8865 sip SUMMER 2010 - Sc · PDF fileMatthew Foote, Peter Gibbs, Michael McCarthy A GAP IN THE...

The Journal of theParliamentary andScientific Committee

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Hazard and Risk

Weather Forecasting and Insurance

Mitigation of Natural Disasters

STEM and the Economy sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Sum

mer

201

0

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35

Science in Parliament Vol 67 No 3 Summer 2010

I wish to record from the outset the gratitude of the readers of SiP to thevaluable contribution made by Dr Brian Iddon over a five year period in thelast session, thus ensuring the success of the journal which has become animportant contribution to the better understanding of science and engineeringin Parliament and elsewhere. As both science and engineering are widelyseen as one of the main drivers very likely to be important in economicrecovery, so the readers of SiP will be seeking information and advice onincreasingly relevant but potentially complex STEM related issues across thepolitical spectrum.

I am also particularly pleased to be able to report that following the electionsfor the posts of the Select Committee Chairs on Wednesday 9 June, I waselected by the House to be the Chair of the Science and TechnologyCommittee. The Committee can now start its work as the remainingmembers have recently been nominated by the House. Please see the reportfrom the HoC Select Committee on S&T in this issue for further details. At thetime of writing we hadn’t been fully constituted to enable us to agree a formalprogramme but I would like to see the Committee focussing attention onhelping to maintain the strength of the UK’s science base and also improvingpublic understanding of some of the challenging scientific issues facing ustoday. As this is the first Parliament where Select Committee Chairs have beenelected rather than appointed, this is also of particular significance for andrecognition of the important contribution made by the Parliamentary andScientific Committee and this journal in particular.

The journal brings together a rich mixture of contributions fromParliamentarians with important views on the role of Science in Parliament,with the leaders of STEM based organisations on the other, combined withsummary reports on the Discussions and Debates held on the ParliamentaryEstate and which are open to all of our 250 Member Organisations. It is aunique and valuable resource, which is free to publish the views of scientists,engineers and those with an interest and need for scientific information,independently of political persuasion, but recognising the vital need andopportunity to bring all these aspects together under one cover.

I look forward to combining these ongoing interests with my new duties whichinclude a full spectrum of the Government’s roles and responsibilities forSTEM.

After a very difficult time in hospital, readers will be greatly relieved to learnthat Mrs Annabel Lloyd is now recovering at home from a serious operationand hopes to be back with us sometime within the next few months.

This issue is devoted primarily to the assessment of and response to risk andthe distinction between risk and hazard.

Andrew Miller MPChairman, Parliamentaryand ScientificCommittee

WHAT PRICE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY 1Countess of Mar

ENGINEERING THE FUTURE 2Andrew Miller MP

MAKING BRITAIN HEALTHY: UTILISING THE INNOVATION IN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS CANPROVIDE TO THE NHS 3Doris-Ann Williams

THE BALANCED ECONOMY -THE NEED FOR STEM CAPABILITIES 5Professor Geoffrey Le Grys

WHAT IS SEAMLESS WEATHER FORECASTING?HOW CAN WE FORECAST YEARS AHEAD, ANDMANAGE THE FINANCIAL RISKS PROFITABLY? 7National Science and Engineering Week Seminarjointly with Department of Business, Innovation andSkills (BIS) addresses to the P&SC by Professor John Beddington CMG FRS, John Hirst,Dr Vicky Pope, Dr Matt Huddleston, Christopher Bray,Matthew Foote, Peter Gibbs, Michael McCarthy

A GAP IN THE INNOVATION MARKET 18Dr David Dent

HIGH SPEED RAIL 21David Ross

THE VALUE OF SCIENCE 23Sir Martin Taylor FRS

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKES & TSUNAMIS – HOW CAN WEREDUCE THE TOLLS ON HUMANITY? 24Addresses to the P&SC by Professor RSI Sparks FRSDr Rui Pinho and Dr Tiziana Rossetto

EATING FOR BETTER HEALTH THE FOREWORD30Dr Michael Dixon OBE MB BS LRCP DRCOG FRCGP

LEADING LIGHTS ANNOUNCED IN STEMNETAWARDS 31

WATER & SOLAR POWERED PASSENGER LIFT 33Matthew Lloyd Architects

CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT WITH EMERGINGTECHNOLOGIES 34 Rob Reid

ECTON MINE – FROM COPPER-BOTTOMEDSHIPS TO A-LEVEL CHEMISTRY 36Dr Stephen Henley FGS FIMMM CEng

OBITUARY LORD FLOWERS 3

NEW REPORT REVEALS PUBLIC’S VIEWS ONSYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 41Matt Goode and Nancy Mendoza

LETTER TO THE EDITOR 42

NEW GOVERNMENT, NEW PARLIAMENTNEW PEOPLE, SAME ISSUES 43Paul Davies

SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND THE ECONOMY 44The Rt Hon David Willetts MP

HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ONSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 49

HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE 50

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY SCIENCE ANDENVIRONMENT SECTION 51

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY 51

SELECTED DEBATES AND PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 53

EURO-NEWS 55

SCIENCE DIRECTORY 56

SCIENCE DIARY 65

CONTENTS

The Journal of the Parliamentary and ScientificCommittee.The Committee is an Associate ParliamentaryGroup of members of both Houses ofParliament and British members of theEuropean Parliament, representatives ofscientific and technical institutions, industrialorganisations and universities.

sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Science in Parliament has two main objectives:1. to inform the scientific and industrial

communities of activities within Parliamentof a scientific nature and of the progress ofrelevant legislation;

2. to keep Members of Parliament abreast ofscientific affairs.

Professor Jane Plant (who is married to Professor Peter Simpson, Scientific Secretary of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee) agreed to pay for the front cover of Sciencein Parliament for advertising her book Eating for Better Health, to be published in August, when a prior sponsor withdrew at short notice.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35

Science in Parliament Vol 67 No 3 Summer 2010 1

OPINION

WHAT PRICE SCIENTIFICINTEGRITY?

Countess of Mar

Insofar as sheep dips areconcerned, it was convenient forthe Government to respond tomy numerous questions on thesubject by, firstly, saying that theproducts were safe. When thisfailed, they blamed the farmersfor not knowing that OP’s werepoisonous – there were nowarning labels on thecontainers! Then it was farmers’failure to wear recommendedprotective clothing or to invest inengineering controls.Interestingly, when the phenoldisinfectant was removed fromthe formulation in 1992, at theheight of reported adversereactions, the reported incidenceof adverse effects plummeted.As any chemist knows, phenolrots rubber, so the advice towear rubber gloves, boots andaprons was not helpful. Lateradvice to wear completewaterproof protective suits andrespirators was impractical forhard labour on a warm day.

During the late 1990’salternative products andinjectibles were introduced. Thegovernment required users of alldips to obtain a Certificate ofProficiency for the safe use ofsheep dips, skull and cross bonewarnings appeared on labelsand concentrate containers weremade safer for users, but onlyafter a lot of pressure fromcampaigners. There was thenthe problem of what to do withthose people who claimed thattheir long-term health had beenadversely affected by OP’s.There have been a number ofepidemiological studies, all ofwhich have shown subtlepsychoneurological effects in theaffected subjects. Some workhas been conducted on the

autonomic system effects in afew patients, but the resultshave always been accompaniedby the rider that further researchis necessary. There remaindoubts and many questions asto whether long-term low levelexposure to OP’s causes illhealth in humans in somescientists’ minds.

This is where I have somedifficulty on an intellectual plane.I am aware that there isscientific evidence of the chronichealth effects in humansexposed to OP’s that goes backprior to the 1950’s, but none ofthe published material is fromBritish scientists. The symptomsof chronic OP poisoning weredescribed by researchers suchas Lhos and Spiegelberg inGermany who publishedextensively on their studies ofdisabled nerve gas plant workersat the end of World War ll. DrPatricia Bidstrup (Chemistry inIndustry, 12 June 1954) alsodescribed symptoms in a patientexposed to TOCP – symptomsthat many affected sheepfarmers and Gulf war Veteransrecognise today. I cannotunderstand why it is, when menand women are describing thesame symptoms as those earlierworkers, our scientists andpoliticians say repeatedly, thatmodern OP’s are not as toxic asthe earlier ones and thereforethey cannot cause ill health. Myresponse is that they are stillvery toxic; they still act inacetylcholinesterase as well as anumber of other enzymes thatwe are not told about and thatthey also affect themitochondria, the power housesof all living creatures. Where isthe scientific curiosity that asks

why thousands of peoplearound the world suffer chronicill health and early death afterbeing exposed to OP products?

I understand that Britishexpertise in OP’s is more or lessconfined to scientists who havesigned the Official Secrets Act.They cannot become expertsuntil they have signed the Actbecause of the militaryconnections – the moderngeneration of OP pesticideswere developed from nerve gasresearch. When it is veryobvious that there is expertiseother than the home grownvariety, why do members of theGovernment’s AdvisoryCommittees very rarely ask theirscientific colleagues from abroadfor assistance? If they are asindependent as we are alwaystold that they are, why is it thatthey seem so reluctant topursue the truth when it ispolitically inconvenient so to do?

I have never believed that acourt of law is the place to settledoubts about what is,intrinsically, a scientific andmedical problem. Trying andfailing with that route has beena stressful, expensive andunnecessary course for thosewho joined group actions in thelast decade. What a pity it isthat the Government and itsadvisers have never understoodthat what every one of myseveral hundred correspondentswants is not compensation, butrecognition, diagnosis, treatmentand prevention in the future.Perhaps if they had done, theOP story would have beendifferent.

In the 21 years thathave elapsed since Iwas poisoned byorganophosphate(OP) sheep dip Ihave learned a hugeamount about thehistory, science andpoliticalconsequencesassociated with thisgroup of chemicals.I cannot say that Ilike what I see.Several hundredshepherds and,maybe, thousands ofGulf War Veteranswho had an OP dipformulation sprayedon their tents,bedding and latrinesduring their servicein 1991-2, sufferlong-term healtheffects.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Engineering advice in policymaking was absolutely crucial.However, it differed from theCommittee on how the use of itshould be improved.

The Government rejected allthe Committee’srecommendations forappointment of ChiefEngineering Advisers toDepartments. It also discardedthe proposal that there be aGovernment Chief Engineer.There is no Chief Scientific orChief Engineering Adviser in theTreasury which sticks out like asore thumb as the onlyDepartment without a CSO. It isa matter of serious concern thatthere is no formal route forscientific or engineering advicein what is probably the mostimportant Department of all.

A key recommendation wasthat the Government Office forScience (or, as the Committeewould have preferred, theGovernment Office for Scienceand Engineering) be placed inthe Cabinet Office. This was nota new idea, the Committeepreviously suggested this in2006. It still hasn’t happened.When recognising theimportance of the advice givento the Prime Minister by theGovernment Office for Science,this is a point that the newCommittee may wish toreiterate.

However, it is not all doomand gloom. There is now abetter understanding of Scienceand Engineering expertise withinthe Civil Service. Sir JohnBeddington, the GovernmentChief Scientific Adviser, has beenworking to identify and bringScientists and Engineers, whoare from similar professionalbackgrounds, together in a“career home” within the Civil

ENGINEERING THE FUTURE

Andrew Miller MP, Chair, Commons Select CommitteeScience and Technology

I pay tribute to theScience and TechnologyCommittee and especiallyto Phil Willis, mypredecessor in the oldParliament, which tookconsiderable interest inEngineering. In one yearthe Committee producedtwo major EngineeringReports: “Engineering:Turning Ideas intoReality”, March 2009; and“Putting Science andEngineering at the Heartof Government Policy”,July 2009. One of theconclusions was that thename be changed to theScience, Engineering andTechnology Committeewhich the new Committeemay wish to revisit.

The Report “Engineering:Turning Ideas into Reality”focussed on the relationshipbetween Engineering andGovernment Policy and broughtEngineering to the forefront. Itdemonstrated that policymakers, and members of thepublic, may both overlook the

importance of Engineering andEngineers. Engineering isn’t justa sub-discipline of Science. It isa vibrant pursuit in its own rightwhich brings a differentperspective to the table.

The fundamental purpose ofEngineering is improving humanlife, as in healthcare, energysecurity, water supply,communications or capping oilpipelines; there is no doubt thatEngineers are vital to thefunctioning of society. If onelooks at the efforts of bothmilitary and civilian Engineers inAfghanistan – Engineers alsoimprove governance by theirefforts.

Engineers are the people thatmake things happen andbecause of its inherently practicalnature, Engineering advice has tobe of great value to Government.Sometimes Scientific advicealone just won’t do.

This all seems so obvious.Yet the Engineering Reportidentified significant flaws in theway Government used, or didnot use, Engineering advice.The report contains shockingexamples where Governmentannounced an objective withoutclearly showing how it was goingto achieve it. For example EcoTowns would cost tens ofmillions of pounds, yet therewas little evidence that theycould achieve the aim to be“zero-carbon” towns as therewas no Engineering input to theEco Towns Steering Committee.Other examples of bad practiceindicated a chronic devaluationof Engineering advice toGovernment.

The Committee’srecommendations received amixed welcome. TheGovernment agreed that

Service.

However merely bringingpeople together is not, in myview, sufficient. Engineeringexpertise must also bespecifically sought, valued andused in the Civil Service.

One impact of theEngineering Inquiry was the wayit highlighted the need for theEngineering community to cometogether, which has manifesteditself most notably in theformation of the “Engineeringthe Future Alliance”. This bringstogether key ProfessionalOrganisations to speak with asingle, strong voice toGovernment and to SelectCommittees.

Never before has the voice ofengineers been so important.We are in a difficult economicclimate and are undergoing afirm squeeze on public finances.There is a raging debate on therelationship between Scienceand Engineering and EconomicGrowth. The relationship isdifficult to quantify, but onething is clear. Engineering canprovide a link from ideas leadingto economic growth and abetter future. As LordMandelson aptly put it: “If youreally want to change the world,choose a career in Engineering.And I mean Real Engineering,not Financial Engineering.”

It is the job of the newScience and TechnologyCommittee to scrutinise Scienceand Engineering Policy and holdthe Government to account.The Committee will be formedsoon and I am keen that we getcracking on this very importantjob. I look forward to discussinghow we can work together toimprove the relationshipbetween Engineering and Policy.

OPINION

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


The Department of Health has estimated that 70% of clinicaldecisions are linked to diagnostics. For years, patients have seenthe benefits brought by innovative in vitro diagnostics, and theywill continue to see many more in future.

Every time we see a patientbrought into A&E on television,whether in a fictionalprogramme or real-lifedocumentary, one of the firstthings a doctor will do to treatthem is to rattle off an order fortests using incomprehensibleacronyms – U&E’s, FBC, LFTFBC etc.* These represent awhole battery of very mundanebut essential tests which arerequired to flesh out the clinicalpicture of what is happening inthe patient’s body, and areexamples of just some of the invitro diagnostics (IVDs) nowcommonplace in healthcare.

IVDs are tests performed onsamples of body fluids or tissue,unlike in vivo diagnostics (x-rays,imaging etc) where the patientactually needs to be present forthe test to be performed onthem. Despite their name, IVDsare not only used for diagnosisbut in a wide range of healthcontexts including: ensuringsafety of the blood supply bydetermining blood type andscreening for infectious agents;monitoring therapy; as a tool formanaging chronic disease;screening the population (or at-risk sectors of the population)for disease. For doctors, evenruling out a possible cause canbe as helpful as an actual

diagnosis.

As in all the life sciencesectors, there have beensignificant advances made forIVDs over the last forty years.Until 1970 most tests weremade and performed in NHSpathology laboratories, usingvery labour intensive bench-toptechniques. During the 70s and80s it became much morenormal for routine tests to bebought in as commercial kits ofreagents (chemical solutionsused to detect the presence of abiological substance) with avalidated protocol to follow –the “convenience ready meals”of day-to-day testing. In thisheyday, the UK industry was atthe forefront of global R&D withcompanies like WellcomeDiagnostics and AmershamInternational.

Just as advances in digitaltechnology revolutionised homecomputing, the advent ofautomated testing transformedpathology. Think about howincredible it now seems that in1981 Bill Gates could say “640kof memory ought to be enoughfor anyone.” There has been asimilar leap forward indiagnostics. Today, most of theNHS laboratory workload is fullyautomated. This means moresamples can be tested betterand faster, and analysis time hasbeen reduced from around aweek to less than a minute.

Alongside the advances intechnology we have seen arapidly increased menu of testsevolve to provide more andmore information to supportclinical decision-making. Thereare now tests involved in every

MAKING BRITAIN HEALTHY:UTILISING THE INNOVATIONIN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS CANPROVIDE TO THE NHS

Doris-Ann Williams Director General British in vitroDiagnostics Association

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


disease process, with newbiomarkers being identifiedconstantly.

U&Es and FBC tests aren’tespecially cutting edge orexciting in and of themselves,but without the information theyprovide a clinical team wouldessentially be working in thedark. There are technologychanges happening today whichare right at the cutting edge ofscience and will become asroutine as the U&Es over thenext few years. Most of theseadvances are happening in twoareas: point of care testing andpersonalised medicine.

Already many of the mostessential tests can now be

carried out in the hospital,actually at the bedside usingpoint of care testing. While thescience behind these is ascomplex as laboratory-run tests,the IVD industry has developedthe technology to allow reliable,simple to perform and accuratetests to provide information withminimal delay in a critical settingsuch as in an intensive care unitor A&E department.Increasingly, point of care testingis now being used incommunities to diagnose andmonitor patients away fromhospitals and reducereadmissions. These testsappear more expensive than alaboratory test if examined onlyon a cost per test basis, but in a

whole system context they canbe both more cost effective andmore beneficial to patients.With advances in fields liketelemedicine, we will see thisuse extended further to allowmonitoring of people with longterm chronic conditions in theirhomes without the need forconstant outpatient clinicappointments at a hospital.

Personalised medicinedescribes the process when adiagnostic test is used alongsidea drug. These tests can be usedto identify which patients willactually benefit from beingprescribed a therapy – forexample, a HER2 test to see if abreast cancer patient has thegene that allows the drugherceptin to have an effect – ormonitor the use of the therapyand adjust dosage. When theknowledge of the humangenome is overlaid onto this webegin to see truly amazingpossibilities for the futureregarding truly personalisingmedicine and targetingtreatment for individuals. Thisalso brings additional safety byminimising adverse reactions todrugs and, of course, savesmoney by preventing theprescription and use of drugswhere they will not work.Already, we are at the pointwhere drug companies areplanning how they can provide adiagnostic test alongside a newdrug.

IVDs also have the possibilityto save money now forhealthcare. This can be achievedby using tests to reduce thenumber of patients having notjust unnecessary drugs, but alsoinvasive and more expensivetests. For example, there is asimple test, Calprotectin, whichdifferentiates between organicbowel disease and symptoms ofirritable bowel, which is normallyidentified through acolonoscopy. Correctimplementation of this test

could stop up to 50% ofpatients currently being referredfor unnecessary procedures andover £100 million to PCTsacross England. The knock-onbenefit of this would be thatappointment slots forcolonoscopy would be released.This would in turn releasecapacity to allow access forpatients with bowel cancersymptoms, and perhaps couldmean that the screening age forpeople for bowel cancer couldin turn be lowered enablingmore cancers to be diagnosedearly. However, in order torealise all these benefits from asingle, simple and inexpensivetest (typically less than £20), theway funds are managed willneed to be re-engineered, aswill mindsets in the NHS. In thisexample the saving would be tothe PCT by reducing the numberof colonoscopies they pay ahospital trust to perform, but thetrust would have to increase thelaboratory budget in order toprovide the test – impacting onthe hospital’s income andcosting it more when it shouldbe costing it less.

