Summer 2007

From the Chair

Stempra AGM 2007

Dummies at Westminster (and some mannequins)

Science advice for government? It's in the POST

Science communication with MPs

Saving British Science; Interview with Peter Cotgreave

The BA Science Communication Conference, any good, or not?

Eurochat

Stempra newsletter

Saving British Science; Peter Cotgreave, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CaSE) talks to Claire Bithell

Claire Bithell (CB) What are the main roles of CASE?

Peter Cotgreave (PC) CaSE is a membership organisation, with almost 2,000 individual members and about 100 institutions, including universities, learned societies, trading bodies and global corporations. Our job is to reflect their views on issues like the science research base, science education, scientific innovation, and the ways in which public authorities obtain, interpret and implement scientific advice. CaSE exists to ensure that the grass roots science and engineering community has a clear voice speaking to the Government. We can do things that some other bodies can't, like react immediately to press stories about science policy. We get to see senior figures in Government and they've told us that the reason they listen to what we have to say is that we filter out from among a cacophony of scientific voices the few things that are really on everyone's mind at the moment.

CB What are the achievements of CASE that you are most proud of?

PC CaSE has been at the absolute forefront of discussion about issues to do with research funding, getting chief scientists appointed in all Government ministries and making strong links between universities and industry. We know our efforts have made an impact because people in Westminster and Whitehall tell us so I am proud that because we've been consistent, authoritative, and realistic, senior figures in the Government machine know they can't ignore us even if they disagree with us.

CB Does science and engineering need to improve the way it influences policy?

PC Definitely. Most scientists and engineers do not really understand how policy is made and implemented. That's not a criticism because most professionals don't understand the way other professions work - there's no reason why a brilliant researcher should be expected to know about policy, any more than they would expect to understand the detail of the law, medicine or the military services. But science is increasingly important in politics and when the science and engineering community does not make its voice heard clearly, it ends up having to tolerate policies that are not what it really wanted. I would urge scientists and engineers to take a greater interest in policy, join groups like CaSE, interact with their local MPs, and get their voices heard.

CB Do you think science policy is in a healthy state in the UK at the moment?

PC It's a mixed picture. Big increases in funding over the last decade mean that we can now have a debate about how best to spend the money, rather than merely banging on about the desperate shortage of cash. And I think public debates about science have matured in recent years, so we no longer get as many silly scare stories that tended to turn people off from science. But there are still some big challenges. Bureaucracy and central interference is stifling creativity in the science base, we haven't yet managed to convince global scientific businesses that the UK is one of the best places to do research. And importantly, schools science needs a lot of work if we are to train the next generation of scientists.

CB Do you think that ministers on the whole are open to being lobbied about scientific issues?

PC With a few exceptions, ministers care about issues that affect their voters and issues that they can use to further their political careers. When science falls into either of these categories, they are open to lobbying and when it doesn't, they're not. Schools science is a good example. Education ministers are so tied up worrying about league tables and exam results that they have consistently failed to get to grip with the shortage of specialised teachers. It is only in the last year that they have even bothered counting how many people are training as physics teachers rather than lumping together all STEM subjects, including business studies, textiles and graphics. Over the years, it's also been interesting to watch the various Secretaries of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, who have overall responsibility for science policy. Some of them - like Peter Mandelson during his short tenure - realised early on that the science constituency was important and went out of their way to associate themselves with scientific causes. I'm too discreet to name them, but some of the others have shown no interest at all.

CB What are the best ways to ensure that scientists and engineers voices are heard in policy making?

PC The best way to get your voice heard is to join CaSE, and you can get details via our website at www.sciencecampaign.org.uk But more generally, the community needs to be feeding information to MPs in a format they can use (a one-page crib-sheet with a few facts relevant to a debate that is coming up next week is far more useful than an in-depth analysis) and also responding to ready made opportunities. Select Committees often call for evidence on a variety of topics, and many people who are interested in the subject just don't bother to respond. The bottom line is there is no single method that is the most important. Every time you see an opportunity to make a point about a policy you care about, take it. There's no point in complaining when ministers do something you don't like if you never told what you wanted them to do in the first place.

CB What are the biggest challenges that CASE will face in the future?

PC In the short term, we will have to build new relationships with all the new ministers and advisers we expect to come into office once Tony Blair is replaced as Prime Minister. After that, we have to work out how to convince the Government to act on issues that have a long time lag, issues they cannot hope to see solved within a five year Parliament or even a decade. The issue about qualified physics teachers is a good example again. We can't solve the problem without more physics graduates, and we can't produce those overnight. Many of the issues where the science community has had an influence on Government over recent years have been things where you might expect to see some benefits relatively quickly, and we can already see some ministers losing interest when things don't change overnight. It's going to be a big challenge making headway on these long-term issues.

CB How do you think Gordon Brown will fare in science policy terms compared to Tony Blair?

PC Despite all the talk about how Brown and Blair fell out in Government, they agree strongly about the need to invest in science, although for slightly different reasons. Tony Blair seems to have a gut feeling that a modern nation needs to be at the forefront of research, while Gordon Brown's support for science is based on a hard-headed analysis of what the economy needs. So I suspect that in general terms, science policies will not change too much. However, Gordon Brown has driven science policy as a priority from the Treasury, and once he is Prime Minister, he will no longer be able to spend all his time on the things that really interest him. He will get bogged down in other areas, especially foreign policy, and will inevitably lose some of his focus on research and education. So things will depend crucially on who occupies other key ministerial posts, especially who ends up becoming Mr Brown's Chancellor. If it is someone who shares his interest in science, all well and good; if not, things may be more difficult. Brown may well reorganise Whitehall structures, and one rumour is that he wants to create a Ministry of Science. I think that would have a positive effect in lifting the profile of science within Government.

Claire Bithell
Science Media Centre

<< Back to
current newsletter