Monthly report on Professional Affairs - May 2000
Commonly used abbreviations
Previous Reports
Current Report
Contents
Professional/policy activities
Outcome of the Bioscience Federation consultation The Steering Group set up to assess the consultation concluded that there was strong, and virtually unanimous, support from stakeholders for the concept of a more unified voice for the British bioscience community. Most learned societies also expressed strong support in principle for a more unified voice, especially in public affairs and related outreach activities. Several societies opposed the particular option suggested of a national Federation with a wide remit and a new management group, but almost all societies were prepared to back further discussions on how to achieve a stronger, more unified voice. Many societies emphasised that the creation of this voice should not compromise their own autonomy, nor should any structure create an additional and costly bureaucratic layer. Some advocated a small federal body that networked effectively with the existing resources and expertise of societies.
On this basis the UKLSC, UK National Committee for Microbiology, and the Institute of Biology, decided to move forward by setting up a Working Group to draw up a plan for a more unified approach to learned societies' involvement in public affairs and related outreach activities. The Working Group will be asked to make firm proposals, including mission, aims and objectives, resources, income sources, organisational structure, and relationships with existing organisations. Learned societies will be involved in the preparation of these proposals. The Steering Group is presently inviting learned societies to suggest suitable individuals who might be prepared to serve on the Working Group.
Bioscience Benchmarking Group The nominations for the Benchmarking Group selected by the community were forwarded for Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) scrutiny to ensure that they met all the required criteria. QAA was contacting the individuals to determine their availability on a set of dates for Group meetings dictated by QAA.
Other activities The pilot study on biochemistry provision in universities in relation to the recommendations of a Core Curriculum drawn up in 1996 (see March report) has now been posted at the Biochemical Society's web site. A hard copy will shortly be sent to sent to all Heads of Department together with further information. The UKLSC response to the Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the outcome of the 1993 Science White Paper will also soon be posted on the web. It argued that non-competitive salaries and poor career prospects in academic science are seriously affecting the recruitment of bright students and preventing the country 'realising its potential'. The response considered that the Foresight initiative, and the creation of the Council for Science and Technology to advise the government, had had little impact. Universities had made great strides in exploiting discoveries and in promoting technology transfer, but this was driven by a number of factors in addition to direct government policy. The government now needed to encourage industry to invest more in R&D. UKLSC societies thought that Research Council steer had not been a major factor in driving innovation, and the majority thought that Research Councils were too focused on short-term, goal-orientated research at the expense of basic research. It was recognised that public understanding of science initiatives had met with limited success, and there was strong support for scientists to engage more with the public on social and ethical implications of their work as well as on trying to improve the understanding of science, particularly among young people. The open letter from the UKLSC Animal Science Group to the Minister for Science (see April report) was endorsed by 110 eminent biomedical scientists, of whom 5 were Nobel prize winners and 37 FRS. There should be media reports in the week beginning June 11th. UKLSC is preparing a response to Sir Robert May's updated guidelines on gaining and using scientific advice by government departments.
Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers
Science Policy: UK
THES (2/6) commented that the Treasury was reported to be considering cuts of up to 3% a year in the unit of public funding to universities for 2002/3 and 2003/4. On this basis HE funding by 2003/4 would have fallen to 84% of its 1995/6 value. Economists working for the Russell Group of universities recommended that the government should introduce income-contingent loans for top-up fees, with interest rates at 3% above inflation, to generate a scholarship fund for poorer students. It could mean students taking loans from perhaps �12,000 to cover fees for an arts degree up to �30,000 for a medical course. There would be no fees up front, and repayment on graduation at perhaps 5% of earnings per year so that it wasn't too much of a burden (all papers 31/5; THES 2/6). CVCP has asked a consulting firm to examine 6 possible funding models for HE and to report back in time for CVCP's September conference (THES, 26/5). The Minister for HE was quick to respond that the government had no intention of introducing top-up fees and nor did it believe that it would be appropriate (Ind, 1/6).