IVDs are constantly evolvingto provide new tests and newways of using existing tests toimprove health, ensure patientsafety and bring cost efficienciesto healthcare in the UK. Theavailability of diagnostics toidentify target populations fordrugs will rationalise therapy andenable the best value for moneyfrom the drugs budget. Andpoint of care testing will bringreal benefits to people byenabling more monitoring anddisease management to becarried out in the convenienceof their communities with lessdisruption to their daily lives.

*Urea & Electrolytes, Full Blood Count,Liver Function Tests – detailedexplanations of these tests can beobtained at www.LabtestOnline.org.uk

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35

ç


For many years concern hasbeen raised by industry aboutthe number and quality ofyoung people coming forwardfor careers in STEM. This canbe expressed as part of thewider issues of skills whichmany trace back to JimCallaghan’s Ruskin Collegespeech in 1976. More recentlywe have specific reviews forSTEM such as that undertakenby Sir Gareth Roberts1 or fromSEMTA2; the latter states “Interms of the quantity of supply,the falling interest of youngpeople in taking STEM coursesis a serious strategic challenge,both for the UK….” 3 The DysonReview 4, which will underpinthe Coalition’s approach toensuring the UK has a high techfuture, reiterates many of theseconcerns identifying severalissues including culture – thelack of esteem of scientists andengineers, education – gettingyoung people excited aboutscience and engineering, ourinability to exploit knowledgeand an alarming shortage of UKstudents taking engineering andtechnology postgraduatecourses.

Actions in the past have oftenfocussed on increasing the takeup of STEM in core primary andsecondary curriculum in schools;however, there is a need toconvert enthusiastic youngstersinto mature, effectiveprofessional scientists andengineers. These are the peoplewho will drive the generation ofnew knowledge which willunderpin innovation and thecountry’s production of newproducts. It is the dearth ofthese people that now confrontsindustry and the country with themajority of the most ablestudents deserting STEM careers.

This threat is nowcompounded by several factors:firstly, the major expansion ofscience education in othercountries, particularly in Indiaand China; secondly, thewillingness of global companiesto move R&D facilities to regionsand countries that have theavailable talent pool; and thirdly,the distorting effects of salariesand bonuses in other sectors ofthe economy especially financialservices which attracts talentfrom careers in STEM.

The remainder of this articlefocuses on the careers pathsand career prospects for themost able young people; thosewho will be leaders in their fieldno matter what profession theyfollow. Equally all industries andsectors will need their talents ifthey are to succeed in themodern global economy. Thepathway chosen for anindividual will be decided on abalance of financial reward,recognition, personal interestsand ambition tempered byopportunity. Let’s examine thethree possible choices presentedto a ‘first class graduate’ startingout on their career: a)management trainee into a bluechip multinational company; b)fast stream entry into the civilservice; and c) a research careerbegun with a PhD programmeat one of our premiereuniversities.

The graduate managementtrainee in a blue chip company 5

is enticed with statements suchas “entering their future leadersprogramme” and “We offerworld-class developmentopportunities in a fast-paced,

THE BALANCED ECONOMY – THENEED FOR STEM CAPABILITIES

Professor Geoffrey Le GrysFormerly Director: Food InnovationCentre, Sheffield Hallam UniversityEmeritus Professor – SheffieldHallam UniversityHonorary Professor – UniversitateaDunarea de Jos din Galati,Romania

c

This article is written on the premise that science and technologyare the foundations upon which growth and the moderneconomies are built. As such, there needs to be a much greateremphasis in all communications of the benefits that science hasgiven society and the role of scientists in wealth creation. Peopletake the advances made by science and technology for grantedwhether they are in telecommunications, healthcare, transport,food supply, or IT, etc. Each and every one of these will be drivenby science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Yet muchof society seems to place little or no value on the role ofscientists preferring the cult of the celebrity be it sport, the arts,TV, music or film (or even politics).

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


challenging work environment”.These programmes abut thegraduates to a range ofopportunities in which to shine.The outcomes for the many willbe, by their late 20s,management of a significantfunction with the rewards andlifestyle to match. For thosethat remain within the companyor similar business environmentthe possibility of the path tosenior director roles and aboveis a realistic expectation,

The fast stream career in HMCivil Service6 has similar earlyfoundations with a programmethat “will enable you to developquickly and move posts morefrequently than you wouldordinarily expect.” Obviouslyprospects for any individual willdepend on talent but there isthe expectation for the best thata grade 7 appointment wouldbe possible by their late 20sand promotion to the senior civilservice a realistic expectation.The fast stream is available forspecialist science graduates bothin the MOD and otherdepartments; however, theseroles are often primarilymanaging science andprocurement rather than ‘doing’science.

The route for a professionalscientist will almost alwaysinvolve the training role as well;in this case it is called a PhDprogramme and this is essentialto a future as a ‘world class’researcher.7 The days whenyoung people undertook a PhDon a meagre grant havethankfully now gone, althoughthe salary or stipend is stillsignificantly below that of thefast stream or graduatetraineeship in industry.However, for the scientist’scareer this is only at the firststep and is followed by one ortwo post-doc positions. Thepost doc is only obtaining theirfirst substantive post inuniversities, industry or an

executive agency when themanagement trainee or faststreamer is well established intheir career. Examination of theappointments pages of NewScientist or other sources ofvacancies often show extremelypoor rewards given the length oftraining and experience of thepost doc. Certainly there is nosignificant campaign bycompanies to recruit world classyoung researchers comparableto that for MBAs wheregraduates from the world’s topbusiness schools can expectsalaries in excess of £75,0008; asum beyond the dreams of allpost docs, essentially, at thesame stage of their careers.

The early careers of scientistsin universities have beenexamined and severeshortcomings reported 9

including high levels ofdissatisfaction and poor salaries.Perhaps the most damningstatement from this report issummed up in the followingstatement “We are concernedthat the feelings ofdissatisfaction with scientificcareers are filtering into thewider science base and possiblyinto the education system as awhole. Post-doctoral researchersare often the first point ofcontact for PhD students andundergraduates followingproject-based courses. Evenschools may feel the effects, aschildren assess theattractiveness of future careersfrom advisors and others whenchoosing which ‘A’ level optionsand degree courses to follow.People working at the frontiersof discovery are ambassadorsfor science whatever theireventual careers.” Thisundermines much of the goodwork that is happening inschools to improve the take upof science education.

Many science basedcompanies, and in earlier times,the civil service, professed to

have parallel career structuresand rewards for the specialistand general managers. Thecustom, however, is morehonour’d in the breach thanobservance for several reasons.Firstly, as expressed above, thestarting points tend to bedifferent; secondly, criteria forestablishing level of a role for amanager tends to be focussedon tangible measures such asbudget, number of reports andfinancial authority, etc. Whilst forthe specialist measuresassociated with level are moreintangible such as quality orreputation; thirdly managersperformance criteria havemeasures such as keepingwithin a budgets which limitsthe progress of team members(i.e. the specialist they aremanaging); fourthly talentmanagement programmes,common in larger organisations,are primarily the preserve of themanager, not the specialistscientist; and lastly, the ethos ofsenior levels of leadership andmanagement comes from theparadigm that scientist can onlydo science – management andleadership are the preserve ofthe generalist or those with abackground of law, accountancyand marketing, etc.

There are no simple solutionsand, certainly, no quick ones.We must break down theattitudes implicit in the recentconsultation – A Vision forScience and Society – that thepublic view of science isfocussed on the negative andthat scientists are somehowseparate from the rest of society.If there aren’t significantchanges, then the UK sciencebase will enter a downwardspiral and the CP Snow’s ‘twocultures’ will be confirmed. Ifchange is to occur we needconcerted effort by employers ofscience graduates (whichincludes government and otherpublic bodies) to make careerchoices to scientists as attractive,

if not more so, than otherprofessions. In particular theyneed to:

• demonstrate the value theygive to highly skilledscientists by giving salaries,standing and careerstructures that matchgeneric managers at thesame state of the careers;

• identify role models,materials and (statistical)data that give positiveimage to the scienceprofessions;

• find ways (prizes only seemto have an impact withinthe specialist community)to publicly recognise thework and contribution ofyoung scientists early in thecareers rather than atretirement.

REFERENCES

1 Sir Gareth Roberts (2002) SET forSuccess

2 SEMTA – The sector skills council forScience, engineering andmanufacturing technologies

3 SEMTA (2008) Evidence to the DIUSConsultation – The demand for STEMskills

4 Sir James Dyson (2010) IngeniousBritain – Making the UK the leadinghigh tech exporter in Europe

5 Taken from the recruitment pages of amajor multinational.

6 The Civil Service recruitment web site

7 Being ‘world class’ is essential forreputation and funding within thepresent UK system.

8 Source - FT Global MBA rankings –top 5 UK business schools

9 Council for Science and Technology(2007) – Pathways to the future: theearly career of researchers in the UK

10 A vision for Science and Society(2008) A consultation on developinga new strategy for the UK DUIS

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


WHAT IS SEAMLESS WEATHER FORECASTING? HOW CAN WEFORECAST YEARS AHEAD, AND MANAGE THE GLOBAL FINANCIALRISKS PROFITABLY?National Science and Engineering Week Seminar Thursday, 18th March 2010

Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief ScientificAdvisor

UK SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCESERVES THE WHOLE PLANET

The Met Office is a notableBritish science success story,operating from a UK domesticresearch base that is secondonly to the US on the majorityof leading indicators.

The information the MetOffice provides is of great valueto the UK and also of globalimportance. Accurate forecastingwill be crucial in resolvinguncertainties over the wayevents such as droughts,monsoons and El Nino affectspecific localities. For example,the Met Office is the VolcanicAsh Advisory Centre for theNorth Atlantic. They conductedcrucial modelling analysis duringthe disruption to air trafficcaused by the EyjafjallajökullVolcano eruption, providingessential information on thespread of the ash plume.

Against the backdrop ofclimate change it is noexaggeration to say that thework of the Met Office is notjust world-beating but may beworld-saving and in introducingthe other contributors on thistheme I can do no better than

set out the nature of thechallenge we face.

The Copenhagen Accordprovided a commitment bysignatories to hold the increasein global temperatures below2°C, and more than 70countries have submittedpledges to reduce emissions.Despite its shortcomings, theCopenhagen Accord is animportant step forwards. For thefirst time, all of the world’slargest greenhouse-gas emittershave signed up to a frameworkfor co-operation on one of thebiggest challenges of our time.

If we do not meet the targetof holding global temperaturerise below 2°C, the Met Officepredict the impacts will be wide-ranging. The risks include anincreased danger of forest firesin many parts of the world;reduced crop yields across theAmericas and Asia; a reductionin run-off in the Amazon basinand elsewhere; rising sea levels;an increase in the frequency ofdrought events in theMediterranean basin and otherareas; the Greenland and West

Antarctic ice sheets at increasedrisk of irreversible decline; andtropical cyclones becomingmore intense and destructive.Rising levels of carbon dioxidewill also drive ocean acidification,with a significant impact onfisheries. There are, of course,uncertainties in all predictions offuture change, particularly onregional scales, and we must besure to communicate theseuncertainties accurately andeffectively, but the evidence isclear that climate change is aproblem we cannot ignore.

I am concerned by thenumber of people who, despitethe compelling evidence thatexists, doubt the threat thatman-made climate changepresents. Proper scepticism ispart of the scientific process andshould be welcomed, butignoring what is clear from real-world observations cannot bejustified. The hard sciencebehind the forecasting andobservation will be key toimproving our understanding ofthe challenges we face. The MetOffice and UK science have acrucial role to play in continuingto develop this, as well as incommunicating the evidenceeffectively to a wide andsometimes sceptical audience.

National Science & Engineering Week (12-13 March 2010), withits celebration of UK science and its theme this year of ‘Earth’, isa good opportunity to focus on the value and relevance of theMet Office to the UK and the wider world.

. . . the evidence is clear that climate change is a problem we

cannot ignore. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


INTRODUCTION TO THEMET OFFICE

Today, I want to give you anoverview of the Met Office andwhat we do. Many people areunaware of the depth andbreadth of our work, so I canusually guarantee that, at somepoint, the thought: “Wow, I didn’tknow they did that!” will crossyour mind.

Our aim is: “To be recognisedas the best weather and climateservice in the world”. It’s notenough for us to simply be thebest. We want to be recognisedas such by our customers,collaborators and competitorsand we have set upbenchmarking work to check ourservice and the value for moneywe give against the other leadersaround the world.

Our strength comes, in part,from dealing with weather andclimate as a combined entity.That is, literally, under one roofand using much of the samescience. And we are the onlyinstitution in the world with thiscapability.

We’re probably best knownfor forecasting the weather overthe short term - 3 to 4 days. Andwe have measures that showour operational forecast accuracyover that period is the best thereis.

The development ofsupercomputing and, with it,numerical modelling has come along way in recent years. Climatescience is now well established,with its core predictions nowthoroughly peer reviewed andaccepted by the vast majority ofscientists. The challenging workis now in forecasting theoutcomes that are possibleacross the world under differentscenarios and communicatingsometimes complex science tothe public.

A new area of science is inthe intermediate periods, frommonths to a decade ahead. Themedia coverage of the MetOffice’s seasonal forecasts hasbeen extensive and not entirelycomplimentary; demonstrating aneed for us to learn more aboutwho may benefit from thescience and how best tocommunicate it. Some sectors —financial markets and OperationsManagers across industry —understand the real benefits ofsuch science, even at thisdevelopmental stage but it is ofless benefit, however, to amember of public deciding ifthey need an umbrella today.

We have many world-leadingscientists working at the MetOffice but, to ensure we achieveour best, we also work closelywith others worldwide. Thisincludes sharing our

supercomputer with NERC;working closely with both UKand international academia;fulfilling our role as UKrepresentative within the WorldMeteorological Organization; andworking in conjunction withother countries’ NationalMeteorological Services. Forexample, we’re working withBureau of Meteorology inAustralia that uses our UnifiedModel under license, to developand improve the model for ourjoint benefit.

All this research feedsthrough into the Met Officeoperations, which in turn drivesthe research so that we’reconstantly developing andimproving.

Beginning with our dailyforecasts on TV, on radio andonline — provided by our PublicWeather Service — there’s a driveto improve availability andquality, but in tandem, we’redeveloping ever more tailoredproducts and services. Fromthese we generate revenue andthe profit from these tailoredservices is reinvested, limiting ourcost to the tax payer; maximisingvalue for money; and fundingfurther development.

Another aspect of our corerole is the provision of theNational Severe WeatherWarning Service which letspeople, emergency respondersand, when necessary, theemergency command structureknow in advance that theweather may take a turn for theworst. Meanwhile, the Met OfficeHadley Centre has beenrecognised as leading the world

John Hirst Chief Executive,Met Office

WHAT IS SEAMLESS WEATHER FORECASTING? HOW CAN WE FORECASTYEARS AHEAD, AND MANAGE THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL RISKS PROFITABLY?

in climate-change research andservices, and makes a significantcontribution to the Intergovern-mental Panel on ClimateChange.

Some of our less well-knownservices include environmentalmonitoring. Here the Met Officeagain works alongsideemergency services to giveguidance on the spread ofvolcanic ash, or diseases such asFoot and Mouth and Bluetonguein cattle. We also have staffserving in a military reserve unitof the RAF, stationed abroad incountries in conflict.

We provide services forhealthcare, most notably tosufferers of COPD (ChronicObstructive Pulmonary Disease).By notifying individual patients ofthe likelihood of the kind ofweather which aggravates thecondition, this service has beenshown to save lives and the costof hospital admissions.

We also provide forecasts forutilities companies, theconstruction industry, airlines,shipping, road gritting, sportingevents, mining companies, theoil industry, the insuranceindustry, private pilots, leisuresailors, balloonists… The listgoes on. The range of Met Officecustomers is vast because theweather touches all our lives.

I hope I’ve been able toprovide you with at least one,“Wow, I didn’t know that!” andan outline of some theimportant work that goes on atthe Met Office.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


A GLOBAL CLIMATE SERVICEFOR THE UK

CLIMATE SCIENCE

Introduction to the basicscience with the evidence ofclimate change

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/facts.html

CLIMATE SERVICES:STATEMENT OF INTENT

The vision:

• To deliver the mosttrustworthy predictions ofhow climate may vary andchange over the comingweeks and decades.

• To interpret thosepredictions in terms of therisks of hazardous weatherand climate extremes

• To provide products andadvice to help society planfor and adapt to climatevariability and climatechange in a timely fashion

EXAMPLES OF CLIMATESERVICES

UK Climate Projections 2009

Climate change is affectingour world now and, because ofgreenhouse gases alreadyreleased, we are guaranteedfurther changes in the coming

years and decades. While theextent of these changes will beinfluenced by the emissions werelease today and in the future,any level of change will posemany potential threats andsome possible opportunities. Itis, therefore, essential tounderstand these issues so wecan start adapting right away forthe changes to come.

The UK Climate Projections20091 are a major step forwardin addressing this need for theUK. The Met Office HadleyCentre produced an ambitiousand comprehensive analysis ofregional climate change forUKCP09. The projectionsprovide probabilistic informationon how the UK’s climate couldchange in the 21st centurybased on state-of-the-art climatemodels, observations andstatistical analysis, combinedwith expert knowledge. Theprojections are a key part of aprogramme of decision support

• Over next 10 yearscomprehensive climateservices will be developedinternationally

• Focus on monthly todecadal timescales of nearterm adaptation(unavoidable climatechange)

• Natural climate variabilityand man made changeboth important – extremesfocus


Dr Vicky Pope, Head of ClimateChange Advice, Met Office

tools and measures from the UKGovernment to both encourageand support action to preparefor the impacts of our changingclimate.

THAMES ESTUARY 2100PROJECT

Key points

• Advice to EnvironmentAgency

• Simulated flood in theThames Estuary

• Model projections

• Average sea level - mostlikely 20-80cm 2m possible

• Intensity and frequency ofstorm surges up to 0.7m

• Inform future designimprovements to theThames Barrier

Background information

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923.html

• Current climate modelsindicate some levels of skillfor regional predictions butthere is much to be doneto improve them – processfocus.

• Will need strong links toapplication modelling andrisk analysis

• Adaptation is regional –international collaborationand user engagement iscritical

THE DFID-MET OFFICE HADLEY CENTRE AFRICA CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP (CSRP)

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


CLIMATE SERVICES –A NEW INDUSTRY EMERGES

These variations may beinfluenced by man-madechange to some degree, but arein fact largely natural in origin.As with the old fable of the blindmen describing an elephant,seeing too small amount of aproblem can lead to wrongassumptions. Some of thesenatural variations, such as thePacific wide El Ninophenomenon, impact on humanendeavours globally, and also inthis case act as a modulation ontop of any underlying longertrend from either natural orman-made sources. As with anycomplex system, a narrow viewof a short lived event may hidesignificant underlying trends inthe opposite direction.

The revolution in weatherand climate science has beendriven forward by increasingcomputational power. Theunderlying rules which governthe movement of heat, energyand moisture of the earth’senvironmental system can beencapsulated, coded and testedand so enabling our dailyweather forecasts. Forecasts ofweather for 3 days ahead arenow as good as forecasts of

tomorrow 20 years ago, andindeed the Met Office dailyglobal forecasts are worldleading in terms of accuracy andrelied upon by everyone fromour military operations inAfghanistan to disastermanagement efforts in Africa.

