He made a very powerful point, but he did not make it explicitly; he made it implicitly. He should be making it to the Treasury.
Chair
It is notable that the science and research budget has been ring-fenced but the innovation budget has doubled since 2010. Professor Tooke.
Professor Tooke
Not surprisingly, I am going to echo the seven out of 10 of my colleagues. Lord Stern has presented a far more articulate economic case for investment in this area. We have a fabulous interdependent ecosystem for the life and medical sciences area. We are probably second only to the US in terms of research output, and in productivity terms we are far more efficient, so investing in strength seems to me an obvious place to go. We know that the investment of public money leverages considerably more. In relationship to the Academy of Medical Sciences, for example, the public investment results in a threefold leveraging of money from other sectors. In a sense, we have been ahead of the productivity debate because we have been doing economic impact studies in the fields of cancer and cardiovascular medicine—we are just launching one in musculoskeletal medicine—which essentially show that for every pound invested there is a direct 10p return in perpetuity. That is not accounting for a broader spillover effect into the economy, which is probably double that amount, so the economic case for further investment is profound. If I may say one thing about innovation, I am pleased to see in the medical science area the launch of the accelerated access review, which is looking at bringing new medical products into the market sooner so that unmet clinical need can be met, and the life sciences industry stimulated as a result. We are actively involved with that. It is an incredibly important piece of work if we are to retain our pre‑eminence in that area.
Liz McInnes
Your joint report “Building a Stronger Future” identified a number of themes and recommendations for Government. Can you identify which of those themes and recommendations you think are the most pressing and urgent that we need to address?
Sir Paul Nurse
Madam Chair, we were remiss not to congratulate you and also to welcome all of you on this Committee. I am sure I speak for all of us in saying that we will work as well as we can with you to promote science and what it can do for society. I am sorry; we should have said that. For me, placing research and innovation at the heart of Government is the crucial one, and everything else will flow from that.
Professor Parker
I pick up on a different one, but not because I choose to differ from Paul: to secure prosperity by strengthening public investment in research and innovation. We have already had the discussion on where we sit relative to other OECD countries. As a percentage of GDP, we need to increase our Government expenditure by 25% just to catch up with Slovenia, which I think puts it into the right context. We need to increase it by 60% to catch up with America or Germany. We need to strengthen our base. I do not disagree with the Minister. We have an incredibly efficient and effective system and, despite our low spending, we produce some of the best quality research in the world. Those two go together, but certainly reducing this expenditure any further in the current spending review would be a major mistake.
Chair
What is your view of the director general’s response on governmental R and D?
Professor Parker
That it is adequate. As we said, governmental R and D does not stand alone; industry has to do its bit, and as a nation, the industry in the UK underinvests relative to OECD, so we must jointly enhance our investment.
Liz McInnes
One of the recommendations is to strengthen policy by embedding expert advice across Government and building reliable horizon scanning into long-term policy development. Where in Government do you feel there are notable shortfalls in expert advice and horizon scanning?
Professor Parker
Again, we have come a long way. The fact that most Departments now have a chief scientific adviser—I think the Treasury is the only lacking one—is a major step forward. When you look at those chief scientific advisers, they all, I think without exception, come from one of the institutions at this table, so the direct advice the Government get from their own scientific advisers is a step forward from the past. One of the main purposes of our institutions is to provide impartial scientific advice, and the strength in that is our fellowships. They are huge in number, and many of them give voluntarily of their time to studies and reports that give that advice to Government. It is a vital part of our role as institutions, and the Government are fairly well set up to receive it. An interesting turn of events is that Juncker has now decided he needs better scientific advice in Europe. I thought Anne Glover did an excellent job trying to advise his predecessor, but, notwithstanding that, they are going to draw on the advice of European institutions like our own to marshal that and feed it through to the European Parliament.
