Monthly report on Professional Affairs - February 2000
Commonly used abbreviations
Previous Reports
Current Report
Contents
Professional/policy activities
The Biochemical Society contributed to 3 responses through the UK Life Sciences Committee ( see UKLSC web site for full responses). The OST recently published a consultation paper setting out its views on science and innovation strategy (see January report). The response to this paper agreed in general terms the 8 proposed areas for action, but criticised the emphasis on university 'push' for innovation rather than the need for industry 'pull' (see also comments of the Commons Science and Technology Committee in Science Policy: UK section). The response brought out the need to improve academic salaries and conditions of employment if the government wanted to ensure a flow of scientists of the appropriate calibre into research. It supported schemes to promote cross-disciplinary research, and argued the need to consolidate and simplify government programmes relating to research funding. It welcomed government recognition of the need for a diversity of mission between universities, part of which should be to provide support for regional innovation.
The report of the external UKLSC Working Party on Postgraduate Training recommended that the Research Councils should introduce a 'Research Training Package' system to replace individual studentships. UKLSC submitted views to the EPSRC consultation on this issue. There was strong support for the concept among UKLSC member societies provided that appropriate safeguards were in place. These related particularly to the need to ensure that a funded department provided an excellent PhD training, as well as demonstrating the capacity to attract significant research grant income (if funding was to be based on a research income algorithm); and that departments currently having a very small quota of studentships would not be squeezed out of providing PhD training under such a system. UKLSC members welcomed the flexibility that Training Packages would allow. Respondents favoured the allocation of packages being based on departmental research income, rather than on competitive bids, by a margin of about 2:1, because it was less costly and time-consuming. Copies of the response were sent to the MRC and BBSRC. BBSRC replied that it took a rather different view. It considered that a Training Package system would require more administration by Research Councils, and it preferred to allocate studentships by competitive peer review because this automatically provided a check on departmental training practice. However, BBSRC did welcome the EPSRC initiative in opening up debate on ways of encouraging innovation and variation in funding and support regimes for postgraduate training
The UKLSC Animal Science Group responded to a paper from the Home Office that discussed the advantages and disadvantages of making publicly available different amounts of information from Animal Licences under the Freedom of Information Act. The response agreed with the objective of allowing the public to make a more informed judgement of the importance of scientific research and of the implications for animal welfare. But it did not consider that any of the options for releasing amounts of information from licences would achieve this objective. It drew attention to the highly technical nature of much of the material in Animal Licences, to the potential risk to animal researchers of their identities being revealed to extreme groups, to the likelihood of commercially confidential material getting into competitor hands, and to the likelihood that such release of information would hinder the recruitment and retention of scientists in the UK. The response proposed that the Home Office should establish a working group containing all interested parties to consider ways to promote openness and understanding of animal research. The Home Office should also make the public more aware of the role played by independent Ethical Review Panels in ensuring that animal welfare is considered appropriately by researchers. Finally, the response suggested that every licence should require a single page summary, approved by an Ethical Review Panel and by the Home Office, written in easily understood terms, that would be available for public disclosure.
Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers
Science Policy: UK
The government's Spending Review was expected to focus on two key questions: are government departments deploying science and research funds effectively; and are they doing enough to ensure that science is exploited to the benefit of the economy at large. The Review covers four main themes: excellence, disciplines and university dual support; capital for university research; exploitation and collaboration with industry; and departmental investment in science and technology. Calls for infrastructure support would be at the forefront of the DTI science bid. A recurrent form of the Joint Infrastructure Fund was a possibility (although Wellcome is not committed to investing more) since the current JIF rounds have been swamped by excellent applications. Overarching priorities for the Research Councils would be information technology, post-genome science, and sustainable land use (Res Ft, 9/2). The report of the Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into Engineering and Physical Science-based innovation criticised the government for placing too much emphasis on the role of the university science base and technology transfer. A 'fundamental shift' in government policy was needed: much exploitable knowledge was emerging from a good academic science base, but industry must be encouraged to invest more in demonstrating applicability, and in development and marketing (THES, 18/2; Res Ft, 23/2; Press release, 9/2). The OST launched a consultation to help form its position in the negotiations for the next round of the EU research programme, Framework Programme 6. The paper listed a number of strategic objectives that the government believed to be important. These included the need for research funded on a European level to 'add value' above that achievable on a national scale, for FP6 to be driven by the needs of EU policies, and for the mobility of young researchers to be improved (Res Ft, 23/2).
