Articles and Speeches

Speech to the Royal Academy of Engineering Policy Network
12-Apr-10

Thank you very much.

I truly believe there’s never been a better generation in which to be a scientist or an engineer.

With or without recession:

We must tackle challenges of energy efficiency, climate change and an ageing population.

Conservatives are looking to tackle these challenges by working with the scientists and engineers.

And recession has made the case for investment in even more urgent.

We need to rebalance the economy away from debt and irresponsible levels of public debt.

That’s why we are putting science, engineering and technology at the heart of our plans to get the economy moving.

In the run-up to an election you’ll certainly want to know more about Conservative thinking on science.

So I’m delighted to be here this afternoon to provide some insight.

I’m going to make three main points.

First, I’ll explain our overall objectives.

Second, I’ll outline a some specific steps we’ll be taking to support UK science and engineering.

And third, I’ll conclude with some words about the how a future Conservative wants to work more closely with the science and engineering community.
 

Conservative objectives

First, our objectives.

We have set out a plan for the economy in our 8 Benchmarks for Britain.

The messages are quite clear:

We need to restore confidence in the public finances,

Reduce the overall burden of taxation

And build a new economic model around of the principles of savings, business investment and exports.

We know that we cannot go on with the same broken economic model.

That’s why David Cameron set a clear objective at our party conference in October:

To transform Britain into Europe’s leading high-tech manufacturer and exporter.

With the right leadership, we think that’s a realistic and achievable goal.

And we asked James Dyson to help us achieve it.

The Dyson Report makes a strong case for a future Conservative Government to release the best of British innovation.

As he says, there should be no more talk of Britain as a post-industrial economy.

We are now looking at ways to implement as many of his recommendations as possible, as fast as possible.

At this stage, I’d like to outline in greater detail some of the policies we have already announced.

What will a Conservative government mean for science?

And that brings me to my second point about specific steps we’ll take to support science and engineering.

A good science policy will begin with our schools.

We plan to launch an immediate program to overhaul the National Curriculum in the core subjects including Maths and Science.

As Michael has said, studying what has now become known as triple science should not be an elite activity but open to all through the basic curriculum.

The review will require input from the maths and science communities so we know what makes a world-leading science curriculum.

We also want to encourage more good science teachers in our schools.

That’s why we will repay the student loans of top graduates for every year they spend in the classroom.

I think that will provide real incentives for more graduates to choose a career teaching science.
Dual funding system

To build a high-tech economy, we also need to maintain the quality of our science base.

…There will be no revolution in science policy.

We will maintain the dual funding system that has served us well under successive governments.

But the public spending environment will be tighter, and we need to think carefully about how we can deliver more for less.

We do recognise that research requires long-term, stable investment.

That’s why a Conservative government would allocate and ring-fence a multi-year science budget.

That would provide Research Councils with the freedom and certainty they need to invest in the best research.

We would also postpone the Research Excellence Framework for up to two years.

The Government’s plan, to link university funding to research ‘impact’, has angered a lot of academics.

There may be some disciplines – like engineering – where impact is appropriate.

But there are real questions about how accurately ‘impact’ can be measured…

…How well it applies to each discipline…

…And what effect it might have on blue skies research.

That’s why more time is needed to consider the issue.

Because if we cannot find an impact measure which is robust and accepted by the academic community, then we will not proceed.

We do need to do more to close the innovation gap.

The gap between discovery and deployment in products services and processes that deliver the jobs we so desperately need.

Britain tops the tables for scientific research, but we’ve been tumbling down the league tables for competitiveness.

We are going to keep R&D tax credits, and focus and refine them so that they work better for small and high-tech businesses.

We say in our Technology Manifesto that we will re-establish national policy leadership for key technology sectors.

We see a strong role for the Technology Strategy Board to operate as a national innovation agency.

I want the TSB to help identify key technology sectors and support the development stage of new high-tech businesses through targeted procurement competitions.

The Research Councils also have a role here – in helping to solve some of the big challenges of the future.

It was the Royal Society’s report last month which said we need to align science and innovation more closely with global challenges.

With finite budgets, tax-payers have right to know that their money is supporting important national objectives, such as curing cancer or tackling energy efficiency.

How we identify these priorities is the essential question.

When I look at my postbag, it’s clear that many scientists are concerned about an emerging government industrial policy which threatens to stifle scientific autonomy.

Research Councils must be able to support excellent research without political interference.

So I want to be sure that their research priorities are identified in an open and transparent way.

Today, faced with major challenges like an ageing population, it’s quite right that resources are directed toward national priorities.

But when science meets policy, there’s the ever-present danger of politicisation.

Thankfully, the Haldane Principle has largely safeguarded British science from the ideological battles we’ve seen elsewhere.

But it’s never been written down definitively, and there is now some uncertainty about its application.

We need a clear a policy statement from the government of the day.

And I’ll be looking to members of the science community to help us do that.

Working with the science Community

That’s just one of the ways that we want to work more closely with the science community in developing science policy…. Which is my third and final point.

Many of the biggest issues we will need to tackle are scientific in nature:

Rebalancing the economy;

Caring for an ageing population;

Or securing food and energy supplies and improving our environment.

Government and Parliament need access to sound scientific advice.

In many ways, Britain has been a world-leader.

The last Conservative government established the Foresight programme to scan the technological horizons.

The current government has introduced chief scientific advisers for most of the main departments.

As we know only too well, there have been slip ups in the past…

…Too many unnecessary controversies: BSE, GM, MMR.

We have a joint responsibility to explain why research, evidence and scientific advice are important.

I can confirm that there will be a science literacy programme as part of the induction process for new MPs after the election.

It will be run by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

This will be part of a broader commitment to supporting the public understanding of science, and its role in policy-making

And I want to go further.

There has been a real sense under the present administration of policy by press release.

Stories about innovation hubs and strategies and blueprints – and then churned out again!

In a tighter spending environment we will have to be careful about how we invest our money.

We need evidence-based policy-making – not policy-based evidence-making.

In the United States, they have a Science of Science Policy programme operating within the President’s Office of Science and Technology.

I want to see how we can build similar capability and capacity within the Business Department.

For example, we could do with a clear evidence base about which government interventions are most effective at encouraging more people into science and engineering courses.

In closing, let me say this:

If there is a Conservative government after the election, there will be no great revolution in science policy.

Science and innovation will remain points of consensus in our democracy.

But whatever the pre-election rhetoric, we must all face the realities of the debt crisis.

Budgets will be constrained.

That said, I believe the financial crisis also offers great opportunities for British science.

I can’t promise that science will always pull the crowds on the campaign trail.

But I do want you to know that we are putting science, engineering and technology at the heart of our plans to rebuild a broken economy.

We have the chance to let science take the lead in lifting recession, and solving the major challenges we’ll face in the future.

Our objective is to create the right conditions for Britain to become Europe’s leading high-tech economy.

This is not only possible I believe it’s a realistic and achievable goal

And that’s what I’m determined to achieve.

Thank you.