Two reports commissioned by CVCP were submitted to the government to support the case for increased investment in science in the forthcoming spending review. One from SPRU (Sussex) found that UK R&D investment in 1997 needed to rise by 67% to match per capita levels in the US, and criticised industry for continued under-investment in R&D in comparison with OECD competitors. The �1.4 billion input to the research base between 1999 and 2002 sounded a lot, but it was partly to allow the UK to catch up from a very low investment base over the previous decade, and the rest of the world had also continued to invest. A second report from PREST (Manchester) found that despite improvements over the last two years over half UK universities were using out of date equipment, and that at least �600 million was needed to bring essential research equipment up to date. Two thirds of departments were unable to perform critical experiments, and 60% of equipment stock could not deliver 'leading edge' research. The report also noted that the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) had been unable to fund �800 million worth of applications judged excellent (Res Ft, 24/5; FT, 25/5; THES, 26/5; Nat, 1/6). The report of an international panel looking at the state of UK physics research criticised the poor state of the infrastructure and commented that the JIF had not addressed this problem, but had been used on equipment or facilities for new projects. Beneath peaks of excellence in physics there was a marked drop in quality. The report drew attention to the "unacceptable" plight of young researchers on fixed-term contacts, and to academic salaries not being internationally competitive (THES, 19/5; Res Ft, 24/5; Nat, 1/6).
The second report of the Research Careers Initiative Steering Group recommended that HEFCE should reward departments for the successful development of research staff. The Initiative had not yet had a widespread impact on contract researchers, although there were encouraging signs. More staff were now receiving annual appraisals, more were aware of university employment policies, and training was increasingly available in communicating, IPR, project management, and IT. But it also appeared that many staff were either not willing to take up such training, or were dissuaded by line management. A separate survey by the AUT union found that many contract researchers employed by the Medical Research Council were largely unaware of their rights under MRC employment policies (THES, 12/5; Res Ft, 24/5). Both Gdn Higher (23/5) and Res Ft (7/6) predicted that the HEFCE review will recommend retaining the RAE as the main determinant of research funding for the foreseeable future.
A long editorial in Innovation Policy Review (April) drew together a number of policy developments relating to the government 'seeking to transform the public research base into an entrepreneurial power house'. It asked whether the government had considered some of the potential drawbacks: increased secrecy among scientists, unwillingness to share research materials, reduced public confidence in academic independence and integrity, conflicts of interest for academics, and the temptation to fudge results to suit the sponsor's preferred outcome. Appearing before the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Sir William Stewart, former Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), emphasised that globalisation and the need for government agencies to respond quickly to new developments were the two issues that needed to be addressed in the forthcoming Science White Paper. Academics didn't need to be told what research to do, or that everything had to be commercially relevant. He thought that the current CSA may have lost touch with some of the influential networks in Whitehall, and that the link between the CSA and the Prime Minister needed to be strengthened. He had changed his opinion on where the OST should be located, and now thought it might be better off back in the Cabinet Office (Res Ft, 24/5). The Science Minister was also invited to appear before the Commons Committee to answer questions relating to the siting of the synchrotron facility in Oxfordshire. He insisted that the decision was made purely on scientific grounds and not on any bias towards the 'golden triangle'. Both he and the Director General of the Research Councils disagreed with the Wellcome Trust view that the OST had decided on the site as early as April 1999, before the report appeared of a study examining the merits of the various options (THES, 2/6).