Three factors govern the useof computational resource:

(1) the detail to which onewishes to analyse environmentalrisk. A case in point is the latestIBM supercomputer at the MetOffice has enabled a stunningimprovement in the forecasts ofimpacts of extreme rainfall forflooding events such as those inMorpeth in 2008. Such short-range weather models nowresolve down to 1.5km allowinglocal mountains and coasts tobe more fully resolved. Theforecasts from the models lookastonishingly like satellite imagesas they resolve more detail thanever before. Application toclimate forecasts also allowschanges in weather to becaptured over decades – whichis critical for understanding theactual impact of our changingclimate.

(2) the complexity can beincreased to match more of theprocesses observed in the realworld. The atmosphere interactswith these and the complexdance of energy, heat andmoisture between the systemsdefines the variations in ourclimate. To date this hasincluded the addition of theoceans, land surface, land ice,atmospheric gases such asozone and methane, aerosolssuch as desert dust, volcanicash, black carbon and coolingsulphur, sea ice, ocean biology,crops and forestry and evennatural fires. King among thesefor forecasting beyond 2 weeksahead is the world’s oceans.Indeed the top 3m of the oceanholds more heat than the entireatmosphere and yet the averagedepth of the ocean is more than3km. As the ocean moves heataround our planet, theatmosphere responds andinteracts defining future weatherpatterns and impacts.

(3) there are uncertainties inscience, not just from ourunderstanding but also someinherent but quantifiableuncertainties in the chaotic


Dr Matt Huddleston FRMetS,Principal Consultant, Climate Change, Met Office

In the communication of weather and climate perils, each side ofa debate are apt to rally around any evidence that supports theircause. There have been many examples of this in recent years asthe implications of climate science have impinged on politicaland social debate, with for example low levels of artic sea icebeing attributed to the worsening of man-made climate change,and likewise the recovery some glaciers in Greenland being usedto show it has stopped.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


weather-climate system itself.This means that individualevents such as a hurricane maynot be predictable more than 2weeks ahead, but the likelihoodof more hurricanes over thecoming June-November Atlanticseason can be forecast. This isthe difference between aweather and a climate forecast –one relies on knowing the hereand now well enough toforecast the near future. Thesecond relies on knowing theboundaries that drive theatmosphere such as the oceantemperature.

One forecast is not enoughto quantify risk – theuncertainties need to besampled and different scenariosexplored. This leads to“ensemble” forecasts – meaningthat we may need to run aforecast 10, 50 or 100 times toincrease certainty to the level atwhich decisions can be made.

The combination of weatherand climate forecastingtechnologies and these 3factors, together withunderstanding of natural climatevariations on a 1 month to 10year timescale thus opens anew chapter in themanagement of risk in countlesshuman endeavours. These arethe timescales on which we canrespond and react, and putmitigating responses in place. It

is the timescale of the life of agovernment or a CEO. It is thetimescale on which we canadapt to a changing climate.

As such we have a newparadigm – that of the climateservice. Many institutionsglobally are involved, and it isfair to say that the UK has anexpertise and lead in the scienceand it’s application to real worlddecision making. Our goal is:

• To deliver the most trustworthypredictions of how climatemay vary and change over thecoming weeks to decades;

• To interpret those predictionsin terms of the risks ofhazardous weather and climateextremes, and of the potentialfor dangerous climate change;

• To provide products and adviceto help society plan for andadapt to climate variability andclimate change in a timelyfashion;

• To provide ongoing scientificadvice on the climate benefitsand risks associated withmitigation policies.

Examples of such servicesare already emerging. In givingan early warning of potentialfloods in West Africa in 2008,the International Federation ofRed Cross and Red CrescentSocieties put food reserves andemergency stocks in place such

that most countries receivedneeded supplies in a matter ofdays after flooding occurredcompared to an average of 40days in the past, thusameliorating human sufferingand fostering communityrecovery.

Tropical storms aredevastating no matter wherethey hit and adaptationmechanisms include the globalinsurance and re-insuranceindustry to distribute the costs ofdevastation. In the Atlantic, aforecast of the number oftropical storms for 2005 usingtoday’s technology shows a veryhigh chance of a season thathad never occurred. Theoutcome was indeed a recordbreaking year with hurricanessuch as Katrina and Wilmacausing colossal damage andloss. Lloyds reported losses ofmore than £3bn. Key to note isthat this technology is not relianton past data – it is not anempirical or statistical analysis. Itthus allows forecasts of thingsthat have not previouslyoccurred – and as green housesgases continue to accumulate inthe atmosphere and the earthsystem moves into new climaticterritories, this will be a criticaltool to enable us to adapt.

The costs of natural climatechange can also be assessed.For Europe, a study

commissioned by theAssociation of British Insurersshowed insured losses fromwinter wind storms for the UKcould rise by 25% to £827million for slight southward shiftin storm track; a scenario inwhich more storms hit London.

To summarise, the UK nowhas the world’s first climateservice. Initially it is two foldfocusing on the needs of Africafor DFID and a set of proposalsto address core insuranceindustry needs. It is a nascentscience but one of greatpromise which has largelybecome possible of the globallyunique co-location of weatherand climate research at the MetOffice, and experience in thedaily delivery of science toenable all manner of usersmake decisions to protect theenvironment, property and thesecurity of life.

REDUCING BUSINESS RISKFROM CLIMATE CHANGE Christopher N Bray, Environmental Risk Policy Management, Barclays

Presentation available on the website.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Matthew Foote, Research Director,Willis Research Network

A new report by the RoyalSociety, which urged the newgovernment to ramp upspending on scientificprogrammes, showed that, overthe past 15 years, publicexpenditure on research anddevelopment as a percentage ofGDP has been on a steadydecline. According to estimatesfrom the Institute of FiscalStudies, planned publicspending cuts of around 6.4%per year through 2012, ifapplied to science, wouldthreaten the UK’s position at theforefront of global science andrisk our long-term economichealth. Meanwhile, UKbusinesses’ contribution is notenough to plug the gap. Britishindustry spends around 1% ofGDP on scientific research anddevelopment – around half thatspent by business in the US,Japan and Germany. Without arenewed focus on investment inscience, the Royal Societywarned, the UK could fallbehind other countries –especially emerging economiessuch as China, India and Brazil,

all of which are expanding theirfunding in scientific research.

The nationwide decline inscience-related investmentscomes at a time whengovernments and industry fromaround the world are calling formore sophisticated data to helpthem prepare for an increasinglyvolatile climate. This isparticularly true of the globalreinsurance industry, which, byits very nature, is defined by theimpact of extreme events.

Valued at around $213 billionof annual gross written premiumin 2009, the industry provideseffective financial protectionfrom extreme events to theworld’s insurance companies,governments and commercialorganisations.

The industry is faced withsignificant challenges –particularly an increasing trend inyear-on-year losses, regulation ofcapital provision, and a steadygrowth in the worldwide valueof insured assets within high-riskareas. Catastrophe losses fromextreme weather events

continue to rise, and whilereinsurance provides insurersand others with the ability tostabilise their loss potential overlong periods and deal with theimpacts of extreme events, thequantification of that risk isdifficult and subject toconsiderable uncertainty. Theproblems posed by climatevariability and the particulareffects on insurance aretherefore ultimately ones relatedto the problems of uncertaintywhen estimating potential loss.

The impacts of extremeevents are measured in terms ofa ‘probable maximum loss’ andexpressed as an exceedenceprobability of a loss over a givenperiod. Reinsurance risk decisionsare based upon a combination ofloss history, risk appetite andother factors, where possiblefuture losses are estimated usingquantitative models that simulatethe range of possible extremeevents that could affect a givenregion. These models, known ascatastrophe models, form thebasis for assessing the impacts ofcurrent and future extremeevents.

These models combinerepresentations of the range ofpotential extreme events, theassets being insured, and theirlikely damages, and translatethem into loss probabilities.

A REINSURANCE MODEL FORGLOBAL CLIMATE


Britain’s public spending on science has doubled in real termsover the past 10 years to more than £6 billion, but the country’sfuture as a leader in scientific research and innovation is by nomeans secure.

. . . Catastrophe losses from extreme weather events

continue to rise . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Insurers and reinsurers eachhave key issues that influencetheir view of extreme‘catastrophic’ risk, including:

• How forecasting skill (atvarying temporal scales) ofevent likelihood andseverity can be improvedthrough better modellingand data;

• How global teleconnectionssuch as the El NinoSouthern Oscillation(ENSO), whose influence ispartially evident in availablehistorical datasets, have aphysical influence onvarying extreme weatherdistributions, and;

• How the likely frequency,severity and location ofextreme events can berepresented.

For the public sector,catastrophe models can beinvaluable tools to identify whichregions and sectors of theeconomy are most exposed toextreme events.

Conventional methods ofmodelling extreme weatherevents to tackle these and otherquestions rely in large part onavailable historical datasets. Bytheir nature, however, therecording of extreme events andtheir impacts are infrequent and

inconsistent, and can place asignificant limit on theconfidence placed in extremeevent loss estimation.

The key question of howboth natural and anthropogenicclimate variability influences thedistribution of extreme weatherevents globally, and how thischanges the frequency andseverity of extreme event risk, istherefore difficult to assessthrough the use of historicaldata alone.

Climate models have, untilrecently, been limited to broad,global or regional assessment ofclimate parameters, such as seasurface temperature, makingtheir application to extremeweather catastrophe modellingdifficult. Recent advances inclimate modelling, used inconjunction with some of theworld’s largest supercompters,are now enabling scientists toresolve, or ‘see’, complexweather events, such as tropicalcyclones within the globalclimate models, complementingthe information provided by thehistorical record. Moresophisticated modellingtechniques are also allowing usto assess the regional impactswe can expect from a dynamicclimate. These developmentshold profound possibilities for

the future, and are particularlycrucial as more frequent andsevere weather events hastenour need to understand andevaluate atmospheric relatedhazards.

As a result, climate modellingis now moving into the front lineof both economic and politicaldebate, driven by the ability togenerate outputs which includerepresentations of the extremeweather events that ultimatelyaffect people and property. It isthe medium and laboratory toassess the current and futurerisk of environmental change.

UK academic research,particularly that beingundertaken by the NationalCentre for Atmospheric Science,the Met Office, and others, isleading these advances byharnessing the power of thesehigher resolution climate modelsand high performancecomputations. According to theRoyal Society, by 2011, thesupercomputers employed bythe Met Office will deliver closeto 1 trillion calculations persecond, enabling more detailed

global models of extremeweather and improvedpredictions of regional climatechange.

Such advances, based onclimate science programmesfunded by the UK, will influencenot only the development of thenext generation of reinsurancecatastrophe models, but long-term policy and financialinvestment decisions, and willcement the UK's position as aworld-class hub for climatescience research.

As Dr Robert Kirby-Harris,chief executive at the Institute ofPhysics recently observed: “It isimportant to maintain ourinvestment in both curiosity-driven research and researchthat addresses the globalchallenges we face at a timewhen other countries are doingso much to increase their focuson science and scienceeducation. The UK cannotafford to fall behind”.

. . . future losses are estimated

using quantitative models that

simulate the range of possible

extreme events that could affect

a given region . . .

. . . by 2011 supercomputers

employed by the Met Office

will deliver close to 1 trillion

calculations per second,

enabling more detailed global

models of extreme weather . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


WEATHER

The weather is very complex.While one part of a town maybe affected by heavy showersand flash floods, another canstay completely dry. An increaseof just 10mph in wind speed ina storm can lead to anexponential increase in damage.These are just some of theeveryday challenges weatherforecasters face.

Improved models allow us tosee in detail the areas at risk.They were behind the MetOffice’s advance warning ofdisruptive snowfall last winter,when we accurately predictedthat snow was on its way —where it would fall and howlong it would last — with a veryhigh accuracy rate. Today, ourcomputer forecasts are feddirectly into BBC Weather’sgraphics system allowingimportant detail to be presentedto the public.

But with increasing forecastaccuracy comes anothercommunication challenge:there’s a lot more information tocover in a broadcast. While BBCTV and radio are vital in gettingclear, accurate and timelyinformation out to the public,particularly when severeweather strikes, other media areincreasingly being used. Theinternet and mobile devicesnow allow customers to choosehow much detail they want, andwhere and when they want it,adding to the reach andchallenge of broadcasting.

And these days, it’s notenough to simply forecast theweather. More and more we’rebeing asked to predict itsimpacts. Last winter, just 5 cm ofsnow falling during rush hourwas enough to cause chaos. Amuch bigger fall of 30 cm ofsnow overnight saw manypeople choosing to stay athome.

Supercomputers also allowus to use ensemble techniquesto forecast the weather 3–6days ahead. Here, the forecast isrun many times from slightlydifferent starting conditions and,depending on whether theresults converge or deviate,gives us a useful measure ofconfidence. Where there areuncertainties, percentages canbe a helpful way ofcommunicating them to somesectors such as the financialmarkets. But they’re of lessbenefit to a member of publicdeciding if they need anumbrella today.

CLIMATE

Despite the sub-zerotemperatures that grippedBritain, January 2010 wasglobally the hottest on record —an announcement that wasgreeted with derision in parts ofthe press. While scientists don’thave a problem with the globalview, someone shivering in thesnow is likely to feel highlysceptical. People naturally judgeon personal experience, so if theMet Office says it’s going to raintomorrow and they get wet, theybelieve us next time. With

climate change a lot of theinformation is counter-intuitive,which makes it even more of achallenge to convey.

On this occasion, our cold,snowy January was outweighedby warmer than normalconditions elsewhere.Remember the lack of snow atthe Winter Olympics? This reallyemphasises the differencebetween weather and climate.Weather is the temperature,precipitation (rain, hail, sleet andsnow) and wind, which changehour by hour and day by day.Climate is the average weatherand the nature of its variationsthat we experience over time.

So, while the floods inCumbria last November — thefocus of our fictional Todaybroadcast — cannot be used asthe smoking gun for climatechange, severe weather isexpected to occur morefrequently as the climatecontinues to get warmer.

At the Met Office, we believeit’s perfectly reasonable forclimate science to bequestioned and tested. Wecontinue to do the difficultscience that informs the Britishpublic, businesses andGovernment on how the climatemay change in the future. Wealso take great care not tooverstate our findings,presenting them clearly so thatthe facts stand up bythemselves.

For over 150 years, the MetOffice has pioneered thescience that makes today’sadvanced weather andclimate forecasting possible.The development ofsupercomputing and, with it,numerical modelling allows usto support the UK in ways farbeyond the broadcasts thatmake us a household name.But when it comes tocommunicating them to thenation, weather and climatechange require very differentapproaches.

Imagine sitting in BBC Radio4’s Today studio, waiting topresent the weather forecast. Ajournalist is being interviewedabout some of the worstflooding for half a century. Asthe interview ends, you looktowards John Humphries whoasks, “Just before theforecast…tell me. Are thesefloods due to climate change?”Now try putting a single severeweather event in the context oflong-term climate change andpresenting the UK forecast inone-and-a-half minutes.

“AND NOW, THE WEATHER… AND CLIMATE CHANGE”


Peter Gibbs, Broadcast Meteorologist

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


It was a PR disaster whichgoes to the heart of the difficultyof communicating both weatherand even more, climate change,which is that you are notreporting company results, of anew drug discovery, or anythingwhich has happened, but that inevery case, you are making aprediction about the future,which is of course uncertain,and more, you asking ordinarypeople to take a bet on it.

The barbecue summer affairturned so sour because, in acertain way, the Met Office wentfurther than it ever had done ina forecast, and when that couldnot be justified, and what wasforecast did not happen,everything fell apart. One isreminded of the fact – althoughof course one would not wantto labour the comparison – that

we justified going into Iran in2003 on the basis that SaddamHussein had weapons of massdestruction, and when nonecould be found, in manypeople’s eyes, the case for wardisintegrated.

But let’s look closely at whathappened last April 30. Thechief forecaster was giving theseasonal forecast for summer2009, and to be fair to him andthe Met Office, when he said itwas odds-on for a barbecuesummer, he was making anaccurate report, and usinglanguage precisely.

The odds he was referring towere 65-35. That meant thatthe Met Office supercomputerhad run 50 different simulationsof the weather over the comingsummer, in what is known as an“ensemble” of forecasts, and 65

per cent of these had indicatedit would be warmer and drierthan average, while 35 per centhad indicated the opposite.

On one level the forecasterwas simply reporting that, andthe Met office was indeedsaying that there was a 35 percent chance of rain – which ofcourse is how it turned out.

But in using those figures hewas dealing with what is knownas a “probabilistic forecast”,useful in commercial riskassessment and in the insuranceworld, but something the publicare not really used to, so in2009 the Met office decided to“put some flesh” on the bonesof its dry percentages.

That’s where they wentfurther than they ever hadbefore; and the excess – themistake – was in the use ofmetaphor. The word “barbecue”did something terriblydangerous: it ignited hope.

It conjured up a dream ofpatios and charcoal aromas,which after the washoutsummers of 2007 and 2008,was the most tremendous piece

COMMUNICATING WEATHER &CLIMATE CHANGE – A MEDIA VIEW


Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, The Independent

On Thursday 30 April last year, at 10.30 am in the forenoon, in asmall room inside the Royal Institution in Albermarle Street inCentral London, the Met Office chief forecaster rose to his feetand told a dozen assembled journalists that it was “odds-on for abarbecue summer” – and at that moment there began a pubicrelations disaster.

. . . The word “barbecue” did something

terribly dangerous: it ignited hope. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


of good news; the phrase waschosen to make headlines, andindeed it did. It was reportedeverywhere; in the Daily Expressit was the front page lead story.And the chief forecaster wentfurther: he said: “We do not seethe London bus syndrome ofthree wet summers coming in arow. The likelihood of thathappening is extremely small.’

That was a hostage tofortune if ever there was one:July turned out to be one of thewettest summer months onrecord, and by the end of it, theresentment from a public whosehopes had been so firmly raisedfor hot dry evenings on thepatio was so intense, that,amidst a torrent of criticism, theMet Office felt obliged to issue apublic apology.

But it didn’t end there, andpainful though this is to recount,the Met office then proceededto get the winter seasonalforecast wrong.

Issued on September 29 lastyear, the winter seasonalforecast for 2009-10, said that“winter temperatures are likelyto be near or above averageover much of Europe includingthe UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely

to be milder than last year forthe UK, but there is still a one inseven chance of a cold winter”.

As it turned out, we have justexperienced the coldest winterfor 31 years.

Following the barbecuesummer affair, this broughtdown on the Met Office atorrent of extremely unpleasantcriticism, ranging from attacks onindividual bonuses to thesuggestion that its contract toprovide weather services for theBBC might not be renewed, andanyone who works with the MetOffice and likes and admires itspersonnel, as I do, cannot buthave felt a lot of sympathy.

But beyond sympathy, whatare the lessons that can belearned?

The main one is that weatherforecasting is still an inexactscience.

Of course, it’s better than itever was. Modern weatherprediction involves assemblingmillions of pieces of data fromaround the world – wind speed,air temperature, air pressure,humidity – and working out onthe world’s most expensivesupercomputers how these

phenomena will act on eachother, simply according to thelaws of physics. To get a perfectforecast you would need aninfinite amount of data, but withthe few million data points wenow have we can get a goodpicture of the next five or sixdays.