A speech by the Prime Minister in which he recognised "cause for legitimate public concern" about GM crops, and said that they had the potential to be both beneficial and harmful to health and the environment, and so the government was proceeding with caution on the basis of the best scientific information, was widely reported (all papers 28/2) as a U-turn from earlier bullish statements. Ian Gibson MP criticised the change in government tone, since no evidence of adverse effects on public health had appeared (Ind, 28/2). DTI officials warned ministers that the PM's comments could have a negative effect on Britain's biotech industry (Ind, Times, 29/2). At an international meeting on food safety (see Science Policy: International section) a leading US scientist noted that Britain was already paying the price for consumer rejection of biotechnology in terms of lost investment and a loss of young researchers to the US. He referred to the collapse last year of Axis Genetics, which had an excellent portfolio of projects in plant biotechnology, but which was unable to secure development funding (FT, 1/3). Problems with funding do not apply across the whole biotech sector. A business analysis (Ind, 3/3) considered that the current demand for biotech stocks was likely to be more than a passing phase. Admittedly, the movement of investors out of communications technology looking for other forms of technology with high-growth potential contributed. But interest was likely to be sustained by the promise of post-genome science leading to new, patentable, drug treatments, and by many UK biotech companies moving towards profitability.
A report commissioned by CVCP warned that difficulties in recruiting and retaining senior academic staff were impacting on the ability of universities to achieve their goals. Posts were being left vacant and part-time and visiting lecturers were being used to cover vacancies. Whilst engineering, computer science, maths and chemistry were experiencing the greatest problems, two out of 11 universities offering biological sciences identified this as a problem discipline. The lack of good calibre candidates was ascribed to poor pay and prospects at the early career stage causing people to look outside academia (Times, Ind, THES, 25/2; Nat, 2/3). Appearing before the Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Chief Executives of Glaxo-Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham insisted that the merged company had no intention of moving research out of the UK, but that this would depend on the government commitment to maintaining a strong university research and teaching base (Res Ft, 23/2). The apparent willingness of the government to consider top-up fees after 2002 in order to enable universities to retain international competitiveness, indicated in a speech by the Education Minister, was widely reported (all papers 16/2). THES (25/2) considered that a flexible fees system could fit in with the government's philosophy of relieving the public purse in other areas by encouraging more public/private partnership arrangements.
A Wellcome Trust analysis found that the UK (10.1%) slipped behind Japan (10.3%) in output of biomedical research publications in 1998. Japan has moved away from its traditional strengths in electronics and the physical sciences in recent years (Res Ft, 23/2). Sir Robert May is set to become the President of The Royal Society from December 2000 (Nat, 2/3; FT, 3/3). 'Biologists unite to influence policy': Nat (10/2) and THES (11/2) contained articles about the ongoing consultation on a Biosciences Federation based on the press release.
Science Policy: International
A meeting on Food Safety organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was characterised by conflicting views on GM crops by the different interest groups present. One major debate was on the applicability of the 'substantial equivalence' concept to foods derived from such crops, and hence less rigorous safety evaluation. In his concluding speech the conference chair, Sir John Krebs, said the concept of substantial equivalence clearly needed to be reviewed. He also proposed that an international advisory body should be set up-inspired by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change-that would enable consumers and policy-makers to keep abreast of evolving scientific views on biotechnology. "We need industry, regulators, scientists, and consumers to consider the ethics, values and beliefs, issues of world trade, IPR, and exploitation of developing countries". Sir Robert May backed this idea (all, papers, 1-3/3).
International scientists met at the Sanger centre to discuss ground rules for collaboration on proteomics, in the hope that a structure like the Human Genome Project (HGP) can be established (Nat, 17/2). Celera Genomics was reported to be in discussions with the Swiss-based GeneBio organisation about co-operation in a major human proteomics venture. GeneBio was thought to prefer collaboration with a publicly-funded project, so as to allow rapid dissemination of results (Nat, 24/2). The issue of confidentiality of results was the reason for the breakdown of a proposed collaboration between the HGP and Celera Genomics to speed up the final sequencing of the human genome. The HGP had agreed to a delay of 6 months to a year before making results available to give Celera a head start on competitors, but Celera had asked for 5 years exclusive rights (Gdn, 7/3).
A study by the Harvard Medical School drew attention to the way that industrial funding and university involvement in spin-off companies is undermining traditions of academic freedom and the sharing of research results. Based on biological sciences departments in the top 50 US research universities, the study found that 28% of faculty members had some form of research relationship with industry. 27% of industry-linked researchers had had publications delayed longer than 6 months, and 11% had turned down the request of another academic for information or materials (THES 25/2). Those most likely to be denied access to biomedical data or reagents were young researchers, those who publish a lot, and investigators known to be seeking patents. Those scientists known to withhold data acquired a reputation, and were in turn likely to have more difficulty gaining data from colleagues (Nat, 2/3).