An article in New Sci (3/6) compared support in Germany for its buoyant biotechnology industry with the increasing unease about biotechnology in the UK, and the threat to the industry here. A spokesman for a leading specialist investment company considered that media attacks on biotechnology were fostering a worrying attitude in the general population, and he saw it as only a matter of time before the focus spread from agriculture to health-care. John Sime (BioIndustries Association) thought that Germany's numerical lead in biotech companies would increase unless attitudes changed in the UK. In an aside, Res Ft (24/5) asked whether Labour would really want to announce big increases in funding for GM technology in its spending review at a time when the next election is looming. Innovation Policy Review (April) noted that the government had changed tack to distance itself from agricultural GM applications, with Mo Mowlam advising the BioIndustries Association that the German government had turned round public opinion by focusing on potential medical benefits (see also following section). An EC study confirmed that Britain still has the strongest biotech sector in Europe, but with Germany determined to catch up and spending slightly more on R&D, and with a number of successful initiatives to foster small biotech companies (THES, 26/5).
The Scottish Executive decided to follow the recommendation of an eminent review group and set up a new high level advisory board on science policy. The review group identified two key challenges for Scotland: to establish more high-tech companies to take advantage of the strong university science base, and to develop an academic research policy whilst only controlling a small proportion of public funding (Res Ft, 10/5). The Wellcome Trust is investigating the use of papers cited in clinical guidelines as an indicator of the 'payback' of the funding of biomedical research in healthcare (Res Ft, 10/5).
Genetic modification, bioethics, and public attitudes to bioscience
By virtue of his position, Prince Charles' comments on genetic manipulation and on the philosophy of science received wide coverage, and the responses of various scientists were quoted (all papers, 18/5). Among scientific publications (Nat, 25/5; Sci, 26/5; New Sci, 27/5) the response of New Sci was well considered. An editorial agreed with some of the views about sustainable development and the importance of not introducing new technologies until we know the potential liabilities. But it noted that there are already committees and commissions to set the bounds of research and codes of conduct, and that the course of nature is altered even when someone is given a life-saving drug. To single out genetic modification as a step too far was irrational. However, New Sci did criticise governments for being sluggish in regulating the rush for profits of agrochemical companies. The confidence of the public that GM crops can be contained was hardly helped by the revelation that batches of rape containing up to 1% GM material had been sown inadvertently across Europe, and that the government had sat on the information for a month before making it public (all papers, 19/5). The chairman of a new, broadly-based, independent advisory panel, the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission, criticised the lack of government openness, and its "nanny knows best" attitude towards the GM debate (all papers, 6/6).
Under the heading 'the culture of fear about the bio-evolution engulfing Britain' Michael Rennie (Dundee) and Conrad Lichtenstein (Queen Mary and Westfield College) were given free rein in Gdn (6/6) to comment on developments. Rennie criticised a strong anti-science bias among opinion formers and commentators, caused by the paucity of scientifically trained politicians and 'media gurus' and defects in school science education. The public also did not appreciate the difference between hazard and risk. He wanted curricula to change so that up to GCSE all pupils have opportunity to consider what science is, what it can do, and the limits of its usefulness, rather than merely learn a lot of facts. He also felt that scientists must engage the public and be open-minded, and show that whilst being pro-science, they opposed its misuse. Lichtenstein's main focus was on the role of a small number of scientists who had allowed their work, whether inadvertently or otherwise, to be picked up and used as media GM scare stories without having hard scientific evidence to support the claims. In a Commentary article (Nat, 1/6) Derek Burke urged scientists to become much more involved in public debates on how society uses science and technology, and more sophisticated in their dealings with pressure groups and the media. An editorial in Nat (18/5) recommended that government and regulatory agencies should take more trouble to learn the views of concerned publics, as compared to active stake-holders, in scientific issues. Greater use could be made of consensus conferences to shed light on citizens' concerns about key aspects of science, and of issues surrounding the science.
