Communicating Science: Suddenly We Are All At It

Mr. Chairman, colleagues: welcome to the Bolton South East Parliamentary Constituency and, in particular, to the Bolton Technical Innovation Centre (TIC).

Paul Abbott has told you about the TIC of which I am the Chairman of its Board of Directors. It is registered as a limited company and is outside the local education authority with whom, nevertheless, we work very closely. This is a fine example of looking for new ways of communicating science, exactly what your meeting is about this evening.

This is Paul’s dream. I sometimes describe it as my nightmare. Sometimes it keeps me awake at night wondering how on earth we can keep the place funded. But, we are all determined people who believe success will breed success. At least that’s the theory.

Suddenly we are all at it - communicating science, that is. The Government is at it through all its state departments, all the learned societies are at it, including the prestigious Royal Society, the universities and colleges are at it, even Members of Parliament like me are at it. Yes, all of us in this room are at it, whether we are from industry and commerce or academia. 

Why? Well, the plain fact is that we have woken up to the fact that we have been losing our manufacturing industry, especially things like bulk chemical production, mining, glass and porcelain making, textiles and heavy engineering to other countries where costs, especially labour costs, are a lot lower than they are here. 

In return, we have been enjoying cheap imports - especially white goods and electronics.

We are now a service economy and a value added economy. To stay ahead of the competitors we need smart people doing smart things.

In my opinion, we have lost at least one generation of young people, if not more, through re-organisation of the way in which we have been teaching science in our state schools. 

We have been more interested in training generalist rather than specialist science teachers, and in teaching general science to most rather than specialising in chemistry, physics or mathematics for the interested. 

The life sciences have managed to hold their appeal for pupils, probably because medicine has always seemed like an attractive subject to study at university. However, we are now roughly in balance, with newly emerging doctors replacing those that are retiring from the profession.

Now, there is nothing wrong with general science as a subject - I took a general science GCE at age 16 - but to proceed in science as a career we have to have specialist teachers in the sixth forms. I studied GCE science ‘OA’ levels at evening classes and, in parallel, ‘a’ level sciences in the day time at Southport Technical College. It was hard work.

Some of the lessons that we need to learn about communication of science are not new. Thus, it is self-evident to me that young people will be attracted to study the sciences if practical work is at the top of the agenda, if laboratories are state-of-the-art, and if their teachers are enthusiastic and confident in their knowledge of the subject to excite the young people in front of them.

I have just read in ‘Chemistry World’ that a project has been launched to persuade school teachers that there are a lot of myths about which chemicals can and cannot be used in the classroom and which experiments are permitted and which are not.

I learned chemistry in front of teachers who excited us by staged demonstrations that they carried out interspersed with practical work conducted by the students.

I have done some mad things in my time in attempts to get the general public interested in science. I claim to have been the very first ‘chemical busker’ - stopping the shoppers in large shopping malls by carrying out experiments in the public spaces where people sit down to rest for a few minutes.

So, it’s a realisation that we have to produce more scientists and engineers, together with a realisation that those who are not practising scientists or engineers are also interested in how and why things work, that has led to a realisation that we all have to communicate our scientific knowledge to others.

The Foot and Mouth and BSE outbreaks and the controversy over MMR, not to mention Avian ‘Flu have led to a realisation amongst journalists that our citizens need to know some basic scientific facts in order to understand what are, after all, complex subjects. 

If we get communication wrong as, in my opinion, we have done over genetically modified crops, then we are poorer as a nation.

Just on that subject alone, we are being left standing by the rest of the world. Look at a map of the world, and see the vast acreages of genetically modified crops that are now being grown. The whole of the Americas, with few exceptions, are growing them, along with Australia, India, South Africa, and China and other parts of the Far East. In Europe, Spain and Germany are growing GM crops too.

So, what are the different organisations doing to improve our science communications, and who is doing what?

Let’s start with the Government. I am pleased to say that 1997 saw more scientists elected to Parliament than probably ever before, and we have made an impact. It’s important that it stays that way. Replace us when we retire.

The debate on stem cells would not have been successful in terms of its outcome had we not had scientifically literate Members of Parliament to present the case in the House of Commons.

Under this Government there has been a huge recognition that Britain’s future depends on smart science and engineering. 

The ten-year science and innovation investment framework was launched in 2004, and the 2006 annual report - the second so far - has just been published by the Treasury, the DTI and the DfES.

The 2004 comprehensive spending review allocated over £1 billion more for the research and innovation base through to 2007/08, thereby more than doubling the base since 1997 from £1.3 to £3.4 billion.

We are successful; for example, citations of our scientific publications has increased from 12% to 13.2% in the past year.