Lord Stern
Could I suggest a way of finding out the answer to your question? I am really an academic, but I was in the Treasury for three years. As head of the Government Economic Service I asked my economist members of that service, who were spread across Government, to rate their own Departments—this was rating of a Department by the economists in that Department—on the extent to which policy was based on evidence. The variation across Departments was quite spectacular. It was 10 years ago, so the evidence is probably, possibly, out of date, but DWP was at the top and the Home Office was at the bottom. That is 12 years ago, and it is economics. What I am suggesting is that, if you want to find out the answer to that question, you ask the scientists Department by Department to rate their own Departments. It would be very interesting to see the results.
Daniel Zeichner
I have a similar kind of question. I think the previous Committee had noticed the difference across Government in terms of their seeking your advice and acting upon it. Have you noticed any changes? You refer to 10 years ago, that being the last time. Have you noticed any changes in the way Departments seek your advice and act upon it?
Lord Stern
From the point of view of the humanities and social sciences, I will answer. Obviously, my colleagues will answer from the perspective of others. Let me emphasise that the four academies you see here talk to each other all the time. The reason they do so is that their subjects are intimately interrelated. I hope that is obvious. You cannot talk about obesity without talking about behaviour of all kinds, medical and technological science and so on. We could go through it, but I want to emphasise that, while I am replying for the humanities and social sciences, we are all interwoven. Sorry, could you remind me? I am a bit weary. Could you ask me again?
Daniel Zeichner
I quite understand. What differences are there between the various Government Departments? Have they improved at all?
Lord Stern
I am sorry, I got diverted into the interweaving. The various Departments that ask the British Academy, often for thoughtful, quiet advice, sometimes ask us to organise public events. I can think of a quiet discussion we had quite recently about productivity. I think it was very productive and came largely from the Treasury and BIS. We have had much bigger events, for example on housing, organised jointly with Government. Over the recent past when I have been closely involved, the reaching out and to-ing and fro-ing between Government and our own academy, the British Academy—I am sure it is true of the others—is quite good. There are many examples. We work quite closely with DFID; we have done quite a lot on constitutional aspects, particularly in the light of—
Chair
I am sorry to interrupt, but we are under pressure of time.
Lord Stern
There are many examples, but it is quite good.
Professor Tooke
I would echo those remarks. The Academy of Medical Sciences is increasingly sought for its advice on medical science-related matters, and we hold events between the academies; for example, we are hosting a joint academy seminar for Treasury on related issues next week. As to the point about interweaving advice, I refer back to the accelerated access review. That is not just about science in the strict sense of developing new medicines; it is also about social receptivity to those new developments, which involves the British Academy and the Academy of Medical Sciences working together to provide relevant advice so that the review lands effectively.
Daniel Zeichner
The previous Committee also concluded that the Government Office for Science might be more effective if it was located within the Cabinet Office rather than in BIS. Do you have any views on that?
Sir Paul Nurse
Can I answer that, but also slightly broaden the question? There are two aspects to this. One is science for policy; the other is policy for science. Science for policy is, frankly, rather well done in the United Kingdom. We are seen as leaders in the world. Indeed, on the SAM—the European Union initiative—the commissioner for research came here and talked to us, and what has turned out is very close to what was recommended to him. I think that works well. My personal view is that it would work better if it was cross-cutting in the Cabinet and not simply in BIS.
Graham Stringer
We are all agreed that investing more in science and research will benefit the economy. Have you recommended to Government a particular level of investment across the UK, and, if so, what level was that?
Sir Paul Nurse
The Royal Society has not yet. We are working on that. We know it should be higher. It is a bit elastic. We are beginning to trail, but we should come up with a figure.
Graham Stringer
Is it likely to be Slovenia or the United States?
Sir Paul Nurse
I think it would be reasonable to aim at least at the OECD average, for goodness sake.
Graham Stringer
In the initial discussions, even if you have not quantified it, what has been the Government’s response to the overall argument for an increase in funding?
Sir Paul Nurse
You heard the Minister.
Graham Stringer
He did not answer the question. He told us that research was very good.
Sir Paul Nurse
What the Minister said was that there was a good track record and that they support science but have not yet committed to an increase. I think that is the answer as to where they are.
Graham Stringer
I thought they might have said something more to you in private and you could let us into the secret.
