Twenty years ago, Margaret Thatcher spoke here at the Royal Society.
She knew then that science would play central role in addressing the greatest challenges of our time.
As she put it, ‘Science and the pursuit of knowledge are given high priority by successful countries, not because they are a luxury…but because experience has taught us that knowledge and its effective use are vital to national prosperity’.
This has been a message of the Royal Society throughout its history.
Today, I want to set out the Conservative commitment to work with you to make that point in future.
Depending on the date of the election, the next fifteen months will be significant.
If we win, and if I become a minister, I am well aware of the enormity of the challenges we will face.
Across the country, people will decide which political party meets their criteria for competence. And the Royal Society will celebrate its 350th anniversary.
We have worked well together in the past, and I look forward to working as closely in the future.
I am reassured that we will be able to rely on the vast wealth of expertise within our national academies and research institutions. And I am acutely aware that you will have seen many governments come and go, and negotiated more than just a few science budgets in the past.
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
So at this time, you will be asking what will a Conservative government mean for science.
Well for me, science is not just an academic pursuit. Science is a way of life.
People don’t just act on instinct. Humans are distinguished by the systematic accumulation of knowledge, by which we test the judgements we make.
Before politics, I was running technology businesses. They needed science graduates. So I know all too well the importance of STEM skills to the future of our economy.
As I recently said in a speech to Universities UK, the pace of innovation will determine our place in the world.
Science and engineering fuel innovation. They are an essential ingredient in a well-mixed economy.
Our science base is a valuable national asset. Economically, politically, and socially, it underpins the prosperity and wellbeing of our nation.
For the economy, science and engineering support our national competitiveness. In politics, they inform the debate on some of the most pressing challenges. And across society, they improve and transform our quality of life.
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE
In November, I announced scientific literacy lessons for incoming Conservative MPs. It was part of a broader commitment to encourage a scientific approach to policy-making.
I also said we would make better use of independent scientific advice. So I welcome the Royal Society announcement today of a science policy review.
In Britain, we are fortunate to have a plethora of world-leading scientific institutions. And we must not under-estimate the value of their considered advice.
If we are to respond intelligently to new challenges, then a scientific approach is essential. And this is why the Conservative Party has commissioned an independent review of emerging and converging technologies.
In areas such as genetics, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, research is moving fast. Just like Newton and Darwin before them, a new generation of scientists is probing the very nature of existence.
Personalised medicines. Drought-resistant crops. New products like these open up great opportunities for consumers.
SCIENCE AND ETHICS
Science defines the boundaries of the possible. It also raises ethical concerns.
In every generation, some will fear new ideas that challenge their understanding of the world. Just as in every generation some will seek to deploy science for malicious ends.
All too often, when the pace of change in technology is breathtaking, the response from government is not. We are determined to be ready to respond from day one.
'GM’, ‘nanotechnology’ and ‘embryo research’ are all too easily misunderstood, and often misrepresented. So we must be mindful of ethical considerations, but never hamstrung by cynicism or fear.
And this is why scientists, religious and political leaders must put forward a strong case. We must explain why research is important. We must put in place a framework to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks. And we must explain why sensitive research should be conducted within the boundaries set by a democratically elected Parliament.
For the sake of our economy and our society we must be clear that evidence matters.
SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE
There have been too many unnecessary controversies: GM, BSE, MMR. I want you to help me make the case for rational, reasonable and evidence-based policy-making.
In the past, Conservatives have been at the forefront of science. The first science minister was appointed by Harold Macmillan during a ‘golden age’ of discovery.
The last Conservative government launched the Technology Foresight programme and introduced the Outer Space Act.
I want the next Conservative government to be just as visionary for science and technology in the future.
The wealth of nations will be determined by their intellectual capital. That’s why successful nations, and successive governments, have continued to invest in research.
But I won’t pretend that all is well. Our country has been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by a government that believes it has an unlimited line of credit. In contrast, what we are promising is a return to fiscal sanity.
Future funding plans must be credible. We must show clearly where the money is coming from so that research flourishes as the economy stabilises.
We are committed to maintaining a world-class science base. And in some areas, the case for public investment is strengthening.
