APRIL 2006 BROADSHEET - The Politics of Science
Our March seminar on The Politics Of Science was organised by CETC Committee Member, Martin Livermore.
Anne Campbell entered parliament in 1992 with a Science background. She started her talk by providing those assembled with a quick guide to the responsibilities of an MP and what could be done by them to influence policy and drive agendas either for their pet projects or for their constituents, as well as the routes that lay open for them to create legislation outside of the government’s annual parliamentary programme.
Anne proceeded to recount to us the progress of a Private Member’s Bill, up until the time that she lost her seat in the last election. She did not attempt to sweet talk us with promises of unlimited help from MPs, but gave a very realistic précis of the work that she had been able to devote to her Procurement & Innovation Technologies & Research Bill which revolved around the work of herself and fellow MPs in the House. This bill set out to legislate for increased government funding of R&D by SMEs. She also left us in no doubt that, if we wished to push a particular course, we would find ourselves doing a great deal of the leg work to get any legislation onto the statute book. In the case of this PMB, the impetus had originally come from David Connell of TTP Ventures, and David was also on hand to answer questions. Her Bill had now been taken up by Kitty Usher. It was clear that it was through influencing the government of the day either to legislate or alter guidelines, that our best course for success should be plotted!
Mark Adams – an economist and former private secretary in No 10 for both John Major and Tony Blair, where he advised them on their replies in Prime Minister’s Question Time – kept those attending on the edges of their seats with a highly amusing although ultimately down to earth summation of what he felt affected government policy. It was extremely interesting, though not entirely surprising, to hear his belief that it is newspaper headlines and not empirical evidence that holds most sway over government policy decisions. Part of the problem, he felt, is that individual pieces of evidence, taken out of context. Can become too important in an issue (eg MMR jabs & Mad Cow Disease), and that such scandals as Foot and Mouth and Mad Cow Disease, along with the litany of contradictory advice that seems to emanate from government and non-government studies, have merely served to undermine the credibility of science in the public’s eye, and hence the effect that scientists and their advice can have over ministers. He was, however, pleased to note a recent survey that suggested that people’s perception of scientists has gone up significantly in recent years, although this improvement did not extend to industry experts!! Mark left us with the thought that it was only through the credible testing of theories & findings through qualified peer review, that the ‘truth’ could be arrived at and used to ‘correctly’ influence public opinion.
Miles Parker – Director of Science at DEFRA – gave the CETC an extremely thorough guide to what has happened in the last 30 or so years with government’s attitude and policy to science and research. It appeared that the major change came in the 1960s with the Rothschild Report. Its principal aim was to push government into becoming an intelligent customer of science rather than a just a source of funding. Each department should appoint a chief scientist, and monies would be transferred from the Research Councils to the Government Departments to drive research outside of government wherever required. This worked to some extent in some areas for the next few years, with the Near Market reforms of the 80s and 90s pushing this even further. It was not until the King review that the government began to encourage independent Chief Scientific Advisers in Government departments, and crucially the use of evidence-based rather than evidence-led policy making. Miles certainly gave us the impression that it was only by the Government and the wider community networking with the scientific community that consensus could be reached, and policy set in a rational way.
The Club is very fortunate in benefiting from the sponsorship of the following organisations:-
There are also other companies who give us generous help with specific meetings and services.
© 2004 - Cambridge Europe & Technology Club
