Monthly report on Professional Affairs - June 2000

Contents

• Policy, professional, and education activities
• Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers
  • Science Policy: UK
  • Genetics, bioethics, science and society
  • Science Policy: International
  • Higher/Secondary education

Policy, professional, and education activities

The Biochemical Society responded through UKLSC to the consultation on Sir Robert May's updated guidelines on the use of scientific advice by government departments, that placed greater emphasis on the need for transparency and an inclusive approach. UKLSC considered that the guidelines were generally excellent. But it queried how effectively departments would be able to perform some of the functions required in light of the decreased funding for departmental R&D; and how effectively the OST would be able to co-ordinate the implementation of the guidelines across departments. In a recent inquiry the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the OST has limited success in this role. A 'tick-box' questionnaire has been constructed to determine the views of UKLSC and Biochemical Society committees on the consultation report from the Foresight Healthcare Panel (see later in this report). An update on UKLSC progress (Making an impact: the UKLSC after 3 years) has been posted at its web site. J Wrigglesworth and M Withnall represented the Society at a Save British Science workshop on 'Holding on to excellence in the science base', that SBS will report later. W Dawson and M Withnall represented the Society at the Royal Society of Chemistry Parliamentary Links Day meeting on 'Problems for society: solutions from science'. For the first time this meeting had speakers from the biosciences, physics, and engineering communities, and attracted an impressive number of MPs.

In the education arena the Biochemical Society joined with some other UKLSC societies under the 'Biosciences at Work' banner at the large Hobsons Careers Fair for post-16 students in London. It has commissioned a series of three new posters to promote biochemistry in relation to research, medicine, and the environment for secondary school students, and ran a (heavily oversubscribed) Teachers Workshop on 'Biochemistry, genes and disease' on July 14, in collaboration with the Science Museum, Imperial College, and the National Centre for Biotechnology Education.

Digest of reports in science journals and newspapers

Science Policy: UK
The announcement by the Chancellor of a �1 billion boost for science infrastructure (�775 million from the government, �225 million from the Wellcome Trust) over the years 2002/3 and 2003/4 was welcomed by scientific organisations (all newspapers 6/7). But they noted the need to maintain this level of investment. The package included �675 million to refurbish facilities, but universities themselves would have to find 25% of the cost of any project. Unlike JIF funding, this money could be used according to each university's priorities. OST would retain �100 million to modernise research council institutes and contribute to large national projects. �150 million of the Wellcome money would refurbish facilities, and �75 million go towards new equipment, for those sciences within the Wellcome remit. An extra �34 million of government funding was announced to allow a phased increase in science and engineering PhD stipends to �9000 (about �11,000 with London weighting) by 2004 (THES, 7/7). This is in line with the recommendation of the UKLSC report on postgraduate training. Commentators pointed out that the boost for infrastructure alone would not achieve the government objective of reducing the number of scientists leaving to work abroad. More money was needed to make academic salaries more competitive and to pay for other recurrent costs in university laboratories (eg Save British Science press release, 5/7). It was suggested that the early announcement of this allocation from the Spending Review was a government attempt to spike the guns of the report commissioned by the Russell group of universities (Ft, 6/7). This recommended allowing universities to set their own tuition fees as a serious option (all papers, 7/7). It was also suspected that the government intention was to soften the blow of an expected poor settlement for the Funding Councils (see previous report).

An editorial in Res Ft (7/6) examined Lord Sainsbury's claim that the past 12 months had been "an outstanding year for science". It agreed that the government had started to address the problem of poor infrastructure (although even here increased spending on the science base had been balanced by reductions in government departmental R&D spending), but it had not tackled the problem of low academic salaries. At a time when the Commons Science and Technology Committee has been hearing views on the outcome of the 1993 White Paper from past and present Science Ministers, Director Generals of the Research Councils, and Chief Scientific Advisers, Ian Gibson MP set out his own personal views in articles in Science and Public Affairs (June) and THES (30/6). He considered that several of the issues identified in the Paper still required solutions. His concerns about inadequate PhD stipends will be met by the release of new money above, but he still pressed for 4-year PhD courses in order for graduates to acquire a wider repertoire of skills, and for a better-defined academic career structure with more competitive salaries. There had been improved interaction between universities and industry, but rationalisation of technology transfer schemes was required and Foresight should be reviewed to determine whether it achieved the desired outcomes. A national strategy was required for activities within the HE sector. He shared the Science Minister's view that incentives were required to encourage universities to pursue more diverse individual missions. Research Council structures should be examined to see if they best served the needs of cross-disciplinary work. Public understanding of science activities also needed to be revamped so that scientists engaged more effectively with the public, and learned more about the political process.