However, accuratelypredicting longer than that – tomake a seasonal rather than aweekly forecast – is very muchharder, as a tiny difference in thedata inputted at the beginningof such a program can make,over time, an enormousdifference in the outcome. Thisis the meaning of the often-misquoted “butterfly effect” - themicroscopic atmosphericperturbation caused by abutterfly flapping its wings mighteventually, in theory, result in ahurricane.

It means that the variability ofthe weather is infinite, and willalways be surprising us. So eventhough the public craves andwill always crave certainty,caution is probably a betteroption in the medium term, anda badly bruised Met office hasclearly now come to thisconclusion, and decided to end

seasonal forecasting for thegeneral public.

Yet if it’s a problem is you’reasking people to take a bet onthe future, with weather, you’reasking them to take an evengreater bet on the future withclimate change.

Indeed, the principal difficultywith communicating the threatof global warming is that itseffects take place in years tocome, and on the whole, peopleare not bothered about that. AsGroucho Marx said: why shouldI care about posterity? What’sposterity ever done for me?

Politicians know that ordinarypeople care most about acertain number of immediateinterests: their finances, theirhealth, the education of theirchildren. The future can wait,especially if there is doubt overit, and so, if ordinary people’sfeelings are the beginnings ofpolitical will, it is very hard toconstruct a widely backedpolitical impetus to tackleclimate change. This was evidentat last December’s UN climateconference at Copenhagen,where it was clear that virtuallyall the politicians taking partwere doing so with very littlemandate from an engagedpublic; they were acting as top-down leaders, out on their own,and perhaps that accounts forsome of the conference’s failure.

What has carried themovement to deal with globalwarming for the past 20 yearshas been what one might call anarrative: a general belief amongthe public, fostered by seniorscientists and bolstered bymounting evidence in the realworld that the climate is indeedwarming, and that we areresponsible for that.

It’s important to recognisethat in the last three monthssomething has happened to

. . . To get a perfect forecast you would

need an infinite amount of data, but

with the few million data points we now

have we can get a good picture of the

next five or six days. . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


this; I would venture the viewthat this narrative has in partimploded.

The reason is a tragic one:the politicisation of the issue.

I think it’s fair to say that thispolarisation began on the left.With the collapse of socialism,the future of the climatebecame a substitute issue foryoung radicals to take up,people who were rebellious intheir tenor, did not dress in suits,might eat lentils and cametogether in climate camps toattack power stations. Moreseriously, they began to expresstheir conviction as an ideology,and treat those who dissentedas heretics. Thus arose thewidely-used phrase “climatedeniers”, which, with itsevocations not only of heresybut also of Holocaust denial,seems to me inappropriate; Idon’t use it. I use the wordsceptics.

To this politicisation from theleft, there was eventually aninstinctive, hostile response fromthe right. If these long-hairedtypes were supporting theclimate change issue, with theirunceasing puritan demands that

we stop using our cars andcover the countryside in windturbines, then those on the rightwere against it. It was a gutfeeling as much as anything, butthey were strongly backed intheir opposition by the fossil fuelindustries, who of course havemuch to lose through anti-climate-change measures, andthey were confirmed in their gutfeelings by the fact that thewarming itself has been on aplateau for the last decade(although the latest forecastfrom the Met Office suggeststhat the warming will resume itsprogress this year).

So with this issue ofatmospheric science, which willaffect all our futures, it is nowbroadly the case that, if we leaveaside the scientific community,those who think climate changeis a mortal threat are on theliberal-left, whereas those whoprofess it to be all anexaggeration are on the right.

A number of factors haverecently combined to give thesceptic side of the argumentgreat impetus: the affair of theUniversity of East Anglia emails,in which climate scientists maybe considered to have behaved

inappropriately; the sloppinessof some of the science of theUN’s Intergovernmental Panelon Climate change; the failure ofthe Copenhagen conference;and not least, the freezingwinter, which instinctively makespeople think the idea of globalwarming is simply a non-starter.

For the first time, the climate-sceptic argument has gained areal purchase on public opinion,and the narrative which hasbeen generally accepted for thelast two decades, of anacceptance of the reality andmenace of the problem, has tosome extent disintegrated.

Difficulties with weatherprediction and difficulties withclimate change prediction are, itmay be noted, to some extentbeing conflated in sceptic circles,such as parts of the Tory party,the Spectator magazine or theDaily Express, where the Metoffice’s troubles with seasonalforecasting are being used toattack its climate expertise; thewhole institution is damned as“warmist”.

Warmists and deniers – isn’tthat just a terrible polarisation ofa scientific issue?

What are we to do about allthis?

The first thing is to followCorporal Jones’s advice: don’tpanic. Climate sceptics arehaving their moment in the sun.That’s all right. Debate is good,But nothing in any of the EastAnglian emails, or the mistakesin the IPCC’s impact predictions,has remotely altered the basicscience, which is that moleculesof certain trace gases help retainthe sun’s heat in the earthsatmosphere, and that we arerapidly increasing the secondmost important of these, carbondioxide. Its concentration hasrisen by 23 per cent since 1958and is continuing to rise evermore quickly. There can be nodoubt that this will not be effect-free.

What that effect will be, wewill have to wait and see, buteventually we will get our 40degree summers in the UK andeverything that will follow, andpeople will see that their ownimmediate interests are indeedthreatened, and they willclamour for their politicians toact, sceptics or no sceptics.

Although by then, of course,it will be too late.

. . . at Copenhagen, it was clear

that virtually all the politicians

taking part were doing so with

very little mandate from an

engaged public . . .

carbon dioxide concentration

has risen by 23 per cent since

1958 and is continuing to rise

ever more quickly.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


A GAP IN THEINNOVATION MARKET

Scientific innovation is of coursea key component of thisprocess, which should bereflected in the funding andorganisation of our researchbase and supportinginfrastructure. Given itssignificance to our futureprosperity, the review andscrutiny of the processes,structures and financing ofscientific innovation is essentialto ensure we are achieving whatwe need in the most efficientand cost effective way. With thisin mind it was with someexcitement that I anticipated inMarch of this year, thepublication of three reports; theRoyal Society The ScientificCentury: securing our prosperity,and Sir James Dyson’sIngenious Britain: Making theUK the leading high techexporter in Europe, and theCouncil of Science andTechnology’s report A Vision forUK Research, which potentiallyoffered, individually and as awhole, the prospect of a freshlook and appraisal of the UK’sprocess of scientific innovation.

I am constantly amazed thatdespite the importance of themarket in all other aspects of UKpolitics and economics, howlittle influence it appears to havein debates about scientificinnovation and the organisationof our research base, one of theissues I had hoped to findaddressed in the March reports.The market seems to have onlya very limited role in our nation’sinnovation process which is verymuch science supply-led ratherthan market demand-led. Themarket appears to be viewedonly as a beneficiary of outputsof a process which may or maynot meet particular marketopportunities rather than themain driver of demand forspecific scientific innovations.Even the terminology we usewhen we refer to “translationalactivities” implies that there is noexpectation that research has orshould be directed towards aspecific market opportunity.

The science supply-led model ofinnovation functions withresearch priorities determined byscientists according to measures

of scientific excellence asopposed to market or businesscriteria. The subsequent outputsof research, undertaken inuniversities and nationalresearch institutes, is thenmonitored for commercialpotential, if these happen to beidentified then intellectualproperty is usually, but notalways, protected prior toscientific publication; commercialand funding partners are soughtand innovations then licensed toindustry or spin-off companiesare created. No one reallybelieves that this complexsystem is as effective as it needsto be, hence the plethora ofinitiatives to improve knowledgetransfer and so calledtranslational activities to improvethe harvesting of the products ofresearch. Most recently with theResearch Excellence Framework(REF) the emphasis has beenplaced on the need for scientiststo consider the impact of theirwork to ensure that the potentialcommercial and social benefitsof their research are notoverlooked. This whole processof science supply-led innovationis analogous to building a bridgeacross a ravine without knowingthe required span, its loadbearing requirements, necessarymaterials or the cost of the build– certainly not a bridge onwhich I would want to be reliantin order to cross any ravine - nora process on which I would wish

David DentChief Executive Dent Associates LtdVice President, Parliamentary andScientific Committee

Political rhetoric addressing the nations future economicprospects is always littered with an enthusiastic commitment tothe process of scientific innovation. This is because economicgrowth is dependent on an ongoing ability to innovate, todevelop new technologies and services.

. . . a number of decisions in the last 30 years have made it

more difficult than necessary to develop a market-led

innovation process . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


to rely for the future prosperityof a nation.

The science supply-led processof scientific innovation whichdominates the UK research basecan at best be described as adhoc, unfocused and an indirectmeans of developingcommercially viable products,technologies and services. We inthe UK, have never been goodat commercialising ourinnovations, something recentlyemphasised by a number ofeminent politicians and scientistsat the Royal Society ofChemistry’s Parliamentary LinksDay in June and acknowledgedin the March reports. It is mybelief, that because of the valuewe in the UK have alwaysplaced on academic “pure”,“blue skies research”, serendipityand scientific excellence, wehave been corralled down asingle route into our currentprocess. I have certainlystruggled to identify where andwhen we have actuallyconsidered alternative,potentially more effective routesto delivery of scientificinnovation whereby the marketbecomes the driver of demandfor specific scientific innovationsrather than scientific supply -harvested for commercialpurpose.

Also a number of decisions inthe last 30 years have made itmore difficult than necessary todevelop a market-led innovationprocess; one of which was thepolitical dogma in the 80’s thatbelieved publicly fundedresearch should not address“near-market” issues and a

second; the more recentemphasis on scientificexcellence and publication inhigh impact journals, mediatedthrough the researchassessment exercise (RAE).

The result of the “near market”dogma was that our national“applied” research instituteswere effectively robbed of theirmandate and we divestedourselves of a research capabilityand infrastructure that continuesto serve other nations very wellin deed (e.g. USA, China,Thailand and India) with a near-market research mandate. Thesubsequent introduction of theRAE across all publicly fundedresearch also meant that theperformance of those national“applied” research institutes thatremained after the 80’s, wereand are assessed on the sameterms as an academicdepartment - an exercise whichcontinues to facilitate theirintegration into the universitysystem. And no one seems toquestion that a researchinstitutes mandate andperformance measures mightbenefit the nation more bybeing different from those of auniversity department!

The RAE has assisted many ofour universities to justifiablyclaim their world class status -something which serves us allwell as they deliver to theirprimary purpose of high calibrescientific research adding to thewealth of knowledge andunderstanding which underpinsour whole culture and way oflife. Secondarily, and often withthe benefit of serendipity,

research can also innovate todevelop concepts andtechnologies of potentialcommercial value. However, ithas become increasing apparentin recent years and with theintroduction of the REF with itsemphasis on impact, that thissecondary purpose is becomingmore of a priority as we strive togenerate greater economicwealth from our research base;a move which may in reality,drive this truly valuable assetaway from properly achieving itsmain purpose.

Such a change in mandate is abit like needing a performingaquarium seal to become acircus trapeze artist; a differentanimal altogether, with differentattributes and skill set,performing to a differentaudience with its own set ofstandards, encompassingdifferent rewards and levels ofrisk. Of course there will alwaysbe some performing seals whomay become trapeze artists,given the right circumstances,but most will not, could not andmight even in the attempt, endup destroying the very thing forwhich they excelled. It might justbe better to leave theperforming seal to do what it

does best, and look to findpotential trapeze artistselsewhere and work with themto deliver a focused and singlymesmerizing performance.

In other words what we have toask ourselves in relation toscientific innovation foreconomic and social impact, iswhether there is an alternativemodel which is market-ledrather than science supply-ledthat will better deliver economicand social prosperity for thenation.

Our whole system of sciencesupply-led innovation is basedon a number of presumptionswhich include:

• the emphasis on scientificexcellence is the most efficientand cost-effective route toscientific innovation

• science supply is moreimportant for innovation, thanmarket opportunity

• that our best scientificinnovators remain within thecurrent system and achieveacademic excellence

• that the skill sets and trainingneeds of all types of scientistsare essentially the same

. . . a change in mandate is a bit like

needing a performing aquarium seal to

become a circus trapeze artist . . .

. . . Our whole system of

science supply-led

innovation is based on a

number of presumptions . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


• academic culture andorganisational structureencourages and supportsinnovation

• contracts and reward systemsmeet innovators needs andaspirations

• the Haldane principle prevailsfor all project proposals

• technologies based onexcellent science will eventuallyfind a niche in the marketplace

We adhere to suchpresumptions because ourwhole process of scientificinnovation is locked within aparadigm where the sameterms, concepts and prioritiesare reiterated as a given -among which are the need for:

• nurturing a world-classresearch base

• scientific excellence as animperative

• an attractive base forinternational research

• translating research intoeconomic and social benefit

If we refocus these widely usedterms towards a more goaloriented approach driven by themarket where science becomes

the tool of innovation, then analternative to the aboveparadigm becomes apparentwith the need for:

• nurturing of world classinnovation

• excellent innovations based onsound science as an imperative

• an attractive business base forscientific innovation

• translating market opportunityinto commercially and sociallybeneficial scientific innovations

It was this kind of thinking - ofrealigning our perspective towhat is central to the wholeconcept of innovation, themarket, that I had hoped to find,at least in some sense, in oneor all of the three reports. TheCST report does argue that“translating into economic orsocial outcome can arise fromany part in the spectrum, fromlong established or newlydiscovered basic understanding,from strategic exploration ofpotential applications, or inresponse to market drivenimperatives” but the fact of thematter is that in our sciencesupply-led process ofinnovation, the market hasbecome an after-thought ratherthan the driver of innovation.

Such an emphasis on sciencesupply-led innovation has to bechallenged if only to confirmthat the processes selected arethe best, most cost effective andthe ones most likely to drivegrowth in our economy. Alsoputting forward alternativeprocesses does not mean thatwe transfer the whole researchbase over to market-led scientificinnovation. There is no reasonto risk the scientific excellence ofour world class institutions byprioritising market orientedactivities but rather to build anindependent capability to ensurewe fully meet commercialbusiness opportunities withappropriate innovation.Refreshingly the CST report didargue for platform technologycentres with, it appears, thepotential to meet such arequirement.

One of the questions we haveto ask ourselves is the one SirJames Dyson continues to ask -are we providing the righttraining opportunities,infrastructure, career routes,means of assessment and theenvironment for those scientistsand engineers who aremotivated, not by scientificexcellence and a higher pursuitof knowledge, but by generatingsolutions of economic and socialbenefit? Are these people eventhe same or are we talkingabout the difference betweenperforming seals and trapezeartists?

Perhaps we need to encouragescientific skill sets that require anentrepreneurial flare, an ability toidentify gaps in a market,combined with a commercialsolution mind-set, risk taking, amotivation led by business andpotential revenues, rather thanknowledge generation, scientificexcellence, publications and anacademic status. Combine thiswith an infrastructure orientedtowards specific market sectorsfocusing on identifying market

gaps and defining theparameters of requiredinnovations, with groups ofscientists and engineers whoseproject proposals are assessedaccording to business criteriaand where they work in a hot-house of entrepreneurship todevelop, design and testtechnologies, products andservices that address marketneed. Then maybe, just maybe,such an approach may providemore immediate and higherfinancial returns per poundinvested for our hard pressedUK economy, than the ratherdiffuse, ad hoc science supply-led process to which we arecurrently completely wedded.Even if it doesn’t, we have toask the question and while therewere glimmers of hope in thisrespect in each of the reportsprovided in March by the RoyalSociety, Sir James Dyson andthe Council of Science andTechnology, I did not feel anyone of them fundamentallychallenged the idea that thefuture of the UK economyshould be dependent on theprobability of serendipitydelivering the occasionaltechnology to an unsuspectingmarket rather than thedeliberate focused intent ofresearch to develop atechnology designed for aspecific market opportunity. Wehave to ask ourselves if we canafford not to consider alternativemodels of scientific innovation ina country which is, more thanever over the next decade, goingto be dependent on innovationand export as a driver of oureconomy and our nation’sprosperity.

. . . in our science supply-led process

of innovation, the market has

become an after-thought rather

than the driver of innovation. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


The case for thebuilding of a highspeed rail (HSR)network has beenpromoted in manyquarters. Theunquestionableimportance of theproject to ournational economyand, in particular, tothe regionaleconomies throughwhich it wouldtravel, inspired agroup of us to carryout some research.

Why we are allowingourselves to blindly fall behindour international competitors inthis area is a question of deepconcern. Not only against ourEuropean counterparts, but alsoagainst the developing world, weare lagging behind in therealisation of any manageable orachievable solution. Britain leadthe world in the development of

rail travel during the lastindustrial revolution and yettoday we seem to have becomecomplacent in our outlook andas we sit, doing up our shoelaces, other less developedcountries are continuing to raceahead of us. My concern isrooted, not in patriotic fervour,but in an overriding concern thatinaction in this area will result indeterioration of our economicdevelopment at large, a fear thatin this economic climate is allthe more relevant.

In light of the recent budgetannouncements, previousproposals are financiallyunfeasible. If we are ever to seeHSR come to fruition, we needto apply a fresh, innovativestrategy to our approach. Whatwe propose is “HSR Lite” – alow calorie version of what haspreviously been proposed byHS2. The implementation ofHSR is so central to thecontinued development of oureconomy that we must initiate astrategy that is fundable withinthe context of our tightenednational purse strings.

Our economic prosperity isreliant on efficient accessibility tothe nation’s cities; it is clear thatthe existing UK railway system isuntenable. It is already grosslyoverburdened, with railways nowcarrying 1.3 billion people ayear, more than at any timesince 1946. In the harsh light ofthis figure, it is abundantly clearthat the UK railways will be incrisis by 2020 unless measuresare taken.

A HSR network wouldalleviate the problem byincreasing capacity through thenew lines and releasing capacityon the ‘classic’ rail network.HSR would drive majoreconomic and social change,

transform connectivity betweenBritish businesses and theircustomers, enable faster journeytimes and liberate work time. Itwould vastly improve access toEuropean markets, removepressures on domestic air travel,reduce the damagingenvironmental impact whilstlessening road traffic.

In the pursuit of all theseadvantages we lag far behindour global competitors. This canpartly be attributed to the cost ofprocuring railway infrastructure inBritain being estimated at asmuch as three times higher thancomparable projects incontinental Europe. A recentestimate of overall cost fromNetwork Rail is a daunting£34bn. To put this figure inperspective, it would finance the2012 Olympics more than threetimes over. Reasons for thisdisparity include the UK’s non-standard technical specifications,different operating standardsand safety requirements,tortuous planning requirements,complex budgetary andprocurement processes. Thecost gap between the UK andour European counterparts mustbe reduced if we are to initiate asuccessful venture. Financing aventure of this magnitude willonly be possible if thegovernment reconsiders theexcessively stringent regulations(outlined above), aligning ourestimated costs with those inEurope and internationally.

Contrary to other researchprojects, we concluded that acritical feature of a successfulHSR network is that it needs tobe national in its scale anddedicated to high speed trainsonly. European experiencesuggests HSR procurement,project management andconstruction operates most

HIGH SPEED RAIL

David Ross Kandahar Group, Nuffield House 41–46 Piccadilly, London

efficiently and effectively onstretches of 100 to 200kilometres. Consequently, webelieve that progress towards anoverall vision should emulatethe development of motorways,conceived as a network butexecuted little by little over asignificant number of years. TheHSR programme should bedivided into a series of stagedand politically, managerially andfinancially deliverable projects.Our initial aim should be toidentify a strategy that deliversthe maximum value for thatspend and is safe, but simpleand direct in design andexecution. Decisions made nowwill have repercussions ondomestic travel for generationsto come.