This is especially relevant for basic research in areas such as particle physics. The Diamond Light Source and Large Hadron Collider required investment that could only be sustained at national levels. In the short term, the return on investment is too unpredictable for commercial investors. But in the long term, the benefits for humanity are transformative.
I doubt Watson and Crick focussed on the ‘economic impact’ of DNA when they unravelled the double helix. But their work has redefined healthcare, criminal justice and our conception of ourselves.
We must not sacrifice curiosity-driven research in favour of applied science: there is an important role for both. We need a broad base of scientific research because we can never predict where the next breakthrough will emerge.
And that’s why we are comfortable with dual support funding: block grants allocated for universities to invest over the long-term, alongside more targeted allocations by research councils for individual projects.
ARTS, HUMANITIES AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
The Government has built an economy that is over-reliant on financial services.
It is a house of cards built on a mountain of debt.
No wonder it has come tumbling down.
Through both private and public investment in research, we have an opportunity to rebalance our lop-sided economy.
Our universities and science parks, hi-tech and creative businesses provide the foundations on which we can rebuild.
I mention the creative industries in particular because they are increasingly prominent features on the UK innovation landscape. They are now worth over 7% of GDP. Britain has talent in areas such as design and digital media. And there is great potential for growth.
The Arts and Humanities Research Council leads research in these areas. Some people have questioned the future of the AHRC so let me be clear.
With an incoming Conservative government, the arts, humanities and creative industries will continue to be funded at research council level.
SCIENCE AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
But that doesn’t mean we won’t face difficult choices. Despite hopes to the contrary, no nation has unlimited funds. We must allocate tax-payers’ money effectively.
Part of the solution may be aligning public funds more closely with agreed national goals.
This idea is not new. William Waldegrave launched three new research councils in 1994. He understood that research funding should recognise ‘strategic priorities’ set by industry.
Today, faced with major challenges such as climate change and an ageing population, it is quite right that resources are directed toward national priorities.
Research councils have responded well by establishing six cross-council research themes.
But when science and policy meet, there is the ever-present risk of politicisation.
The Haldane Principle has been upheld by successive governments. It has largely safeguarded science in Britain from the ideological battles we have seen in other countries.
Today, science is closely aligned with economic and policy objectives. It is more important than ever that we do not blur the distinction between appropriate strategic guidance and inappropriate political interference.
The current science minister has said that, ‘it’s vital that we stick to the Haldane principle’. But he also said it’s time to ‘spark a debate’. And in the world of Yes, Minister, that sets alarm bells ringing.
The Haldane Principle has never been written down definitively. There is some uncertainty about its application. Bill Wakeham has asked ‘where does the Haldane principle fit into the research policy landscape of the 21st century?’
Research councils must continue to prioritise to achieve the most from finite resources.
But, in this context, it is not good enough to pretend that Haldane stands unaffected.
If funding is to follow strategic priorities, then we must ask ourselves who sets these priorities. Who is going to be consulted? And how often should the priorities change?More challenging still, should considerations other than scientific excellence inform decisions? For example, how far should regional development be taken into account when allocating public funds?
Today, science is high on the political agenda. That’s a good thing. But we need to be clear about roles and responsibilities.
In the past decade, the proportion of the science budget allocated by central government has increased ten-fold: from 2% in 1997 to above 20% by 2007. So while the science budget has grown, so has the extent to which it is controlled and directed from the centre.
Research councils have delivered well over the years and my preference is to preserve their critical independence.
But whether it’s an inquiry, commission or consultation, we need to resolve the uncertainty surrounding Haldane.
We need a clear view going forward.
For the sake of confidence and stability we must have an open and transparent way of setting our research spending priorities.
And if the present government refuses to do so, then we will take a look at the earliest opportunity. And we would ask for your help.
CLOSING REMARKS
With a change of direction we can certainly get through the economic gloom of today.
When we do so, I want our science base intact and robust, with confidence in the stability of the funding system.
This recession is not just a turning point in our economic history. It is a defining moment for science in public life.
Building a healthy and diverse economy will depend on the disciplines for which this Royal Society has stood for 350 years.
Science is now more important than ever before to our national prosperity.
And, despite the current recession, I am optimistic for the future.
Thank you.