Res Ft (5/7) speculated that a new scheme that required government departments to reserve a small part of their research budgets to support small businesses, along the lines of the US Small Business Innovation Research programme, would form part of the next White Paper. It also thought that funding from the DTI for university collaboration with industry would be increased. A study of 33 university-industry partnerships by the DTI's Innovation Unit found that the industrial partner frequently considered the university to lack business acumen in its dealings, entrepreneurial spirit, and the ability to market well the subject areas in which it was particularly strong (Res Ft, 5/7). In a last-ditch attempt to avoid a cut in funding per student in the next Spending Review the AUT presented data to the Treasury, gleaned from OECD figures, to demonstrate the strong link between spending on HE and economic competitiveness (FT, 26/6). CVCP also expressed dismay about the prospect of spending cuts when it presented evidence on the outcome of the 1993 White Paper to the Commons Science and Technology Committee (THES, 16/6). It argued the case for spending to be maintained in its conference 'Knowledge means Business' (THES, 30/6).

The Open Letter to the Science Minister organised by UKLSC, and signed by 110 leading biomedical scientists, was reported in all papers apart from Gdn (13/6), and in Nat (15/6), THES (16/6), and New Sci (17/6) ("an unprecedented letter of complaint"). All the articles brought out the fact that excessive bureaucracy and delays in processing animal licence applications were hindering UK biomedical competitiveness, but noted that the letter was not asking for any changes to the legislation that could impair animal welfare. Animal welfare organisations gave a fairly muted response since the letter insisted that standards of animal care remained of paramount importance. Lord Sainsbury replied that the "leading scientists had addressed an important and complex issue. (The government) must find a solution that reflected its commitment both to the science community and its duty of care to animals" (DTI news release, 13/6). A meeting has been arranged between Lord Sainsbury and a delegation from among the signatories of the letter. The Gdn (4/7) followed up with a front page story by its political correspondent headed "Scientists predict big rise in animal tests", that linked the 2-2.5% increases in animal usage in the last two years (after a decade of decreases) to research in genetics, and how this embarrassed the government in the year leading up to a general election. Before the last election the Labour Party received a sizeable donation from the Political Animal Lobby and stated its commitment to reducing the number of animal experiments. The article implied that the Home Office delays in processing animal licence applications were a hidden attempt to achieve this objective. Longer inside articles by science journalists discussed the types of experiments performed, the need for animal experiments, and alternatives being explored. The Royal Society announced that it was to carry out a study of the use of GM animals. It would look at the costs and benefits of GM animal technology, future research needs, and consider whether current legislation was satisfactory regarding their use (Nat, 15/6; Res Ft, 21/6). The Medical Research Council is considering ways in which more information could be provided to the public about the UK animal regulatory system. A recent MORI poll found that the public wanted rules that were, in fact, already in place (Res Ft, 7/6) (see previous report).

MAFF was formally identifying research and facilities that were central to its research mission, and it was intended to reward this work with 5-6 year contracts. This would allow more of the remaining research portfolio to be put out to competitive tender. The length of these contracts was also being reviewed (Res Ft, 7/6). The DTI announced a new �15 million LINK programme, the largest to date, for research in applied genomics in healthcare. First calls for proposals were expected in the autumn (Res Ft, 7/6). Appointed as the Rector of Imperial College, Sir Richard Sykes commented that he was keen to promote better links between academia and industry (Times, 3/7; FT, 4/7; Nat, 6/7).

Genetics, bioethics, science and society
The announcement by the Human Genome Programme and Celera Genomics of the first draft of the human genome was extensively covered by all papers (26 and 27/6). It was regarded as a marvellous achievement, but many articles drew attention to the social and ethical problems that could arise, such as affordability of heathcare (eg. Gdn, 26/6), discrimination in insurance and employment (DT, 1/7;Sunday T, 2/7), eugenics (Gdn, 26/6), and patent issues (FT, 27/6; THES, 30/6; Times,4/7). "For all our nascent genetic knowledge, if we end up with our genes owned by large corporations and a genetic underclass, will we really have advanced that much?"(New Sci, 1/7). Several articles warned of the danger of over-hyping the healthcare promise. "Change our lives in the next 20 years? Nah!" "Scientists must not exaggerate short-term benefits if they wish to retain credibility in the longer term" (Ind, 29/6; Ft, 26/6; Times, 28/6). A new organisation, the Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering, is pressing for a debate on all the ethical issues highlighted above (Gdn, 15/6; THES, 16/6). A Nat editorial (29/6) asked why there had been a public statement at this time, given the significantly incomplete nature of the work. It concluded that keeping a high public profile suited both research groups, and it represented a way to bring the public bickering between them to an end. The article hoped that with the public spotlight now off them the groups could complete a scientifically useful draft as efficiently as possible.