The first elements of a newHSR network could provide aneffective and efficient linkbetween London, Birminghamand Manchester withoutventuring into the citiesthemselves. More than half thecost of the Channel Tunnel RailLink, and much of the planningeffort, arose from the finalapproach to central London andSt Pancras because of theextensive tunnelling and otherengineering work involved. Whythen, in developing HSR, is itinitially essential to build into citycentres? Even if traditionalappraisal methodologies showthat this maximises benefits, adetailed financial analysis willgive very different metrics. Thelast time we addressed the railnetwork was in the Victoriantimes, during which accessibilityto stations was paramount.However, we no longer rely onhorse drawn carriage fortransport to and from the stationand nor do the majority ofcommuters live in city centres.It is obvious, with this rationale

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


in mind, that the centrality ofstations is no longer cruciallyimportant. And so the best valuefor money during the initialdevelopment will be achievedby selecting segments withlower costs per kilometre thatare outside the cities, whichrepresent the potential for thebiggest time savings.

A possible route runs from aLondon terminus at Old OakCommon on the new Crossrailroute, which links Heathrow tothe West and Bond Street andCanary Wharf to the East. TheOld Oak Common terminuswould be convenient for mostcommuters - only two stopsfrom the West End and sevenfrom the City. Similarly, thenorthward HSR route would beto Birmingham Airport and thenManchester Airport wherelinkages with city centres alreadyexist.

The distance involved in thisroute is about 300km, suitablefor letting as two projects in linewith the staging principlesoutlined above. Majorconstruction companies estimatethat a reasonable cost forcontinental rail projects is €20mper kilometre. On this basis, thecost of a route from London toManchester is less than £6bn, aconsiderable reduction onprevious estimations.

Stations and related facilitiesshould initially be limited innumber and designed and builtas simply as possible, withessential facilities only. Ancillarydevelopment should not beseen as part of the programmebut to be added as investorsdemand.

Finally, it is not essential tointegrate the HSR network withthe classic network. A HighSpeed Network can bedeveloped quite separately,reducing cost and facilitating theadoption of more cost-effectivetechnical specifications. Thesefour key principles of staging,selection for maximum VFM,simplicity and separation couldtransform what feelsoverwhelmingly challenging as acomprehensive, integratednetwork into something thatlooks and is achievable.

The critical point is that a startcould be made along the linesproposed, successdemonstrated, confidencereinforced and a great platformcreated for future stages. Theeconomic imperative is clearand the social benefits beckon.Britain must create a high speedrail network.

It is our contention first thathigh cost, and the appearanceof high cost, must be mitigatedby cost improvement measuresand a critical approach to keyassumptions, and secondly thata start should be made as soonas possible, however modest, asthe beginning of a stagedprogramme.

The model outlined above isachievable. You can argue that itis un-ambitious; but rather un-ambitious and achievable thanoverambitious and unfeasible.This prospect is a great dealmore positive than the probablealternative if a whole networkapproach were taken: endlessdeliberation, indecision,intimidating cost and complexity,overruns and reviews. We have

succeeded with the Tunnel Linkand mindful of our astonishing,proud railway heritage, weshould not hesitate to take thenext manageable step. Thebenefits could be substantial;failure to embrace the HSRchallenge could be economicallydamaging.

THE QUESTION OFFUNDING:

In terms of funding, there is agood deal of information tohand about approaches adoptedaround the world in developingHSR. What unites them is themajor role played in all cases bythe state. But this is manifestedin different ways. There arebasically three potential fundingapproaches:

The first and the simplestconceptually, is the publicfunding model. Here the publicsector acts as both procurer anddeliverer, usually workingthrough a state railway company.The taxpayer is both funder andfinancier.

The second is the projectfinance/PPP model. The publicsector acts as facilitator, letting along term concession to aprivate sector consortium. Thefunding consortium raises debtand equity availability fee fromgovernment once theinfrastructure is complete andoperating.

The third is the rail agencymodel under which the publicsector usually establishes adedicated delivery organisation,at arm’s length and separatefrom the state owned railwaycompany – ensuring someindependence from governmentcontrol and protection frompolitical change. Pay back issimilar to the PPP model, butthe funding is at least partly inthe public sector.

The most common modelhas been the public fundingmodel. For example, both Japan

and France embarked on theirhigh speed rail developmentson that basis. Bothsupplemented central statefunding with contributions fromregional and local government,partly to spread the burden andpartly to bind in local support.For the most recent additions toits high speed network, Francehas switched to the PPP model.

Realistically, given the currentcomplexity of issues surroundinggovernment debt, the publicfunding model appearsunattractive. Even without therecent crisis, the continuedcentralised approach seems atodds with the expressed wish toopen up funding to widerranges of interests and regionalgroups. Most importantly, theadvantage of working with astrong private sector partnershipis that financial discipline andeffective cost control arerigorously imposed.

The Project funding/PPPmodel provides such disciplineand transfers the financial risksof construction or maintenanceoverrun to the private sector, butat a price, and the burden onpublic finances is mitigatedsignificantly by being spreadover time (thirty years or more).The main constraint is thebalance sheet capacity of privatesector contractors to take onconstruction risk and the needfor detailed ex ante contracts toguarantee returns.

Although the PPP modelmight be made to work withsegmented and phased stages,our view is that the rail agencymodel probably offers the bestchances of delivering asuccessful programme. It’scrucial advantages, arising fromrisk sharing, are the lower costof finance and the agency’sability to retain control andflexibility through relativelysimple contractingarrangements.

. . . inaction in this area will result indeterioration of our economicdevelopment at large. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


But there were many hurdlesto overcome along the way. Atfirst, monoclonal antibodytechnology was developed byimmunising mice. This producedrodent antibodies which wereinitially rejected by humans. In1986, Greg Winter, workingalongside Milstein, developed atechnique to ‘humanise’ mousemonoclonal antibodies usinggenetic engineering. Winter wenton to develop anothertechnique which meant thathuman antibodies could bemade using bacteria, bypassingthe need to immunize mice orhumans.

Winter’s pioneeringtechnologies have been licensedto approximately fifty companiesand have generated over £300million in royalties for theMedical Research Council.Winter and Dr David Chiswellalso founded CambridgeAntibody Technology, acompany acquired byAstraZeneca in 2006 for £702million. Winter acknowledgesthat he couldn’t have done thiswithout the right kind of support.“I was lucky; the MRC allowedme the freedom to roam withmy scientific research over the

borders to medicine andindustry.”

This is just one example ofwhere investment in sciencehas paid dividends, both interms of the treatmentsavailable to us and the financialrewards. But investing in sciencedoesn’t just mean advances intechnology or economic growth– it also means producingskilled graduates andresearchers, enhancing ourproblem solving capabilities,increasing our knowledge of theworld around us and developingnetworks of collaboration.

The UK currently does verywell out of its investment inscience. With a total governmentspend of £6.6 billion on science(equal to 3% of global fundingfor research), and 1% of theworld’s population, the UKproduces 7.9% of the world’spublications, receives 11.8% ofcitations and 14.4% of citationswith the highest impact. But ourcompetitors are acceleratingtheir efforts. Recentannouncements by the US of a$21 billion boost for science, a€35 billion investment in the‘knowledge economy’ by Franceand a commitment from the

German government to increasetheir federal budget foreducation and research by €12billion by 2013 means that theUK cannot afford to becomplacent.

In the current financialclimate, no area of publicspending is guaranteed. But webelieve that cutting the sciencebudget now would be a falseeconomy. Even in these toughtimes may, the UK needs toinvest in the future andconcentrate spending where italready has an advantage.

This is why the Royal Societyconvened an advisory group,which I chaired, and whichincluded two Nobel Laureates,two former ministers of science,and leading figures from twohigh-tech companies. Wewanted to ensure that the nextgovernment was fully informedwhen it came to budgetarydecisions, because those

decisions could be the mostimportant decisions for ageneration.

The group spent a yeargathering and analysingevidence and came up with aset of recommendations. Ourreport – ‘The Scientific Century’ -recommends that scienceshould be at the heart of anylong-term strategy for economicgrowth. It demonstrates howexcellent people are at the coreof our prosperity, and why weneed to invest in their trainingand research.

Throughout its 350thanniversary year in 2010, theRoyal Society will continue topromote these messages,because it wants to provoke aricher debate about thecontribution that science andinnovation can make to societynow, and to our futureprosperity.

THE VALUE OF SCIENCESir Martin Taylor FRSProfessor of Pure Mathematics at the University of ManchesterChair of The Scientific Century Advisory Group.

When Cesar Milstein and Georges Kohlerreceived their Nobel Prize in 1984 for theirwork on the isolation and reproduction ofmonoclonal antibodies, no one could havepredicted that their discovery would createa market for monoclonal antibody drugswhich is now worth an estimated US$32billion.

THE UK’S SHARE OF GLOBAL SCIENCE

14.4% of world’smost highly cited

papers

11.8% ofworld citations

7.9%

of papers

1% of population

5% of scientific funding

‘The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity’ is available todownload at royalsociety.org/the-scientific-century

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKES & TSUNAMIS– HOW CAN WE REDUCE THE TOLLS ON HUMANITY?Meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on Tuesday, 15th June 2010

Professor RSJ Sparks FRSDepartment of Earth Sciences,University of [email protected]

Volcanoes are dangerous andhave several ways of causingmayhem and loss of life.Explosions are a major cause offatalities through the formationof hot flows of volcanic ash androcks known as pyroclastic flows.These devastating flows canmove down the side of avolcano at speeds of 100 tomore than 200 kph and it isimpossible to survive their directimpact. Pyroclastic flows havebeen the major cause of deatharound the world; the entirepopulation of 30,000 people inthe city of St Pierre on theCaribbean island of Martinique

was wiped ou0t in just a fewminutes by a pyroclastic flow in1902 when Mont Peléeerupted. Another major dangeris the volcanic mudflow whenlarge amounts of water aremixed with new volcanicdeposits. In 1985 25,000people lost their lives when thetown of Almero, Colombia wasburied by a mudflow. Suchtragedies can be avoided bycareful monitoring of a volcanoand timely evacuation.

But volcanic hazards are notjust local, as the April Icelandash crisis demonstrates. Verylarge eruptions can have

regional and global effects. On15th June 1991 MountPinatubo volcano in thePhilippines erupted five cubickilometres (or a billion tonnes)of volcanic ash in a colossalexplosion. This was about thebiggest eruption of the 20thcentury. Sulphur dioxide andsulphuric acid pollution spreadaround the equator within 3weeks and it took over 2 yearsfor the global atmosphericpollution to dissipate. Thepollution was so great that thetrend of increasing CO2 in theatmosphere was momentarilyhalted, there was global coolingand there was significantreduction in ozone overnorthern Europe. In 1815 aneven bigger eruption (6 billiontons of ash) occurred atTambora volcano in Indonesiaand led to “the year without asummer” in 1816. In1783 a

VOLCANIC HAZARDS NEARAND FAR

Volcanoes grabbed the World’s attention when ash from a smalleruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland broughtEurope’s aviation to a standstill for several days in April 2010.Volcanic eruptions are of course spectacular but they can also bekillers and the cause of huge economic losses and societaldisruption. At least 500 million people live close enough to activevolcanoes to be threatened when they erupt. Managing volcanicrisk is thus a worldwide problem. Some of the science issues aregeneric to many natural hazards and environmental issues. Thisshort article explains some of the key science behind assessingvolcanic hazards, discusses the problems of uncertainty and usevolcanoes to illustrate the challenges to science of forecastingthe future for the benefit of society.

. . . At least 500 million people live close enough to active

volcanoes to be threatened when they erupt. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35

early 1990’s recognised thepossibility of an eruption andrecommended that keyinfrastructure should not be builtin the south of the island wherePlymouth is located. During thecrisis the island has been keptgoing by dividing the island intoan exclusion zone around thevolcano and a safe area in thenorth. One of the greatdifficulties in all such mitigationpolicies which in the case ofMontserrat required evacuation,is a boundary between safe andunsafe areas has to be drawn.In a crowded island this isbound to cause tensions anddisagreements as in practice therisk decreases smoothly awayfrom the volcano and a decisionhas to be made about the levelof risk that is acceptable.However, peoples risk thresholdvaries greatly, whilegovernments tend to be riskaverse, not wishing to be heldto account by allowing peopleto live in dangerous areas. OnMontserrat this issue wasaddressed by using the bestknowledge of volcano scienceto assess how risk varied andthen providing this informationto the authorities to decidewhere the boundary should beplaced. Inevitably one familyhouse would be on the rightside of the line while aneighbour 100 metres awaywould be on the wrong side ofthe line and would have tomove.

Drawing lines on maps todemark safe from unsafe zonessounds easy in principle but isdifficult in practise especially ifthe threshold that defines theline is itself hard to estimate andthe uncertainties in theseestimate are large. This problemis very well illustrated in therecent Icelandic ash emergency.Initially the operationalguidelines for response of airtraffic control involved avoidanceso computer models simply had

to forecast where ash would gorather than how much ash therewas. However, enginemanufacturers announced aftera few days of almost completeshut down of European airspace that engines would notbe compromised if the ash wasless than 2 milligrams of ash percubic metre of air. Forecastingwhere the atmosphere hasconcentrations of ash higherthan this threshold is muchmore challenging and requiresadvances in scientific knowledgeand modelling methods.

Knowledge about the Earth’svolcanoes is still surprisinglymeagre. There are somevolcanoes like Kilauea, Hawaiiand Vesuvius in Italy, which arevery well monitored withsophisticated instruments thathave a good chance of detectingthe telltale tiny earthquakes andground movements thatprecede an eruption. Howevermany of the Worlds activevolcanoes are located in thedeveloping World wherescientific resources andinstrumentation are limited oreven non-existent. Aninternational project calledVOGRIPA being co-ordinated atthe University of Bristol isdeveloping a global database onvolcanic hazards and eruptions,complementing and partneringthe Smithsonian Institution in

major lava eruption known asLaki occurred in Iceland lasting 6months. One third of Icelandersdied largely through famine dueto the environmentalcatastrophe and there iscompelling evidence that therewere tens of thousands ofdeaths in England and Francerelated to the resulting sulphurpollution and crop failures.

Volcanic eruptions are one ofmany kinds of natural hazardsthat include earthquakes, floods,tsunamis, hurricanes, wildfires,droughts and magnetic storms.There is also evidence thatdisasters due to natural eventsare increasing mostly as aconsequence of globalpopulations growth, globalisationand associated environmentalstresses which are increasingvulnerability. There is also aplausible view that globalwarming may be increasing theincidence of extreme weatherevents as energy in the Earth’satmosphere increases. There arethus some broader lessons andperspectives that can be learntfrom volcanic hazards,emergencies and disasters.Society is increasingly askingscience to make predictionsabout what the future holds andthis is an unprecedentedchallenge. In the case of naturalphenomena science is beingasked to predict so that Societycan reduce or avoid losses.

The eruption of the SoufrièreHills volcano, Montserrat beganin 1995 and is still going on.Over 15 years the volcano haserupted over 1 cubic kilometreof magma. Montserrat has aspecial interest to the UK as anOverseas Dependent Territoryand the eruption has so far cost20 lives and likely well over abillion pounds. A hospital built inthe late 1980’s in the capitalPlymouth was destroyed in1997 and is somewhatsymbolic in that a hazardsassessment of the island in the

Science in Parliament Vol 67 No 1 Spring 2010 25

Washington DC. One of theproducts of this project is aninventory of the largest explosiveeruptions over the last 10,000years of Earth history. Analysis ofthese data show that only about15% of these eruptions areknow prior to 2000 years ago.The database can also beanalysed to estimate how oftenextremely large eruptions likeLaki in 1783 and Tambora in1815 occur. Such eruptions areabout 100 times larger than thesmall Icelandic eruptions thatcaused so much disruption inApril. It looks like there is abouta 1 in 3 chance of such aneruption in the 21st century. Inthe modern globalised andinterconnected World theeconomic and societal impactsof such an eruption would beconsiderable.

We are entering a century ofgreat change and anxiety. Manyof the acute problems thathumanity faces require theadvance and application ofscience. Natural hazards are oneof many examples of thedifficulties as the Worldbecomes ever more populatedand inter-dependent. There willbe many volcanic emergenciesin the next few decades andsociety needs to be betterprepared.

. . . global warming may be

increasing the incidence of

extreme weather events as

energy in the Earth’s

atmosphere increases. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Dr. Rui Pinho, Secretary GeneralGEM Foundation, Via Ferrata 1 27100, Pavia, [email protected] The 2010 Haiti and Chile

earthquakes painfully remindedthe world of the destructiveimpact of seismic events: notonly in terms of humancasualties, but also in terms ofsocial disruption and economiclosses. Some earthquakes havecaused losses that are higherthan the country’s annual GDP.

It may be obvious that thereis need to reduce this risk.However in many earthquake-prone regions no risk modelsexist, and even where modelsdo exist, they are ofteninaccessible due to theirproprietary nature or theircomplex user-interface. Riskmitigation requires accurate,consensual and uniform riskestimates; reliable earthquakerisk information.

Such information should bestate-of-the-art and compiled ina transparent manner by thecommunity - everyone shouldbe able to contribute andcomment - so that it is ownedby the public and hence trustedto be used. It should beaccessible to all possiblestakeholders, cover the entireglobe and not only include

hazard and risk information, butextend towards the social andeconomic impact ofearthquakes.

GEM, the Global EarthquakeModel initiative, aims to do allthat. GEM is an internationallysanctioned programme, initiatedby the OECD, working at theestablishment of anindependent, open standard tocalculate and communicateearthquake risk around theworld. GEM is structured as apublic-private partnership andthereby combines the strengths(and objectives) of both thepublic and the private sector.

The partnership includes anumber of authoritative globalinstitutions, such as the WorldBank, the OECD, UNESCO andUN’s International Strategy forDisaster Reduction, but also thetwo largest internationalprofessional associations in thefield: IASPEI (InternationalAssociation of Seismology andPhysics of the Earth’s interior)and IAEE (InternationalAssociation for EarthquakeEngineering). There are sixprivate organisations contributingto GEM and currently nine

countries have adhered to GEMand discussions with another 15are ongoing. GEM’s partnershave ensured over two-thirds ofthe 35 Million Euro needed forGEM’s first five-year programme.

GEM is building a dynamic,modular, flexible andexpandable model, plusaccompanying software andtools. Implementation of GEM’sworking programme is based ona combination of global andregional elements, andintegrates developments on theforefronts of scientific andengineering knowledge as wellas IT processes andinfrastructure. It takes five yearsto build the first working globalearthquake model and itsaccompanying software andtools. The work started in 2009and at the end of 2013 the firstversion of a truly global andcomprehensive earthquakemodel will be presented.

In June 2010 the GEMinitiative has been able to delivera proof-of-concept for hazardand risk calculations on a globalscale, mainly as a fruit of thecollaborative GEM1 pilot project.GEM1 laid the foundations of

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKES & TSUNAMIS – HOW CAN WE REDUCE THE TOLLS ON HUMANITY?

GEM - GLOBAL EARTHQUAKEMODEL

Over half a million people died in the last decade due toearthquakes and tsunamis, most of these in the developingworld, where the risk is increasing due to rapid populationgrowth and urbanization. In particular many of the world’smegacities of 10 million inhabitants and more, such as Delhi,Bogota, Jakarta and Lima, are situated in highly seismic activeareas. A significant proportion of the world’s population istherefore at risk from earthquakes.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


the model, by critically reviewingthe current state-of-the-art, bycollecting input data and modelsand building engines for globalcalculations. It also included afirst User Needs Assessment.