A MORI survey commissioned by the MRC on public attitudes to animal experimentation found that over 80% of 1014 adults questioned accepted that such experimentation was necessary and justified so long as suffering was minimised, it was for medical purposes, and alternatives had been considered. The survey produced a wealth of interesting facts and statistics. For instance, when asked which species they thought were most commonly used 93% mentioned rats and mice, but 79% also stated monkeys, and 64% rabbits, probably reflecting the use of the latter species in anti-vivisection campaigns (which many participants clearly recalled). When asked what regulations they felt should be put in place regarding animal experimentation, the views matched closely those regulations already included in the 1986 Act. Clearly, lack of knowledge is a problem. This was borne out by the finding that participants appreciated that they only normally saw information opposing animal studies, but they were unsure where to find a balanced case for using animals. Furthermore, most linked animal experimentation with secrecy and lack of accountability (RDS News, April; THES, 26/5). An article by George Poste (formerly SmithKline Beecham) noted that a government committee would soon have to decide whether research using embryo-derived stem cells should be allowed for therapeutic purposes, and called for courageous political support so that Britain could benefit from the enormous medical possibilities (FT, 1/6).
Science Policy: International
There is evidence of other companies joining Monsanto in introducing a dual pricing strategy for GM agricultural products in order to make them affordable to under-developed countries eg. Astra-Zeneca with vitamin A-enriched rice (FT, 16/5); and Novartis with its Positech selection technique to replace the use of antibiotic resistance markers (FT, 23/5).
A sub-committee in the House of Representatives in the US proposed an increase of $1 billion in the budget for the NIH for 2001. This surpassed President Clinton's proposal, but was only about one third the amount biomedical research advocates sought. The NSF was offered a 4% increase, whereas the President had requested 17% (Nat, 1/6). The NIH and a number of academic organisations opposed the US Patent and Trademark Office policy of allowing a patent claim for a genomic sequence whose function was predicted solely on the similarity of the sequence to that of a gene of known function. Automatic programmes can readily generate such information. NIH was concerned partially because, if a patent was granted, there was little incentive for the patentee to characterise the gene product fully, but rights could be claimed to the results of other researchers who might do so at a later date (Nat,4/5). BioMed Central was given a boost by 10 prominent biomedical scientists agreeing to join the editorial board, including Paul Nurse from the UK. It started to accept papers in May, and intends to peer review and publish articles across the biomedical sciences free on the web at: (http://www.biomedcentral.com). Copyright will remain with the authors. It remains unclear how the refereeing will be funded, and the site was expected to run at a loss for some time, subsidised by the Current Science Group (Nat, 25/5).
The European Parliament wants each member state to spend at least 3% of GDP on R&D within two years, and urged political effort to provide conditions that would encourage private sector investment. It formed part of the concept of a European research area. The UK currently spends 1.87% of GDP on R&D, compared with 2.8% in the US and 2.9% in Japan (THES, 26/5). France's new research minister said that the government would increase substantially its support for IT and biotechnology, with priorities including life science research, seed funding for biotech companies, and establishing a national network of incubators to help start-up companies (Nat, 11/5).
Higher Education
Education An OECD survey found that the number of students in HE had increased in the UK in the 1990s at a faster rate than in nearly all other OECD countries, and the graduation rate (35%) was now higher than that in the US (32%). The UK had a first degree completion rate (>80%) second only to that of Japan. Funding per student had declined to below the OECD mean. UK public expenditure on educational institutions in 1997, as a percentage of GDP (4.6%), was also slightly below the OECD mean (4.8%). The UK had a higher proportion of students taking life or physical sciences or maths than other countries (Gdn, 17/5; THES, 19/5).
Speaking after the launch of benchmark statements by 22 disciplines, John Randall, Chief Executive of QAA, expressed the view that conventional degree classification should be abolished because the increasing proportion of students achieving 2.1s made it difficult for employers to distinguish between them. This was compounded by the fact that there is not a standard way of classifying degrees between institutions, or even between disciplines within institutions (will benchmarks make any difference?). He favoured a transcript system with a complete record of course marks and activities. Early results from the Treasury-driven transparency review of spending in British universities showed that lecturers and researchers were working between 55 and 70 hours per week and that unpaid overtime was required to sustain HE. This is one of the reasons why an earlier report from JM Consulting found that more research was being conducted than was actually funded (THES, 12/5).
|
