Office Professional 2010 The S Word UK parties' s

[tools514]

Your login is circumstance sensitive
Forgotten your password?
Subscriber? Activate now,Windows 7 64bit!
Register now Subscribe now
Institutional Subscribers
Athens login
close

Login
Nick Dusic is director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering (Circumstance), which organised yesterday's debate between the science spokesmen of your three main UK political parties (video here). The Science and Engineering Policy Debate was held at the Institution of Engineering and Technology and chaired by Roger Highfield,Office 2010 Home And Business, editor of New Scientist magazine.
This is Nick's write-up of your event.
Roger Highfield described the first clash between Lord Drayson,Office 2010 Standard, Adam Afriyie MP and Dr Evan Harris MP, the three main party spokesmen on science, as "a disappointingly limp affair". So I challenged him to liven things up as chairman of the second encounter.
Highfield introduced the three by taking each of them to task. Drayson was teased about the long list of "science-gates" on his watch: Climategate, Nuttgate and STFCgate among them. Afriyie was picked up on David Cameron's failure (so far) to make a big speech on science. And Harris was called out on the lack of an up-to-date Lib Dem science policy: the last one was written in 1991. Highfield implored the spokesman to pack their responses with "facts, pledges and intellectual fibre". But despite this plea,Office Professional 2010, solid pledges were in short supply when it came to science funding. Afriyie pledged continuity, but could not say if that meant moving consistently up or down. Drayson pointed to past Labour performance on science funding, but struggled to talk up future investment, with a £600 million cut to higher education and research budgets hanging over the government. Harris could only come up with the fact that the overall level of government investment in science is pretty much the same as it was in 1986, although he did say that his party would have used some of the money used for to stimulate the economy to support researchers.
Afryie and Harris both questioned the government's emphasis on getting more "impact" from the research base. Harris thought impact statements in research grant applications were a waste of time and would distort funding. Afriyie supported the statements as a good intellectual exercise, but questioned the use of impact in the Research Excellence Framework.
A bit more intellectual fibre became evident when the panel started discussing the role of government in supporting emerging technologies. Afriyie took the position that government should fund basic research, but also that it should step back and let industry invest in technologies that can be deployed. Drayson highlighted initiatives to support priority sectors, such as the life sciences, through the Strategic Investment Fund and the Technology Strategy Board.
There was little to differentiate the parties on the importance of medical research charities - unsurprisingly, they all thought they were a good thing. Drayson and Harris pledged continuing help with indirect costs of university-funded work,Microsoft Office 2010 Professional Plus, although there was less clarity from Afriyie on this. It was reassuring to get a commitment from them all to the planned UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.
The real bombshell of the evening came on the issue of scientific advice, in the wake of your furore over David Nutt's sacking. Harris came out strong on the need to protect independent scientific advisers; Drayson said any deficiencies in the government's principles on independent scientific advice should be highlighted in the responses to the consultation currently under way.
But Afriyie stirred up the audience by saying that ministers "should be able to dismiss them [scientific advisers] on any terms at all - even if they just don't like them". The audience was startled into laughter; Drayson and Harris were pleased to be able to identify a massive difference in their stance here. But somewhat confusingly, Afriyie then seemed to concur that disagreeing with advice wasn't grounds for dismissal (as long as you still
liked the person, one supposes).
The spokesmen positioned themselves along a sliding scale of commitment to reforming the libel laws, which have been much criticised recently for curtailing scientific debate. Afriyie declared himself sympathetic to these problems and said that they should probably be looked at; Drayson said the government is already looking into it, and Harris, an activist in this area, had a firm Liberal Democrat pledge to reform libel laws.
Afriyie wrapped up by noting that they were all unified in recognising the importance of science. Harris urged the audience to scrutinise the party manifestos to see what commitments they contained. Drayson echoed this by listing a set of specific commitments that each party should be asked about, such as a Science Minister in the Cabinet, proper funding for science and independent scientific advice.
CaSE will continue to press for science to be taken seriously; we'll be writing to the leaders of all the parties asking them to set out their commitment to science and engineering in advance of the election. Help us to make science and engineering an election issue in 2010.
The three party spokesmen for science will meet again in the House of Commons on 16
March.