International consortia,involving hundreds ofprofessionals and institutions,are working on the creation ofnecessary standards, databasesand methodologies on a globallevel. These are the globalcomponents of the model andare thus developed by thecommunity for the community.The work on Hazard GlobalComponents has started andwill be delivered in 2012. Thework on Risk GlobalComponents will start in the fallof 2010 and will be delivered in2012 and 2013 and the workon the Socio-Economic GlobalComponents will take of in early2011, with the goal to befinalized in 2013.

Programs are being set-up inmany regions of the world asindependently run, bottom-upprojects, and links areestablished with ongoingregional programs. Both suchprograms are defined as GEMRegional Programs and involve agreat number of local expertswho will use GEM software, willgenerate local data, will validatethe data and standards thatwere created on a global level

and will serve as a starting pointfor technology transfer in theregion. Currently three GEMRegional Programs areoperational: in the regions ofEurope and the Middle East anda collaboration is ongoing inCentral America. Programs arebeing prepared in Africa, South-Asia, South-East Asia andOceania, Central Asia, SouthAmerica, the Caribbean, North-East Asia

There are hundreds ofinstitutions, organizations andindividuals involved in GEM thatcontribute expertise, data orsoftware, participate in globaland regional programs, or takepart in reviews and publicassessments. Participation ofindividuals and institutionsworldwide ensures that themodel is owned by the globalcommunity and reflects itsneeds and knowledge.

GEM is going through acontinual user-needsassessment effort, to ensurethat the software and tools thatare being developed meet theneeds of users. GEM potentialusers are broad and havedifferent characteristics. GEM’sproducts will therefore beattuned to the needs of expertusers and consumers with abasic knowledge of the subject.Partnerships and an active user-community are the ingredients

that support the initial use of thetools and subsequent adoptionof the information the globalearthquake model produces, anecessary first step towardawareness and risk mitigatingbehaviour.

The main output of GEM’sfirst five-year workingprogramme will be the inclusiveOpenGEM platform for thecalculation and communicationof earthquake risk. It will allowbasic and expert users to runapplications, access seismic riskinformation on local, nationaland regional scale, and visualizethe latter in maps, curves, tablesand export these in compatibleformats. Basic users are likely towant to view output producedby the global earthquake model,perhaps that related to thelocation of their own house.Expert users will be able “plugin” their own data and run theirown calculations. Because noteveryone will be able to accessan internet portal, or would liketo run calculations through theinternet, a stand-aloneOpenGEM software package willbe an important derivative.

GEM will however producemore than a platform for risk

assessment. Global harmonizeddatabases within the fields ofearthquake hazard, vulnerability,exposure and socio-economicimpact will be made available,such as a global earthquakeconsequences database and aglobal historical seismiccatalogue. GEM will alsoproduce best practices andstandards related to manyaspects of seismic riskassessment, which will help thecommunity to work togetherunder a common framework ata global scale. A communitydevelopment platform for thecomputational engine will allowfor true open-source and object-oriented development of theGEM risk engine by thecommunity. Programmers andother experts will be able totest, use and further improveGEM’s software code. There willbe technical reports for the(scientific) community to buildupon. Finally technical trainingprogrammes /workshops will beheld for diffusion of theknowledge on GEM softwareand use (including applicationfor risk mitigation), especially inless supported and developedareas where risk information isneeded most.

. . . GEM’s partners have ensured

over two-thirds of the 35 Million

Euro needed for GEM’s first five-

year programme. . .

. . . Participation of individuals

and institutions worldwide

ensures that the model is

owned by the global

community and reflects its

needs and knowledge. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Recent statistics show thatover the last 40 years thenumber of disasters, as wellas economic losses andpeople affected by disasters, isincreasing (Munich Re. 2009).Some of the largest lossesderive from earthquake events(or earthquake triggered eventssuch as tsunami). Earthquakesaffect both developed anddeveloping countries, althoughdistribution of losses greatlyvaries in the two cases;economic prevailing in the firstcase, whilst both human andeconomic losses beingimportant in the second. Forexample, the 1995 KobeEarthquake in Japan(magnitude, Ms=7.0) killed5,420 people but caused US$150 billion economic loss whilstthe 1972 Managua Earthquakein Nicaragua (magnitude, Ms6.1) caused 10,000 deaths andUS$ 2 billion economic loss; the

latter constituting 40% of thecountry’s GNP.

There is no evidence that thenumber of earthquake events isincreasing, so why are disastersmore frequent and moresevere? Most economic and lifelosses in earthquakes occur as adirect or indirect consequenceof building and infrastructurecollapse. Growing urbanisationwith accompanied rapid increaseof poorly built housing,uncontrolled use of land,overstretched services and highpopulation densities, hasincreased our vulnerability toearthquake effects and thereforeincreased the potential fordisasters. Therefore although anearthquake is a naturalphenomena, the level of lossesare largely dependent onhuman activity and hence it canbe misleading to use the term“natural disaster”.

“Surely this is a foreignproblem! How are theseworldwide earthquakes relevantto us in the UK?” We live in anincreasingly globalised worldwhere, as recent events haveshown, economic troubles in acountry elsewhere can haveknock-on effects on the UKeconomy. Furthermore, the lossof production, manufacture orservices in an earthquakeaffected region can impact UKservices, imports and exports.For example, the recent Chile2010 earthquake causeddamage to pulp and paper millsthat had a knock on effect on

the cost of publishing in the UK.Finally, a country’s government isoften judged on how well itdeals with the aftermath of adisaster, with mismanagementoften leading to changes ingovernment or politicalinstability. These instabilities incountries where the UK hasinterests may or may not bedesirable. Understandingearthquake risk and developingengineering knowledge toensure earthquake-safeconstruction (earthquakeengineering) is also important tothe insurance and civilengineering industries in the UK,who have markets and bid forconstruction projects abroad,respectively.

It is also important torecognise that the UK itself hasa low but non-negligible level ofseismic hazard, as the 2007Folkestone (magnitude Ml=4.2)and 2008 Market Rasen(magnitude Ml=5.2) eventsdemonstrate (see Figure 1).Although not relevant to theengineering design of ordinaryoffices or houses, this seismicactivity must be taken intoaccount in the design, buildingand assessment of importantfacilities. The UK alreadyoperates 24 reactors thatprovide 1/5th of UK energy, andthat this number may increasein the future. All new reactorsmust be designed to beearthquake resistant and existingfacilities assessed at regularintervals for compliance with

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKES & TSUNAMIS – HOW CAN WE REDUCE THE TOLLS ON HUMANITY?

UK EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING:REDUCING WORLDWIDEDISASTERS

Dr Tiziana RossettoDepartment of Civil, Environmentaland Geomatic Engineering,University College London, London WC1E [email protected]

new safety levels andearthquake building standards.

Given the above, it shouldtherefore not be surprising thatthere is a large amount ofEarthquake Engineeringexpertise in the UK; particularlyin the insurance, nuclear, civilengineering consultancy andacademic sectors. Numerousexamples of iconic structuresabroad that have beenseismically designed by UKengineers can be found. Forexample, ARUP carried out theseismic engineering of the243m tall China CentralTelevision headquarters (Figure2a), the Beijing NationalStadium (“the bird’s nest”) andAquatics Centre (“the fish bowl”)in Beijing, China. Atkins also didthe structural engineering of thesecond tallest building in Dubai,the Almas tower, which standsat 360m tall and was completedin 2009 (Figure 2b).

Earthquake engineeringexpertise in academia helpssupport the competitiveness ofUK industry and was recentlyrecognised to be internationallyrenowned and a strength of UKResearch (EPSRC, 2010).Almost all major engineeringfaculties in UK universities carryout research in earthquakeengineering and structuraldynamics, with major researchcentres present in theUniversities of Oxford,Cambridge, Bristol, Imperial,UCL, Bath and Sheffield,amongst others. Large scale

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


facilities for experimental testingof structures and soils underearthquakes are available atOxford and Bristol. The UK alsooffers 5 MSc programmes onearthquake engineering, out ofapproximately 20 worldwide.Research from UK institutionshas been incorporated in theEuropean building code forSeismic Actions (Eurocode 8)and Earthquake Engineering hasa presence in both theInstitution of Civil Engineers andInstitution of StructuralEngineers, through the Societyof Earthquake and CivilEngineering Dynamics (SECED)and the Earthquake EngineeringField Investigation Team (EEFIT),respectively. One of the activitiesof the latter is to investigate thereasons for earthquake damageto structures and infrastructure in

global earthquakes and reportlessons learned back to the UKcommunity (e.g. Figure 3).

So how can the UK help toreduce worldwide earthquakedisasters? Firstly, we cancontinue to support thisdiscipline and this small butactive community to maintain itsexcellence and place in theworldwide academic andindustrial arena. Secondly, wecan do more to export some ofour knowledge and academiccourses to developing countrieswhere knowledge of earthquakeengineering principles can havea real impact in saving lives. Thiscan be done throughinternational campuses of UKuniversities or distance learningmethods. Thirdly, I believe wecan take Earthquake Engineeringto a new level of involvement in

International Development (pre-disaster) and reconstruction(post-disaster). This requiresfacilitation of dialogue betweenengineers, NGO’s, developmentagencies and other actors topromote sustainable andresilient building in seismicareas. The adoption of “bestlocal practice” and of“opportunity-based” land-usecan lead to a promotion ofexisting weaknesses in buildingsand infrastructure. There is aneed for international fundingand development organisationsto ensure that experiencedhazard specialists and engineersare co-ordinating orimplementing constructionprojects (either by directlyemploying them or by ensuringthat the contracted work will belead by such people). This

specialist (or team of experts,depending on the number ofhazards and scale of theproject), should set a frameworkfor the design and construction,which may then be executed byother engineers, builders,workers, etc. after appropriatetraining and with adequatesupervision. Disasters are verycomplex processes, involvingcommunities as well asbuildings. Hence successfulinvolvement in internationaldevelopment requires engineersto break with disciplinary barriersand collaborate with other fieldssuch as architecture, socialsciences, psychology etc. Thisshould be supported by a baseof interdisciplinary education andresearch in the field ofearthquake engineering, which isalready being pioneered at theUCL Earthquake and PeopleInteraction Centre (EPICentre,www.epicentreonline.com), butshould be embraced by otherinstitutions also.

In summary, earthquakes area threat to the world but also anopportunity for UK engineering.The UK has a strong base ofexpertise in the field ofearthquake engineering which isinternationally recognised andmust be maintained and keptcompetitive. This short articlealso proposes some ideas forthe promotion of collaborationsbetween earthquakeengineering and other disciplesto better understandearthquakes, their consequencesand aid resilient internationaldevelopment efforts.

REFERENCES:

EPSRC (2010). EPSRC Review of UKAcademic Research in Ground andStructural Engineering. Engineering andPhysical Sciences Council Report.

Munich Re. (2009). Great naturaldisasters since 1950. Online statisticsavailable at:http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/georisks/natcatservice/long-term_statistics_since_1950/default.aspx

Damage from the 2007 Folkestoneearthquake: (a) Damage to achimney and (b) structural damage,to Victorian masonry houses inFolkestone.

a

b

The China Central Televisionheadquarters in Beijing, China (a)and the Almas Tower, Dubai (b).

a b

Investigation by EEFIT of structural damage due to the 2001 BhujIndia earthquake (a) and 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Thailand (b).

a b

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


“EATING FOR BETTER HEALTH”The ForewordDr Michael Dixon OBE MA (Hons, Oxon) Psychology and Philosophy MB BS LRCP DRCOGMRCGP FRCGPFormer Medical Director, Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health Chair, NHS AllianceVisiting Professor, The University of WestminsterHonorary Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham Honorary Senior Lecturer in Integrated Health at Peninsula Medical School

This is a book that you will find hard to put down. It is not just fascinating and informative: it is also intensely practical. For

many, it may well be a life saver. Indeed, it should probably be compulsory reading for every adult and every household. For

the uninitiated, much of its content will be new and inspirational, but even the most experienced doctor and therapist will find

something new.

‘We are what we eat’ has become a cliché, but ‘healthy eating’ for much of the British population is an oxymoron. It is

predicted that in fifteen years time almost half of the adult population will be obese. It is also predicted that our children will

die younger than ourselves, simply because of obesity. Yet the UK spends less on its food, in proportion to its gross domestic

product, than any other developed country. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and a whole range of other chronic diseases are, in

many cases, the result of a poor diet and, in an equal number, can be remedied by getting our diet right. Yet for the majority it

is almost a question of ‘we don’t care what we eat’. This book illustrates wonderfully why we should care and, more

importantly, shows us exactly how we can improve our health and resistance to disease in clear and practical ways.

The problems that this book seeks to solve go beyond the health and wellbeing of each of us as individuals, going to the

heart of issues of public health and affordability of the health service. Getting our diet right costs very little when compared

with the expense of treatment. The cost of pills, technology and hospital care to overcome the problems of bad diet will soon

make every health service unaffordable. If we help ourselves and each other by eating more healthily, exercising more and

living more fulfilling lives then we will be able to afford expensive technology for when it is appropriate and necessary. A good

diet is not a panacea, but it is something that we can adopt fairly easily with a little bit of determination.

It is always flattering to be asked to write a foreword to a book. The downside too often is that you also have to read it! Not

so this book. Once I opened it, I found find it difficult to stop reading. You will find it compulsive reading, and thereafter it will

serve as a valuable work of reference, with its clear headings and index.

It is much more than simply a ‘good read’, however. It is packed with the best evidence that we have on healthy eating.

Academics may quibble about the weight of evidence for some of the assertions, but they will be missing the point. The point

is that in real life we have to make the best use of the best available evidence, and anyone taking advice from this book will

be 90 per cent on the route towards better eating and health. They will also have a far better understanding of food itself and

how different foods contribute to different aspects of our health. This may lead to a greater interest and connection with the

different foods and how and where they are grown. For too many of us, food is simply a fuel. Fats, carbohydrates and proteins

are just the diesel, leaded and unleaded petrol that keep us going. In reality, we should regard our eating habits as a complex

and wonderful mixture of art and science. We should appreciate its complexity and also its power to heal and improve health.

By being both practical and interesting and with a vast range of recipes to illustrate its lessons, this book should create a new

generation of healthy-eating advocates, who will influence and interest those around them and improve their heath and

wellbeing.

As a GP, I will be recommending this book to my patients, ensuring that we have several copies in our patients’ library, and

I shall take a copy home to try and influence those younger members of my family who think that they will live for ever and

assume that healthy eating is just for health-conscious adults. So by all means use this book as a practical set of tips and

recipes to guide your own path to better health, but do not be afraid to be an evangelist and pass the word on to those who

might otherwise suffer. Congratulations to both authors on a courageous, inspiring and brilliant book.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


Individuals and organisations rewarded for inspiring future scientists

The 2010 STEMNET Awards took place on 21st June 2010, highlighting the extraordinaryachievements of individuals and organisations in energising learning to captivate thenext generation of scientists.

The Awards, run by STEMNET (the Science, Technology, Engineering and MathematicsNetwork), were presented to winning individuals and organisations by writer,broadcaster and scientist, Vivienne Parry, at a ceremony at the House of Lords, hostedby Lord Oxburgh.

The awards celebrate the work of young people, teachers,Ambassadors and employers involved in STEMNET programmesincluding STEM Ambassadors and STEM Clubs. STEMNET currentlyhas more than 21,000 STEM Ambassador volunteers across the UKwho give their time and enthusiasm free of charge to inspire youngpeople in STEM subjects and careers. Many schools run extra-curricular STEM Clubs to provide their pupils with even moreopportunities to get involved with exciting STEM activities andprojects, enabling them to develop further their creativity, enquiryand problem-solving skills.

The common factor amongst all STEMNET’s award winners isthat they demonstrate remarkable inventiveness and dedication inbringing STEM careers and subjects to life for all students. Activitiesrange from developing an Applied Science BTEC which involveddemonstrating a product’s development from R&D through tocommercialisation, to getting pupils to design and build a windturbine, manufacture a new diabetes meter or even investigate thebest structure for a tall jelly to enter into the Tallest JellyCompetition.

THE WINNERS OF THE FOUR AWARDS ARE:

1. Most Dedicated STEM Ambassador Award: Sam Whitmarsh,AstraZeneca, Bristol and Bath

2. Most Dedicated Employer Award: LifeScan Scotland Ltd

3. Most Dedicated Teacher Award: Rebekah Hodson, BlessedEdward Oldcorne Catholic College

4. Most Dedicated STEM Club Award: Bungay High School(Suffolk)

Yvonne Baker, STEMNET Chief Executive says: “Encouraging allyoung people to achieve their potential in science, maths,technology and engineering is key, both for their future and thefuture of the UK as a whole. Everyone has a role to play – schools,teachers, parents, volunteers and employers. The STEMNETAwards highlight some of the very best examples of people

LEADING LIGHTS ANNOUNCEDIN STEMNET AWARDS

working together to enthuse young people with the excitementand possibilities to which these subjects, and associated careers,can lead.”

The event was attended by some of the UK’s most inspirationaland dedicated STEM Ambassadors, teachers and STEM academics,representatives from businesses that are reliant on people withSTEM skills, colleges and universities, organisations that representand work with STEM and Members of Parliament including AndrewMiller, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.

Yvonne Baker adds: “The Ambassadors, employers, schoolsand teachers that we work with make a huge impact on howyoung people view STEM subjects and careers. Their passionshines through, and that enthusiasm is contagious. We would liketo thank everyone who supports young people in these ways –your contribution is enormous.”

Most Dedicated STEM Ambassador

Sam Whitmarsh from AstraZeneca in Bristol and Bath, is anexperienced STEM Ambassador having joined the programme in2008. Since then he has unreservedly given up his time tosupport local schools. One of his huge undertakings has been tohelp develop an Applied Science BTEC for Bedminster DownSchool. He has developed an industrial case study to demonstratea product’s development from R&D through to commercialisation,which the school and pupils can apply to learning through theBTEC. Other activities have included delivering a talk onthermodynamics, sessions on drug development, judging awardsand supporting events.

Other finalists included Dr Femke van den Berg from BBSRC,Genoveva Esteban from Queen Mary University of London andDominic Trueman from Metronet.

Most Dedicated Employer Award

Part of multi-national company, Johnson & Johnson, LifeScanScotland Ltd has a made a huge commitment to the STEMAmbassadors programme with 55 employees ranging from

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


apprentices right up to the Executive Director of Quality Assuranceacting as STEM Ambassadors. LifeScan Scotland Ltd activelyencourages its staff to participate and work with local schools butbefore they can do so, it is compulsory for them to have gonethrough the STEM Ambassadors training. Ambassadors are givenpaid time off to attend the induction and undertake activities withschools. Activities its STEM Ambassadors undertake with localschools may range from designing and building a wind turbine todesigning and manufacturing a new diabetes meter. Its work inthe local community gives pupils the opportunity to be inspired byreal scientists and engineers.

Other finalists in this category include Atkins Ltd, AstraZenecaPLC, BP Chemicals Ltd, Perkins Engineering CompanyLimited and QinetiQ.