The ambition is that we invest 2.5% of GDP in research and innovation by 2014. Currently, the figure stands at only 1.9%. Whereas, Government investment is moving forward, investment by industry is static or even moving backwards, despite tax and other incentives.

Let me deal in particular with chapter 6 of this report, which is about ‘public engagement with scientific research and its innovative applications’.

There has to be public confidence in our research and innovation strategies if the tax payers are to feel that they are getting value for their money.

The Office of Science and Technology (OST) has now become the Office of Science and Innovation - or OSI.

Flowing out of each comprehensive spending review they are the main investors in the stem subjects, for example through the Research Councils as well as, increasingly, through the Regional Development Agencies (RDAS). 

Each Regional Development Agency now has a Science Council. The NW region was the first to launch one. I am pleased to say that the NW Science Alliance is unique in this country - congratulations on the initiative.

The Government has launched the ‘Sciencewise’ Programme of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology in New Areas. It has shifted to become a direct commissioning scheme, enabling resources to be targeted at public engagement, which considers the potential ethical, health, environmental and safety concerns that may arise from emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, brain science and stem cell research - three areas of science and innovation that are likely to be critical to our future success.

The OSI-sponsored National Science Week 2006 generated record-breaking numbers at its events around the country, with strong media coverage. The Prime Minister participated in ‘click for the climate’, a nationwide initiative to raise awareness of the issue and generate personal commitments to do something about it, for example by reducing energy use.

OSI now has a ‘Horizon Scanning Centre’, probably arising out of the ongoing ‘Foresight Programme’.

In September 2005, the Government published its response to the Council for Science and Technology’s (CST) report, ‘Policy Through Dialogue’, which was very positive.

During 2005, the CST undertook a consultation on ‘A Universal Ethical Code for Scientists’ based on rigour, respect and responsibility, which met with widespread support. Government has been piloting this code amongst its own workforce.

The UK Science Forum has explored public engagement with science and noted that the public are generally very positive about it, but that scientists feel that they are inadequately rewarded for engaging with society.

Therefore, Government is working with HEFCE, RCUK, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society and others to develop a public engagement scheme for universities and colleges.

All the Research Councils are investing considerable sums of money in ‘communicating science’. The Royal Society published ‘Science and the Public Interest; communicating the results of new scientific research to the public’ in April this year. It is mainly aimed at the academic community and covers subjects such as the peer review process and open access publishing.

Britain’s efforts to involve the general public goes beyond our own shores to work in other countries, in an effort to build capacity in those countries to help them develop.

The UK has had a Chief Science Adviser, currently Sir David King, for many years, but most of the large state departments have now appointed one too. The appointment of a CSA at the DfID has been particularly successful.

I am hopeful now for the future. Many good schemes and projects are under way, including this one, a £3 million capital investment by the NW Regional Development Agency.

Universities UK has just published a magnificent book, ‘Eureka UK’, which logs our past successes which, hopefully, will stimulate our young people to be the success stories of the future. A copy is being sent to every secondary school in Britain.

We have an increasing number of authors turning their hand to communicating science today. I cite the wonderful book by Bill Bryson, ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’, as just one example.

But, we can’t afford to be complacent. Too many science and engineering departments have been closing in our universities. But, an uproar, aided and abetted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, of which I am a proud member, over the recent proposal to close the Department of Chemistry at the University of Sussex, caused a u-turn. 

Applications to study stem subjects have remained fairly constant during the past decade, but the shift has been from the ‘hard sciences’, such as chemistry, physics and mathematics, to subjects such as forensic science and astronomy, obviously promoted by the coverage that these subjects have had on TV and in the media in general.

A recent report by the Institute of Physics has shown that university physics departments are inadequately funded, and a similar report a few months ago by the Royal Society of Chemistry showed that the same was true of chemistry departments.

To be fair, Government has been investing in infrastructure, in new buildings and new laboratories. The SRIF scheme alone has been responsible for over £2 billion of that investment.

The TRAC exercise has led to full economic costs for research in our universities and colleges. The research councils now fund 80% of the full cost of the research that they support, and Government tops up grants for research in our universities from the charities to a similar amount.

Some big challenges lie ahead. The precautionary principle tells us that we have to change the ways in which we generate and use our energy supplies, otherwise we will risk changing the world beyond recognition. 

We also have to teach the developing countries how to use science and engineering to bring them into the 21st century. 

The recently published white paper on international development devotes a whole chapter to energy and climate change. On p11, there is an admission that ‘science changes lives’. Science is about good health, and science is about clean water in these countries.

Thank you for listening.