Sir Paul Nurse
If it was in private I would have to keep it private.
Lord Stern
I think the goal of the OECD average would be overall, public and private, 3% of GDP. We are quite well below that; it is about 1.67% in total. Taking 1.67% to 3% is a substantial increase.
Carol Monaghan
Have you any concerns about how rigorously the Government have applied the Haldane principle in science budget decisions?
Sir Paul Nurse
There is no such thing as the Haldane principle, as I am sure we know. It is a bit of a truism. To remind you, it was 1918, and it said that experts should be involved in expert decisions, about which, frankly, it is very difficult to disagree. It has been interpreted much more starkly to do with the role of politicians in making scientific decisions. My personal opinion is that, when it comes to technocratic decisions, politicians are unlikely to be very useful. When it comes to setting overall objectives, we do indeed need to relate well to politicians. I am personally somewhat concerned that we do not have quite the right forum for those sorts of strategic debates, and that is certainly something I would be thinking about. We have to engage politicians. It is no good trying to put you all over there while we are over here, because that will not be good for society or the UK.
Professor Parker
I think the Minister summed it up quite well. The detailed decisions about which programmes are invested in and which researchers are backed by public funding are taken by experts within the research councils and the other bodies. Government have a role to set priorities, to set direction and to emphasise the big challenges facing society, in particular British society. Those two need to come together. A total free-for-all in which researchers do whatever they think is best for society may not be the way forward. As somebody once said, to base policy on doing what is technically right is unwise. To create policy without knowing what is technically right is equally unwise.
Professor Tooke
Research is fundamentally a creative enterprise, and there is a real danger that if it is over-managed you stifle that creativity. It is none the less incredibly important that the science effort is informed by the problems that society needs to address, but it should not be directed by that same body. Setting those strategic priorities, particularly foresight work, needs to involve those who are deeply involved in the process of science.
Carol Monaghan
To what extent do you think that the pursuit of excellence in science and research has been compromised by a Government focus on supporting particular technologies and sectors for economic reasons?
Professor Parker
There is a balance to be struck between curiosity-driven and challenge-driven research. Both are necessary. We would not have the strong science base we have today without historic investment in purely curiosity-driven research. Equally, there is a need to focus research on things that create value in the short term. Those need to be kept in balance and in check. The role of Government in that is not to interfere with excellence. There can be excellence in industrially focused research and there can be excellence in curiosity-driven research, and I think that excellence should triumph whatever area of research one is looking at. I think the bodies that look after the excellence in our research have done a good job of maintaining that in recent years.
Lord Stern
Society’s problems change. We have much bigger problems around obesity and ageing as a result of the way in which society has changed, and it seems very reasonable for Governments to say that they would like to see stronger focus on that. The stories would in part come from researchers about the nature of these problems, and it seems quite natural for the Government to come back with priorities. The detail of how grants are allocated within those general areas is, I hope, something that would be left largely for the experts. Madam Chair, would you allow me to correct one number? I must apologise for my bleary state. The UK’s total for research is about 1.7%; the OECD average is about 2.4%, and the top half dozen, which we identified in “Building a Stronger Future”, are around 3%. I would suggest that a reasonable target for a country that has research and excellence in universities at its core would be for the top half dozen. That is where the 3% would be. The OECD average would be 2.4% and we are about 1.7%. Within these stories it is roughly one public to two private. There is leverage there.
Chair
That is a very helpful clarification. Thank you.
Matt Warman
I am interested in the role of the research councils. Just to be on the safe side, I should probably say that a long time ago the BBSRC funded my wife’s PhD. We have had the triennial review and Sir Paul’s own report. Could you talk briefly about whether you feel we are getting the balance right on the distribution of funding among the research councils? Some of them are under more political focus than others, if you like.