Most Dedicated Teacher Award

Rebekah Hodson, Head of Science at Blessed EdwardOldcorne Catholic College in Worcestershire, and delivers arich and varied programme of events and opportunities forher pupils. She also goes the extra mile by workingcollaboratively with other schools to share expertise and tosupport the development of mainstream curriculum andE&E courses. She seeks out and carefully selects the bestactivities to create an inspiring programme for each yeargroup, catering for pupils of all abilities, aptitudes andinterests. She has made valuable contacts with localbusinesses, bringing speakers into the school to enhancethe teaching of the applied science courses. She alsohosts STEM CPD events at the school. She hasdemonstrated a combination of personal commitment andleadership qualities, which have created a flourishingenvironment within her department, supporting activitiesboth inside and outside the curriculum.

The other finalists for this award were Sarah Connon, AshtonCommunity Science College (Ribbleton Campus), MartynCrawshaw, Millburn Academy, Inverness, and Mike Grocott,Callington Community College.

Most Dedicated STEM Club

The STEM Club at Bungay High School in Suffolk is lead byteacher, Nick Thomas. This club has shown great enthusiasm andcommitment since it was set up to involve its students in a widerange of STEM activities and events. It has maintained this passionto become a thriving and ongoing part of school activity. The clubhas looked for ways to work on a cross-curricular basis withteachers from science, D&T and maths. At the weekly events runover the past two years they have covered a wide range of projectsincluding bridge construction from paper and sellotape, crash testinvestigations into crumple zones, fingerprinting, DNA extraction,researching and mounting a remote telescope on the school roof,building and launching compressed air rockets and eveninvestigating the best structure for a tall jelly and taking part in theTallest Jelly Competition! They have also organised and hosted aregional STEM Club Celebration Event involving five secondaryschools and activities arranged by leading employers such as EDFEnergy, BT Openreach and the Unversity of East Anglia.

The other finalists for this Award were Cottenham PrimarySchool in Cambridgeshire and King Charles I School Kidderminster.

For further information about the awards please [email protected] or call 020 3206 0450.

Most Dedicated Employer Award: LifeScan Scotland Ltd

The winners of the Most Dedicated STEM Club award from Bungay High School inSuffolk, with the Most Dedicated STEM Teacher Rebekah Hodson, from BlessedEdward Oldcorne Catholic College in Worcestershire, and the Managing Director ofBrompton Bicycle Ltd, Will Butler-Adams (back centre) who supported the awards.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


WATER & SOLAR POWEREDPASSENGER LIFTDesigned by Matthew Lloyd Architects

Created by Matthew Lloyd Architects for the LondonFestival of Architecture 2010, this water and solarpowered lift has been designed to raise public awarenessaround access and sustainability, firmly placing the keyissues of inclusive design and equal access in thespotlight. The design team worked throughout withdisability arts groups Architecture Inside Out and Shapeto ensure that the scheme is relevant and worthwhile.Matthew Lloyd Architects also enlisted the help of theRoyal Engineers in the initial design stage, partly becauseof their historic links to this part of central London, andpartly because of their unsurpassed skill in developingswift-response, site-specific solutions.

The zero-energy lift, capable of carrying more than350kg, uses water weights to counterbalance the lift cart,with solar panels powering the pump. In using water andsolar power, one is freed from the need for a connectionto mains electricity. This means the lift can be usedanywhere, and can even be moved from one site toanother. It also enables the lift to touch the historic stepslightly, with no mechanical fixings to the old stonework.As a Grade I listed site, the Duke of York Steps has thehighest level of historic and architectural importance. Thearchitects worked hard to create something ofarchitectural merit, suitably responsive to thesurroundings. Whereas most lifts of this nature arehidden away, the water powered wheelchair lift takescentre stage on the site. In addition to the symbolicvalue, the central siting gives disabled people an equalexperience of going up and down the Steps, enjoying theviews.

It is also important that the lift be an enjoyableattraction to the general public. This is proving to be thecase, with queues forming of tourists and passersbyeager to have a ride. All the mechanical innards arevisible, allowing users and passersby to decipher how itworks. The lift is a prototype, a radical vision of equalaccess; it is hoped that it will be developed into a fullysustainable lift installation, which would consist of threelifts, one on each landing, offering access to thecomplete staircase.

The Royal Parks (site owner), and the City ofWestminster (the local authority) have kindly supportedus in our quest to create this installation.

In collaboration with RIBA, Architecture Inside Out andShape, the Royal Engineers as concept engineers, andThe Royal Parks as land owners.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


developed in response to public

concern, rather than anticipating

it. Similarly, there is no clear

‘roadmap’ for the role of

nanotechnologies, despite some

initial public engagement

activities. The lack of information

about the status of

developments also makes it

difficult to have a meaningful

debate about the role that

nanotechnologies can play. For

example, the UK’s voluntary

reporting scheme for nano

materials attracted only 13

submissions in over 2 years

despite the previous

government’s estimate that

there are over 220 companies

in the UK using

nanotechnologies2.

Early engagement allows

government and industry to

gauge market desire for new

technologies and ensure that

the direction in which they

develop tackles key challenges

and issues for society. For

instance, it has been argued that

the public’s reluctance to accept

GM foods stemmed in part from

CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT WITHEMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging technologies

present government and

industry with a challenge when

they are often beset by

uncertainties. Scientists have

identified multiple areas in the

field of nanotechnology for

example, where more research

is needed1. Uncertainty means

we may not know what the risks

of a given science or

technological development are,

let alone how to remove or

reduce them. Under such

circumstances it is essential that

there is effective communication

and debate around how to

balance potential risks and

benefits and to enable

consumers to make informed

choices. Communication of risk

has to be two way: public

concerns must be understood

and addressed and consumers

need to be effectively informed

about what the technology has

the potential to offer and issues

it raises.

To ensure effective risk

communication, risk

management and ultimately

public confidence in emerging

technologies, it is essential that

government and industry involve

the end users of the technology

at the earliest possible stage of

development, starting with

research priorities. Unfortunately,

such a strategy has not been

widely adopted to date. In the

case of GM foods, for example,

the regulatory framework

Rob Reid WHICH?

New technologies have the potential to offer consumers manybenefits, but can also raise potential risks. Effective managementof these risks, particularly when faced with scientific uncertaintyis essential if consumers are to take advantage of them withoutbeing put at unnecessary risk. Consumers need to be engaged atan early stage in order to ensure that technologies are developedand overseen in a way that promotes and protects their interests.But continuing controversy over genetically modified (GM) foodsand limited engagement around the introduction ofnanotechnologies shows a need to improve risk communication.

. . . consumers need to be effectively informed

about what the technology has the potential to

offer and issues it raises. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35

Our own experience of public

engagement activities around

new technologies has been very

positive. Our ‘nano’ panel held

in November 2007 introduced

consumers to nanotechnology

and the debates surrounding its

development. It clearly

highlighted how people can get

to grips with complex issues if

they are communicated in a

meaningful way.

Public engagement has to be

grounded in real examples to be

meaningful and transparency

from industry is therefore

equally important in public

engagement. As a result, Which?

has been calling for the

introduction of a mandatory

reporting scheme for companies

using nanotechnology and a

public database providing

information to consumers on

nanotechnology. This would

provide regulators with a better

understanding of what

consumers are exposed to and

help consumers make more

informed decisions.


consumers failing to see any

benefits for themselves and

anger at the lack of consultation

and information when products

were introduced.

Some positive attempts have

been made by government and

institutions to involve consumer

groups and the general public

early on in debates over

emerging technologies.

Which? was recently invited

to sit on the Royal Society’s

Synthetic Biology Coordination

Group and the Research

Council’s Grand Challenges

research calls were also

informed by a public dialogue.

However, attempts to effectively

engage the public on new

technologies remain few and far

between and there remains

scepticism as to whether they

have any real input to final

policy. It is essential that

decision-making is open,

transparent and takes account of

public attitudes at all stages –

from ensuring the transparency

of risk assessment, the way that

the issues put to risk assessors

are framed and how ultimately

decisions about how to manage

and communicate risks are

decided.

Effective engagement with

the public should be used to

help target broad research

priorities and policy

development. This is not a call

for the public to have direct

input into specific research

funding decisions or to be the

sole driver in policy making, but

to allow the broader research

and policy agendas to be

informed by the public’s hopes

and fears.

After all, it will be the public

who decide what emergent

products and services will be

successful. Whilst this is not

easy, the public will be required

to take on complex technical

ideas and hypotheses, there are

precedents, such as the

Engineering and Physical

Sciences Research Council’s

(EPSRC) Grand Challenges’ use

of public consultations and Town

meetings to help focus research

calls in nanotechnology 3 and

the French government’s

attempt at a national debate to

involve citizens in the future

direction of nanotechnologies4.

Early public engagement is

therefore essential. Failure to do

this would undermine the

potential long-term acceptance

of new technologies and

services. However, if developed

in line with the public interest,

new technologies have the

potential to grow the UK

economy significantly whilst also

benefiting the UK consumer.

1 EMERGNANO: A review of completed

and near completed environment,

health and safety research on

nanomaterials and nanotechnology,

Defra project report March 2009

2 UK Nanotechnologies Strategy, Small

Scale, Great Opportunities, March 2010

3 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/

cons/Pages/nano.aspx

4 http://www.debatpublic-nano.org/

index.html

. . . positive attempts have

been made by government

and institutions to involve

consumer groups and the

general public early on in

debates over emerging

technologies. . .

. . . Current financial

constraints must not come at

the expense of effective risk

communication and

meaningful public

engagement activities. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:35


ECTON MINE - FROM COPPER-BOTTOMED SHIPS TO A-LEVELCHEMISTRYDr Stephen Henley FGS, FIMMM, CEngWebmaster for P&SC and for EMET

The student smiled with surprise andpleasure when she lifted an iron nail out ofthe solution, covered with a pink sheen ofnewly deposited metallic copper. Thismorning she had collected the piece of orefrom which she herself had extracted thiscopper. This is a typical scene at the outdoorlaboratory of the Ecton Hill field studycentre, where courses are provided forstudents of chemistry, geology, and manyother subjects.

The outdoor laboratory at the G A Cox field studies centre, Ecton

Chemistry tutor Bill Whitehead explaining transition-metal chemistry

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Ecton Hill, on the

Staffordshire/Derbyshire border,

at the south-western margin of

the Peak District, is the location

of a mining enterprise which in

its late 18th century heyday

provided much of the copper

needed by the Royal Navy.

Ecton was the major UK source

of copper in the 1760s-1780s,

and was the deepest mine in

Britain.

Today its industrial history is

all but forgotten and it lies

within one of the most

attractive parts of the Peak

District National Park. However,

there is ample well-preserved

surface and underground

evidence of Ecton’s past, and

its mineralogical riches and

unique geological setting

provide the basis for a very

21st century approach to

teaching, from junior school to

university level and beyond.

Although the workings

below river level are now

flooded, those above are still

accessible and contain much of

geological and archaeological

interest (recent research has

demonstrated that the ore

deposits were worked as long

ago as the Bronze Age). On the

hilltop there is the building

which housed one of the first

Boulton and Watt steam

engines. This and many of the

other surface features across

the hill have been designated a

Scheduled Monument. The

mine workings themselves are

also a national Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The Ecton Hill mines and

the associated field studies

centre are owned by the Ecton

Mine Educational Trust (EMET),

set up in 2005 after the death

of Geoff Cox, the previous

owner, who had developed

them as an educational

resource. This charitable

company, under the

chairmanship of John Bramley,

a retired engineer and former

mine manager in the Peak

District, works closely with the

Ecton Hill Field Studies

Association (EHFSA) to provide

a wide range of courses.

The chemistry A-level

course, for example, typically

consists of a one-day, 10 am –

4 pm, intensive sequence of

activities. Normally two tutors

run each day, with a maximum

of 30 students with their

teachers, usually from two

schools or colleges. After an

initial briefing at the centre,

during which some background

to mining at Ecton is

introduced, the party set off up

Ecton Hill to the engine house.

Nearby the party inspects the

hole where the main Ecton

ore-body originally outcropped

at surface, before walking on

over the hill to mine dumps

which offer a rewarding

opportunity to collect mineral

specimens. These are taken

back to the centre where, in

the outdoor laboratory, wet

chemical analysis techniques

are used to identify the

compounds in them. There is

a further practical session on

mineral separation techniques

and the science behind them,

and finally, as a climax to the

day, an underground tour into

Salt’s Level in Ecton Mine.

EMET receives no public

funding but has had financial

support from the Royal Society

of Chemistry, the Institute of

Materials, Minerals and Mining,

the London and Southern

Counties Minerals Industries

Institute (MinSouth), and the

Mineral Industry Education

Trust, as well as corporate

members Anglo American plc

and Rio Tinto plc, and much of

the work of EMET is carried out

by volunteers. As the Trust is

responsible for all of the

infrastructure, it has ongoing

responsibilities for the safety of

the 40 shafts and mine adits

around Ecton Hill, as well as for

the study centre itself.

The Trust remains vulnerable

to any cuts in educational

funding for what may be

perceived as non-core

extramural activities. However, if

the UK's future is dependent

upon the enthusiasm and

achievements of its scientists

and engineers, then such

courses are absolutely essential

in providing a link between

textbook learning and the real

world.

For more information, visit

www.ectonmine.org

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Lord Flowers, a physicist, led

Imperial for twelve years from

1973 with the ambition to make

a good institution even better.

Speaking before the College’s

centenary in 2007, Flowers said

that being Rector of Imperial

was the pinnacle of his career,

one which spanned the worlds

of science, academia, politics

and public service. He is

survived by his wife, Mary.

A passionate supporter of UK

universities, serving also as

Chairman of the CVCP (now

Universities UK), Vice Chancellor

of the University of London and

Chancellor of the University of

Manchester later in his career,

Flowers laid the foundations of

the modern College during his

term as Rector. He set priorities

that remain core to its teaching

and research today, while

recognising that success for the

College was in the hands of its

staff and students, whom he

described as “a very likeable

bunch of people, a very clever

bunch of people too.”

CHARTING A NEWCOURSE:INTERDISCIPLINARYRESEARCH ANDTEACHING

Lord Oxburgh, who led

Imperial from 1993-2000,

hailed Brian Flowers as a giant

among Rectors, praising his

vision for consolidating

engineering and physical

sciences at the College. Flowers’

approach focused on building

strong links between subject

areas, which led to the

establishment and development

of interdisciplinary teaching and

research activities at Imperial.

Lord Flowers’ enthusiasm for

the opportunities offered by

collaborations across scientific

disciplines, fuelled during his

time as Chairman of the Science

Research Council from 1967-73,

led him to found the Centre for

Environmental Technology in

1976, which brought together

environmental research at the

College. The new Centre

allowed Imperial to take the lead

in providing technological

solutions to environmental

problems – a path which the

College continues along today

through the work of the Centre

for Environmental Policy, the

Energy Futures Lab and the

Grantham Institute for Climate

Change.

Sir Gordon Conway, who was

the first Academic Director of

the Centre for Environmental

Technology and is now

Professor of International

Development in the Centre for

Environmental Policy, paid

tribute to Brian Flowers as a

tough, principled and very wise

Rector who gave his full backing

to plans for the Centre for

Environmental Technology when

first mooted in 1975.

OBITUARY

Brian Flowers, one of Imperial’s longest-serving and most popular Rectors,whose contributions formed thebuilding blocks of the modern College,has died at the age of 85.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Describing Lord Flowers’

philosophy behind the

development, Sir Gordon said:

“He faced down those in the

silos who disliked cross-

disciplinary activities. I remember

one comment at a Senate

meeting when a professor

accused us of peddling ‘pap for

popinjays.’ Brian would have

none of that kind of ignorant

prejudice. He was convinced

from his experience on the

Royal Commission on

Environmental Pollution that

environmental education and

research ought to be a central

concern of the College. He also

rightly insisted that the Centre

should focus on postgraduate

rather than undergraduate

education. He came up with the

name of the centre and he and

the Pro Rector, John Sutton

another sorely missed colleague,

devised a fair and sustainable

budget formula for us. He even

found time to come and give

lectures on the course –

impeccably crafted and

delivered lectures that were

clear and well balanced.”

Keen to modernise the

university culture, Brian Flowers

ended the custom of using titles

and surnames to address

professors and heads of

department. He also introduced

a democratic approach to

appointing heads of department,

establishing staff committees

that were consulted on the best

candidate to lead the

department and encouraging all

members of the department to

write to him in strict confidence

with proposals. Physicist Sir

Peter Knight, now Deputy Rector

(Research) at Imperial, who was

recruited to the College by Lord

Flowers in 1979 and led his

department’s non-professorial

staff committee when a lecturer,

explains: “He wanted to hear a

groundswell of opinion from all

staff in a department – not just

the professors – and was

particularly keen to seek the

views of the next generation

who would shape the

department’s future.”

Attuned to industrial trends,

Brian Flowers drove the

modernisation of undergraduate

courses, recognising the

importance of training students

for their future careers.

Engineering courses were

developed to provide students

with greater industrial experience

and, aware of the increasingly

important role of information

technology, under Flowers all

departments were asked to

teach computing skills.

During Flowers’ time as

Rector the College’s research

and teaching activities focused

on science and engineering, and

there were Nobel Prizes for

Geoffrey Wilkinson in 1973 and

Abdus Salam in 1979, but his

vision of a new framework for

medical education in London

led to one of the most

significant developments in

Imperial’s history – the

integration of a number of

medical schools with the

College. His report,

commissioned by the Vice

Chancellor of the University of

London and published in 1980,

proposed the merger of a

number of the many free-

standing undergraduate medical

schools and their amalgamation

with multi-faculty colleges.

John Davidson, Personnel

Secretary at the College from

1974 to 1989, explains the two

strands to Flowers’ thinking: “The

first was that the medical

schools were too small to be

viable when funding was being

reduced and secondly that it

was highly desirable in the latter

part of the twentieth century

that the London medical schools

should have a much closer

association with institutions

which had basic science

departments. Although all of

Brian’s proposals were not

enacted precisely as proposed

the present structure of medical

education owes a great debt to

him.”

In 1971 the College

conferred upon him its highest

honour, the Fellowship of

Imperial College.

Lord Flowers often

commented that his wife shared

his job. Together they sought to

catalyse good social relationships

with and between students.

They were renowned hosts of a

twice-termly ‘beer and bangers’

parties inviting large numbers

into their residence at 170

Queen’s Gate. Speaking in

2006, Lady Flowers recalled:

“Once we found the

sausages were going rather fast

and I had to keep on sending

down to the kitchen for more.

Then I realised that there was a

competition afoot as to who

could sink the most sausages,

and we got wise to that and

found the culprits and rationed

them!”

In return, Imperial College

Union threw its own party for

the Flowers at the end of his

Rectorship, culminating in a

celebratory trip around west

London in Bo’, a veteran car

dating from 1902 owned and

cared for by engineering

students at Imperial.

“This we carried out to the

considerable consternation of

the police, who fortunately had

a sense of humour and rubbed

their eyes in disbelief and waved

us on,” Lord Flowers later

remembered. “That was a great

and jolly occasion, and a very

nice gesture on the part of the

students.”

Lynda Davies, who worked as

Lord Flowers’ PA from 1978-

1984, describes his open door

policy: “As a young arts graduate

I was barely older than most

Imperial students, so there was

a lighter touch in the office, less

stuffiness. We had an ‘open

door’ policy. Anyone could make

an appointment to see the

Rector. Staff, students, union

representatives, parents and

alumni – all were treated with

the same courtesy and good

humour, combined with

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


common sense. That approach

was very novel and much

appreciated.”

Born in September 1924,

Lord Flowers studied physics

and electronics at Cambridge,

before working as part of an

Anglo-Canadian project

codenamed Tube Alloys focused

on nuclear weapon

development during World War

II. After the war he continued his

research at the Atomic Energy

Research Establishment at

Harwell, becoming Head of

Theoretical Physics in 1952 and

pioneering computing methods

to solve problems relating to the

nuclear structure. He was

elected a Fellow of the Royal

Society in 1961 at the age of

36.