The UK Human Genetics Commission is to review the use, protection and storage of genetic information in order to retain public confidence. It will develop a programme of public and stakeholder involvement. The Lords Science and Technology Committee will also begin an inquiry into the wider implications of developing genetic databases later this year (Res Ft, 5/7). The impact of the Human Genome Project on future medical research and on healthcare was one of the questions addressed in a consultation report from the Foresight Healthcare Panel. Other important issues included the best arrangements for cross-disciplinary working, technology transfer, retaining global companies in the UK, and how to restore public confidence in science. An intriguing suggestion was that technology transfer should be taken away from universities and channelled through "an organisation that understands technology and how to handle, manage, package and market it" (DTI news release, 13/6; Res Ft, 21/6; Nat, 22/6).

Patrick Jenkin, a member of the Lords Science and Technology Committee, argued in an article in Science and Public Affairs (June) that for scientists to engage with the public was not an optional add-on to their professional work. The public did not want research to be stopped, but wanted their concerns about particular issues such as cloning, xenotransplants, and the whole of genetic engineering, to be listened to, heeded, and addressed. A project funded by the Wellcome Trust and the OST is seeking the views of research scientists on how they regard their role in the public debate about science (Res Ft, 5/7). The Royal Society has listed at its web site Fellows with media training who would be available to comment to the media on particular issues. The Times (23/6) article discussed how the media obtain and use stories about science. It was considered a good idea for the Royal Society to try to avoid sensational stories emerging "from publicity-hungry scientists who may have extreme views". The DfEE announced a Year of Science for 2001 that would seek to strengthen links between schools, industry and universities. It looked for significant involvement of the scientific community, parents, and teachers in shaping the programme, and opened a web site for contributing ideas (www.scienceyear.com) (DfEE news release, 28/6; Times, 29/6).

Science Policy: International
The US Senate approved an appropriations bill that would increase next year's NIH budget by $2.7 billion to over $20 billion. If passed into law the increase would keep the NIH on track to double its budget over 5 year from 1998 (Res Ft, 5/7). The NIH was under political pressure to cap or recover profits on pharmaceuticals that derived from publicly funded research. Universities, which benefit from licence fees or royalties, as well as pharmaceutical companies, opposed this move (Nat, 6/7). The NIH announced a new initiative to develop pilot projects on biomedical computing, leading to about 20 national centres of excellence in this discipline (Sci, 9/6). The President of the US and the President of the European Community agreed to set up a panel of US and EU scientists to address possible environment and health risks posed by GM crops and other organisms. The first task would be to develop risk assessment methods that all parties would accept (Nat, 8/6). This came at a time when a survey showed that well-educated Americans (with a bachelor's degree) had become less supportive of genetic engineering over the last 5 years (Nat, 29/6). The European Science Foundation pointed out that the GDP of the EU bloc is roughly the same as that of the US, but that the EU invests about 33% less on R&D than the US. ESF used this to argue the importance of creating a European Research Area to encourage collaboration and improve EU competitiveness (Sci, 16/6).

A meeting of European Science Ministers gave unanimous approval to the concept of a European Research Area, and agreed to encourage the networking of research programmes on a voluntary basis and the inclusion of non-national experts on evaluation panels. But they could not reach agreement to change the rules of Framework Programme 5 to allow money to be allocated to support running costs of organisations such as the European Bioinformatics Institute (Nat, 15 and 22/6; Res Ft, 21/6). The European Commissioner for Research announced that a new FP5 initiative on post-sequencing genomic research would be proposed this autumn and discussed by Research Ministers in November (Res Ft, 5/7). There was concern in some European countries, particularly France, about the EU directive on patenting, due to be enacted by the end of July. The concern was about the lack of clear distinction between the discovery of a gene sequence, and an invention based on using that sequence (Sci, 23/6).

Higher Education
Proposals to improve PhD training by concentrating studentships in a smaller number of research centres were predicted to be a radical outcome of the HEFCE review (Res Ft, 21/6). Boundaries between Research Council and Funding Council responsibilities for funding the purchase of large items of equipment would be clarified in a new concordat to be published in 2001 (Res Ft, 21/6). HEFCE noted that by pursuing a more targeted research strategy in their particular areas of strength many post-1992 universities were expected to do well in next year's RAE, and this meant that money available for traditional research universities would be squeezed. HEFCE did not want selectivity to be increased further, but the head of policy noted that if there was no new money available the only alternative would be to decrease the amount of funding for particular gradings (THES, 23/6).

20 Winners (12 male, 8 female) of the first National Teaching Fellowships, sponsored by HEFCE and DfEE, were chosen from 95 nominations. Two were from science departments (THES, 23/6). A consultation by CVCP and QAA found almost unanimous support for the introduction of transcripts for graduates from as early as 2002. A small majority agreed that the transcripts should include a record of failures eg exam resits as well as achievements (THES, 30/6). Martin Harris is to chair a review of the state of HE careers services. The government wants the service to be a more effective link between HE and employers rather than an operation largely separate from the academic life of universities (THES, 9/6). HESA's first destinations survey found employment and study patterns for 1999 graduates to be unchanged from the previous year (THES, 30/6). Data for our own survey of biochemistry graduate employment are currently being collected.