Sir Paul Nurse
Perhaps I may comment first, because it was mentioned, on the triennial review. That was essentially a review of quangos carried out by civil servants and is not in the same category of review that I hope I can carry out, which is more like the Waldegrave-Dainton type of review, just to put that right. It is interesting to note that the essential spending between the seven research councils remains rather stable over quite a few years. You have to wonder what that means, but it suggests that history may have quite a big impact on the future. That is certainly how some would interpret it. Personally, I think it might indicate that we need greater focus on overall strategic thinking and that maybe we do not have in our present structures the proper forum for those sorts of discussions to take place. It is not the easiest issue to deal with, because we need long-term stability but we also need agility. We need a way of dealing with that so that we can move with the times while not upsetting where we are. I do not think we are in a perfect situation, although I do think the research councils work very effectively in much of what they do; but we have to pay attention to the higher-level strategic thinking, which I think would address your question.
Matt Warman
I have a very quick supplementary related to research councils and the role of women in science in particular. The relentless soft money problem is one of the things driving people out of a scientific career. Do you think there is a role for the research councils to try to get over that hurdle?
Sir Paul Nurse
This is a very complex issue. There is not a simple answer, because the research engine is young people; the research engine is graduate students and postdocs, and in a stable funding environment it is very difficult to promise long-term careers for all the talented individuals that we need not only in the research engine but society as a whole. My answer would be that we need to focus on other issues as well, such as recognising the very profitable skill set that a scientist gains and working on how that can be exported into other parts of society, so that we recognise that it is not a failure to leave the scientific endeavour but we are exporting skills elsewhere that are needed. We should not shirk from that because it will require funding and it will need resource, but in the end we will be able to attract better people and place them in other parts of society where it will be very useful. My answer is not quite the usual career development award, which is also important, but this as well.
Chair
Sir Paul, do you have a deadline for submitting your review?
Sir Paul Nurse
I think they said after the summer, which I certainly would agree with. I believe that in Government circles autumn is before Christmas. I was going to have something by autumn, but hopefully something where the general shape is in place after the summer so that discussions can take place before the spending review.
Chair
Do you have any commitment from the Treasury about whether your recommendations will be taken on board for the CSR?
Sir Paul Nurse
No, but it has been indicated to me that Government would like to have some sense of where this review is going before the spending review, if possible. Whether that means they would actually read it and listen to it I cannot say, but it is at least a promising start.
Chair
How do you respond to the Minister’s comments about hoping that we will move more in the direction of boosting research and innovation in other geographical locations than the golden triangle?
Sir Paul Nurse
The issue of place has got slightly out of hand, in the sense that it is not a difficult problem to solve, as long as the strategic thinking is improved. What I would probably like to see is an improvement in strategic capacity in the research councils so that they could comment more seriously—in a greater way—on this issue. Simply to say, “Well, let’s get a call from six northern universities,” is not the way to do it. They are a contribution to it, but the research councils should have a sense of the overall research landscape, which perhaps they do not have yet, but some auditing is going on elsewhere in Government that would help that. We need a more joined-up approach to the issue of place and greater strategic thinking, and then I think it will just fall out.
Professor Tooke
We need to combine the exploitation of niche excellence in regions throughout the UK with the need to be globally competitive, which inevitably means there need to be relatively few areas where there is comprehensive concentration of scientific capability. A real challenge and yet an opportunity for the UK is to leverage the whole of the UK as a science base, acting as a macro-cluster, as it were. We could do that; we have some preconditions which make that very possible. In the health field, we have an NHS which could be more fully exploited as a science base; we have fabulous networked infrastructure across England in particular through the National Institute for Health Research; and we have the Francis Crick Institute, which serves a training need for the nation. I think the challenge is how you balance this very real requirement for regional economies and regional centres of excellence but link them effectively with other more globally competitive centres.
Chair
Thank you very much. Sir Paul, Professor Parker, Lord Stern and Professor Tooke, I am very grateful to you for making the time, at what was very short notice, to come and speak to us today and respond to the Minister’s first evidence to the Select Committee. I am very grateful for your commitment to assisting this Committee as we go forward with our first inquiry on the science budget. We may write to you with further questions as we go forward. We are hoping to submit in time for the CSR, as I hope you are too, Sir Paul, with your review. We will now bring this session formally to a close. Oral evidence: The science budget, HC 340 2