The European research commissioner was to set up a benchmarking system to compare the scale and quality of research in the 15 member countries. He intended to publish an annual league table that would identify 'centres of excellence' (Nat, 17/2). The Japanese government was preparing a bill to facilitate co-operation between universities and industry. It would increase universities' discretion in receiving funding from industry, and allow university staff to take up managerial positions in industry (Nat, 10/2). Japan was also developing a new 5-year plan for its universities, beginning in 2001, that was expected to include the expansion of overcrowded laboratories and the replacement of ageing equipment (Sci, 18/2). A bioethics committee of Japan's highest science policy body recommended that human stem cells should be approved for research under strict regulation. The 'rules' differed in two ways from NIH guidelines:-government funding would be allowed for both derivation and use of stem cells, and the rules applied to the private as well as the public sector. The reporter commentated that academic labs would probably be the focus for stem cell creation in Japan, in contrast to for-profit labs in the US (Sci, 11/2).
Science, parliament and the public
Science and Public Affairs (Feb) contained an essay by Sir Ian Lloyd responding to the "growing orthodoxy that science and technology policies lack legitimacy unless they are validated by the public". He argued that few members of the public would claim to understand risk analysis and probability. Whilst politicians, like company directors, should be held accountable for errors in judgements that they were elected or appointed to make, this did not alter the fact that the best defence against disaster lay in delegating responsibility to experts in the disciplines concerned. "Science constrains the arbitrary decisions of either high officials or of mass opinions". In the same issue Ian Gibson MP was optimistic that the next 10 years would see a dramatic increase in funding for science as decision-making relied more and more on 'good science'. He wanted scientists to forge a much closer link with the UK parliament and argued the case for young scientists to undertake 1-year internships. This would benefit parliament in bringing in their knowledge and scientific literacy, and benefit the scientists by making them aware how parliament works.
Higher Education and Research
A study commissioned by HEFCE as part of its review of research funding policy suggested that block research funding in UK universities is not less selective than in the US, as is often stated. The study also concluded that the introduction of the RAE had improved the effectiveness and productivity of UK researchers, and improved the management of research. A second study concluded that there is no excessive 'transfer market' of researchers in the run-up to RAEs, and that whilst researchers now publish a larger number of shorter articles this is part of a global phenomenon rather than the effect of the RAE. The study recognised some problems with interdisciplinary work, but this arose from the behaviour of RAE panels rather than the boundaries between subject areas (Res Ft, 23/2). The recently announced HEFCE funding allocation to universities represented an overall 1% cut in real terms when inflation and the expansion of student numbers was taken into account. The HEFCE Chief Executive commented that the settlement would "pose difficulties for institutions, particularly in recruiting and rewarding staff" (Gdn, FT, THES, 3/3). A review of university research and its relationship to teaching, as part of the government Spending Review, found that more research is being conducted than is officially funded. To check for indicators that teaching may not be receiving the resources officially allocated to it more work was being done to compare TQA scores for research-intensive universities with those of teaching-intensive institutions (THES, 25/2).
At the time that the Education Minister dropped hints that the government would be sympathetic to top-up fees, the Russell group of universities unanimously agreed to commission a team of economists to write a report on the future funding of universities. It was expected to combine the economic argument for higher fees with a social argument for access to be protected by scholarship schemes (Ind, 24/2; THES, 25/2). CVCP later announced that it was also to conduct a study to assess the funding needed by universities 'to meet the challenge of the 21st century' (FT, THES, 3/3). The announcement by the Education Minister of 2-year Foundation Degrees met with a mixed reception (all papers 16/2). To be launched in September 2001, the degrees would have a strong vocational element, with industry involvement in their planning, and would be judged by the employability of resulting graduates. Save British Science (press release 15/2) welcomed the awards and hoped that they would lead to a wider recognition of the need for greater diversity in higher education. It was unrealistic to pretend that the large proportion of young people entering the sector can all have the kind of traditional degree that was normal when only 5% of the population went to university.
In its series 'the A-Z of Degrees' Ind (2/3) covered biochemistry. Its somewhat idiosyncratic and selective use of data prompted some people to complain to the Society, but the Society considered that the overall tone of the article was very positive for biochemistry. It therefore decided against complaining to the Independent.
|