He went on to hold

academic posts in the

Universities of Birmingham and

Manchester, before taking up

the post of Rector at Imperial in

1973 and then Vice Chancellor

of the University of London

between 1985 and 1990.

While Vice Chancellor of the

University of London, he

became known for making

extensive notes during

committee meetings. Sir Peter

Knight said: “There was a quite a

bit of speculation about why

Brian was making so many

notes and apparently carefully

writing down every word. People

thought that maybe he didn’t

trust the minutes. Later, when

his textbook on computer

programs came out, it all

became clear.”

In the preface to his 1995

textbook An introduction to

numerical methods in C++,

Lord Flowers confessed: “It was

an enjoyable hobby, and

immensely relaxing during

interminable committee

meetings, to write snippets of

programs which could later be

tried out at home, and was less

visible to one’s colleagues than

other portable pastimes, such as

wood carving or taking snuff”.

During his time as Rector,

Flowers chaired the Royal

Commission on Environmental

Pollution, and served as the

chairman of the Committee of

Vice-Chancellors and Principals,

now known as Universities UK,

the umbrella body for all UK

universities. For six years he was

president of the European

Science Foundation, and as

Rector he also began routine

visits to south east Asia and

Japan to promote the College

overseas, helping to develop the

College’s international standing

significantly. He was made an

Officier of the Legion d’Honneur

in 1981 – an honour of which

he was extremely proud.

In addition to his high profile

in science and academia, Lord

Flowers is also notable for being

one of the founding members

of the Social Democratic Party,

created in 1981. When first

asked by Dame Shirley Williams,

one of the “gang of four” that

created the party, to leave the

independent cross-benches of

the House of Lords and join

them, he declined. He later

recalled that “two days later I

rang her up and said ‘I’ve been

looking at my face in the mirror

and I can’t stand the sight of it;

do you mind if I change my

mind and join?’”

He was knighted in 1969

and made a life peer in 1979,

when he became Lord Flowers

of Queen’s Gate, the London

street on which he lived as

Rector.

After leaving the University of

London he became Chairman of

the House of Lords Select

Committee on Science and

Technology, and was fondly

remembered as a

parliamentarian by Lord Winston,

Professor of Science and Society

at Imperial, when he

subsequently became chair of

that committee himself. Paying

tribute, Lord Winston said: “Brian

was an extraordinary force, full

of trenchantly-held but very

sound ideas.” He was also a

longstanding Member of the

Parliamentary and Scientific

Committee.

Lord Flowers is remembered

as a Rector who nurtured the

strengths of staff to build a

better College. His approach to

leadership gained him respect

as John Davidson describes:

“Brian was a delight to work with

because he was honest and

straightforward. He was also a

bit puritanical in certain respects.

I never remember him asking

for any benefits for himself in

terms of furnishings and

accommodation in 170 Queen’s

Gate in his 13 years as Rector

and one of his earlier acts was

to get rid of the Imperial College

chauffeur-driven car and acquire

a bus pass!”

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


NEW REPORT REVEALSPUBLIC’S VIEWS ON SYNTHETICBIOLOGYMatt GoodeTel: 01793 413299Mobile: 07766 423 372,email: [email protected]

Nancy MendozaTel: 01793 413355, email:[email protected]

A major new public dialogueactivity on the public's views andattitudes on synthetic biologyhas revealed that most peopleare supportive of the researchbut with conditions on how andwhy it is conducted. Syntheticbiology seeks to apply theprinciples of engineering designto biological systems andprocesses. Scientists believethat it may lead to newapplications, such as novelsystems for energy andchemicals production, medicaltherapies, biological computersand innovative ways to clean uphazardous waste. The findingswere published on 14 June atan event in London to launchthe report of Synthetic BiologyPublic Dialogue. The Dialogueprocess began late last year andincluded workshops with thepublic and interviews withinterested parties.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THEFINDINGS INCLUDE:

• The public see significantopportunities from theapplication of syntheticbiology and hope that itcould help society toaddress major challengessuch as climate change,energy security and seriousdiseases.

• There is uncertainty aboutwhat synthetic biology willlead to and where it isgoing. There are alsoconcerns that it may beprogressing too quickly

when the long-term impactsare unknown.

• The public are keen to seeeffective internationalregulation and control ofsynthetic biology, particularlyconcerning the uncontrolledrelease of syntheticorganisms into theenvironment.

• The motivation of scientistsin this field is important.The public are concernedthat curiosity-drivenresearchers may proceedtoo quickly and they mustconsider the widerimplications of their work.

• The Research Councils werealso seen to have a clearrole in developing thecapabilities for scientists tothink through theirresponsibilities in this newarea of research

The Synthetic Biology PublicDialogue was commissionedand funded by the two UKResearch Councils responsiblefor funding and strategy forsynthetic biology - theBiotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council(BBSRC) and the Engineeringand Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil (EPSRC) - with supportfrom Sciencewise ExpertResource Centre. The Dialoguereport will now be consideredby the two Research Councilswho will include its findings intheir strategic planning on futurefunding and policy around

synthetic biology. As syntheticbiology is in its early stages it willbe important to ensure scientistshave continued dialogue withthe public to make sure itsdevelopment reflects widerpublic concerns and aspirations.

Professor Douglas Kell,BBSRC Chief Executive, said:“We fund research that has thepotential to bring significantbenefits to everyone’s quality oflife. Biological products andprocesses are at the very heartof our existence, and have beenso since ancient times.Synthetic biology is one of manypromising areas of modernbiology in which research hasthe potential for massiveeconomic and social benefits.However, we must and shall notlose sight of the widerimplications of our science,including in potentiallycontroversial areas such assynthetic biology. Talking to thepublic about their hopes,concerns and aspirations givesus an opportunity to ensure thatour science strategies do notdiverge from what society thinks.I hope this dialogue will be thestart of an ongoing conversationaround synthetic biology”

Professor Dave Delpy, EPSRCChief Executive, said: "Syntheticbiology has made considerableadvances in recent years andcould offer solutions to some ofthe big challenges of our time.EPSRC believes that engineeringhas a crucial role to play indeveloping synthetic biology for

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


the benefit of the UK, and hasmade significant investment insupport of this emergingresearch field. Research cannotand should not exist in avacuum, oblivious to publicperceptions and concern. Werecognise the need tounderstand fully the public’sviews and attitudes on syntheticbiology in order to reflect thesein our strategies and policies.We see the need for ourresearchers to showresponsibility for the societalimplications of their work andengage with this debate.”

The Synthetic Biology PublicDialogue involved members ofthe public in discussions aroundsynthetic biology and includedspecialists on the science,governance, application andcontrol of this emerging area ofscience and technology. TheDialogue was conducted under

contract by TNS-BMRB underthe supervision of independentoversight and steeringcommittees. Both committeeswere chaired by theindependent consultant BrianJohnson. 160 members of thepublic were engaged in theprocess, through threeworkshops which took place inLondon, North Wales, Newcastleand Edinburgh. 41 stakeholderinterviews were also conducted.

BBSRC is the UK fundingagency for research in the lifesciences. Sponsored byGovernment, BBSRC annuallyinvests around £470 million in awide range of research thatmakes a significant contributionto the quality of life in the UKand beyond and supports anumber of important industrialstakeholders, including theagriculture, food, chemical,healthcare and pharmaceutical

sectors. www.bbsrc.ac.uk

EPSRC is the main UKgovernment agency for fundingresearch and training inengineering and the physicalsciences, investing more than£850 million a year in a broadrange of subjects - frommathematics to materialsscience, and from informationtechnology to structuralengineering. www.epsrc.ac.uk

BBSRC and EPSRC are partof the Research Councils UKpartnership (RCUK)www.rcuk.ac.uk

Sciencewise - ERC is aDepartment for Business,Innovation and Skills fundedprogramme to bring scientists,government and the publictogether to explore the impactof science and technology in ourlives. It helps policy makers inGovernment departments and

agencies commission and usepublic dialogue to informdecision making in emergingareas of science and technology.Its core aim is to develop thecapacity of Government to carryout good dialogue, to gather anddisseminate good practice, havesuccessful two-waycommunications with the publicand other stakeholders.

LETTER TO THE EDITORThe curious way that Parliament works is a mystery to most of

the world, especially to incoming members! After a series of recentmeetings covering the P&SC, POST, Pitcom, APComms and others Iwas asked about the history of some of these bodies. That causedme to check with the Library to remind myself of the link betweenthe P&SC and POST.

In 1939 the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee (P&SC) wasformed. In 1986 the P&SC determined the need for a newinstitution and sent a delegation to the then Prime Minister tosuggest that some form of resource be established: the ideareceived a warm reception, but no public funding was forthcoming.

As a result of that dialogue the Parliamentary Office of Science &Technology (POST) commenced operation as an independententity in April 1989. At that time it received four years’ pilot fundingfrom a group of foundations: the Nuffield Foundation, the GatsbyFoundation, the Leverhulme Trust, the Wellcome Trust, the RoyalSociety, the Fellowship of Engineering, plus some individualMembers.

An information Committee report from 4th March 1992recommended that POST be funded for three years from April1993 (the point when the pilot funding was to end), and thatpublic funding be reconsidered at that time. According to theHouse of Commons Commission report of 1995-96, funding wasrenewed for 5 years in April 1996.

The House of Commons Information Committee (one of thethen domestic committees), on which I served in the 1992 and1997 Parliaments recommended the incorporation of POST intothe House services.

As I am the sole surviving link in the Commons to this process Ithought I should set out the record before it is all lost in the mistsof time!

Andrew Miller MP

Chair, Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


NEW GOVERNMENT, NEWPARLIAMENT, NEW PEOPLE,SAME ISSUESPaul DaviesHead of Policy

THE IET

The electorate spoke, the parties discussed, the coalition wasformed. A remarkable change has occurred in how the UK isgoverned. Just as remarkable was the number of new MPs electedto Parliament, with over a third of MPs being replaced. So the UKnow has a new type of Government and Parliament is buzzing withnewly elected Members. What else has changed?

Unfortunately the problems facing the country haven’t changedand the need to solve them in a timely and efficient way has neverbeen so important. Engineering hasn’t changed and is still at theheart of raising living standards and solving problems. What haschanged is the way in which the profession engages withGovernment and Parliament. Over the past two years, theprofession has taken to heart the criticism it received from theInnovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee thatthe sheer number of engineering institutions was a barrier togovernment engagement. The profession has been working activelyto form an alliance to offer a single voice and point of contact forGovernment and Parliament. Running under the bannerEngineering the Future (EtF), the alliance is made up of RoyalAcademy of Engineering, Engineering UK, the Engineering Council,the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Institution ofMechanical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers, theInstitution of Chemical Engineers and the Institute of Physics. Thealliance represents a joint membership of over 450,000professionals.

Engineering the Future seeks to co-ordinate the profession’swork with government, for example with joint consultationsubmissions and interactions with Government departments onspecific issues, such as the adaptation of infrastructure to climatechange. EtF also engages with Parliament. With such an influx ofnew blood into Parliament, EtF thought that it would be useful torun a parliamentary event, providing MPs with an opportunity to bebriefed on engineering’s role in the UK and how EtF can help them.

The briefing took place on the rather warm morning of the 30thJune in Westminster Hall. All MPs were invited and around 40 MPsand Peers registered an interest in attending. The briefing washosted by Prof. Christopher Snowden, President of the IET and Vice-President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, with speeches byAndrew Miller MP and Kate Bellingham, the National STEM CareersCoordinator.

During his opening speech Andrew Miller emphasised the needto include the engineering community in relevant policydiscussions. Observing previous examples of policy whereengineers were not consulted, such as the development of eco-towns, Mr. Miller said: "Engineering advice is of great relevance toparliamentarians. Expertise must be sought, valued and used by thecabinet." Professor Snowden reiterated the value of involving theengineering community in policy discussions at an early stage,saying: "Engineering advice has historically not been sought earlyenough in the policy process. Regrettably governments are stilllearning to take engineering and science expertise on board. Weneed to develop a stronger dialogue between engineering andParliament and continue to reinvigorate interest and understandingamongst parliamentarians."

Speaking on a related issue, Kate Bellingham highlighted theneed to encourage more young people into engineering to ensurethat the country had the right skills for the future. Engineering haslong suffered from a poor image, with a subsequent knock oneffect on recruitment. It is often seen as a poorly paid, unattractiveprofession; however the reality is far different. Engineering offers abroad, creative and exciting career and a recent survey revealed thatfour out of the top ten highest graduate salaries are in engineeringsubjects. Ms Bellingham noted: "In schools we must reinforce themessage that science and maths open doors and reinforce thepositive and sometimes hidden messages about engineering.Engineering is vital to the future of the UK." She challenged MPsto promote the positive aspects of a career in engineering to theirconstituents.

It was good to see that a number of the new MPs attended thebriefing and many people commented on how engaged the MPswere on key topics, ranging from local issues such as engineeringemployment and training to the big national problems such asenergy and transport. The problems may be old, but this is thebeginning of the engineering profession’s fresh engagement withthe new Parliament to demonstrate the importance of engineeringto the UK.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


SCIENCE, INNOVATIONAND THE ECONOMY

The Rt Hon David WillettsMP, Minister for Universitiesand Science

So to be science minister isan extraordinary privilege for me.Indeed, so much is going onthat it’s not possible for me tocover every significant issue inscience policy in this, my firstmajor science speech. There areareas which we can only reallyadvance once thecomprehensive spending reviewhas been concluded. I canassure you of my commitmentto the dual support system andthe Haldane principle, and Ihope to reflect further on bothin another speech. I do believein concentration on excellentresearch – and excellence is tobe found in individualdepartments. To take thisparticular debate further wehave to be clear about theconditions in which excellenceactually thrives and how muchresearch funding we will be ableto distribute.

Most importantly, I recognisemy deep responsibility to thescientific community in these

austere times. Good things wereachieved over the past decadeand I salute the achievementsof David Sainsbury, for example.But the Government wasborrowing too much, evenbefore the Crash. It was a debt-driven boom. It never wassustainable but, as so often, ittook a recession to reveal theuncomfortable truth. Whicheverparty won the last electionwould have had to face difficultdecisions. The previousGovernment left no long-termspending plan – only acommitment to save £600mfrom the Higher Education,Science and Research budgetsby 2012-13, without specifyingwhere these savings came from.

I recognise that countries likethe US, Canada and Francehave reacted to recession byspending more on science. Buttheir public finances are inmuch better shape than ours.The US government’s deficit asa percentage of GDP in 2009

was 10.2 per cent. Canada’swas two per cent, France’s sixper cent, Germany’s 1.6 percent. Ours was 11.1 per cent.And when I meet ministers fromother governments at the EUCouncil on Competitiveness andResearch, they are just aspreoccupied with saving moneyas we are. That is why the costof the ITER programme fornuclear fusion was the topconcern of fellow minsters atthe last meeting. These areaustere times for us all. But thisGovernment wants science toemerge from this period to bestrong, sustainable and effective.Vince Cable and GeorgeOsborne both understand thekey role of science, technologyand innovation in rebalancingthe economy.

I am an optimist aboutscience’s capacity to do this,because the deep forces drivingits growth and popularity are aspowerful as ever. A veryimportant stimulus for scientific

ROYAL INSTITUTION, LONDON 9 JULY 2010

It may not have been a great Summer for football but it hascertainly been a great Summer for science. The Royal Society hascelebrated its 350th anniversary in great style with a display onthe South Bank that showcases pioneering British science. TheBBC has been doing a fantastic job, from Martin Rees’s ReithLectures on radio to Michael Mosley’s “The Story of Science” andBrian Cox’s “Wonders of the Solar System” on television. Excitingand accessible science books are spread out across the tables atWaterstones. And here, at the Royal Institution, you’ve beenhighlighting the potential of nanotechnologies – as well asholding lectures on the measurable shortcomings of the Englandfootball team.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


advance is, quite simply,technology. We talk of scientificdiscovery enabling technicaladvance, but the process ismuch more inter-dependentthan that. For example, imagingtechnology is driven by thedemands of astronomers, andthen enables those sameastronomers to make newdiscoveries. It’s because of thisprocess that we’ve been able toview this week those awe-inspiring images of the oldestlight in the cosmos, gathered bythe Planck space telescope.Meanwhile it allows medicalimaging to advance along theway, almost as a by-product ofour age old desire to look intothe heavens.

In my speech at BirminghamUniversity in May, I spoke oflinks between the academic andthe vocational, the conceptualand the physical. We are notalways good at this – we haveworld-class particle physicists atthe Large Hadron Collider butsadly not many British engineershelped to build it. But there areother areas where these linksbetween British science andtechnology are stronger. We notonly have distinguishedastronomers, but it wasscientists and engineers atCardiff University who producedthe Spectral and PhotometricImaging Receiver for Herscheland Planck. This combination ofscientific research and

technological advance createsextraordinary dynamism, bothintellectual and commercial. Isee it as one of my tasks tostrengthen these links. That iswhy one of my ambitions is totry to ensure that the excitingintellectual advance of nuclearfusion – we are world leadersat Culham – also drives Britishtechnological and industrialdevelopment.

This does not just apply tothe natural sciences but to socialsciences too. Howard Davies isright to remind us of theirimportance. I’m encouraged bythe progress we’re making inunderstanding humanbehaviour. Understanding socialmobility, individual well being,stable families: these arechallenges where strong socialscience can really contribute. Myown recent book, The Pinch, onfairness between thegenerations drew on insightsfrom neuroscience, evolutionarybiology and game theory. Thebirth cohort studies of 1958 and1970, reinvigorated by themillennium cohort study, havefundamentally shaped thedebate about social mobility inBritain. Well being is a hot topicin Whitehall at the moment. Wejust held a valuable seminar inmy department, withcontributions from healthexperts, social scientists,psychologists and economists.

More broadly, as societybecomes more diverse andcultural traditions increasinglyfractured, I see the scientific wayof thinking – empiricism –becoming more and moreimportant for binding ustogether. Increasingly, we haveto abide by John Rawls’sstandard for public reason –justifying a particular position byarguments that people fromdifferent moral or politicalbackgrounds can accept. Andcoalition, I believe, is good forgovernment and for science,given the premium nowattached to reason andevidence. We have alreadyoffered a science induction fornew MPs, and ensured that theprinciples of scientific advice togovernment are referred to inthe new ministerial code. Inaddition the Government’s ChiefScientific Adviser, Sir JohnBeddington, has updated hisguidelines on the use ofscientific and engineering advicein policy making.

You might say that science isdoing so well in the publicsphere that the greatest risks itfaces are complacency andarrogance. Crude reductionismputs people off. Scientists canmorph from admired publicluminaries into public enemies,as debates over nuclear powerand GM made clear. And yet Iremain optimistic here too. TheUK Research Councils had theforesight to hold a publicdialogue about ramifications ofsynthetic biology ahead of Craig

Venter developing the first cellcontrolled by synthetic DNA.This dialogue showed that thereis conditional public support forsynthetic biology. There is greatenthusiasm for the possibilitiesassociated with this field, butalso fears about controlling itand the potential for misuse;there are concerns aboutimpacts on health and theenvironment. We would do wellto remember this commentfrom a participant: "Why do theywant to do it? … Is it becausethey will be the first person todo it? Is it because they justcan’t wait? What are they goingto gain from it? … The fact thatyou can take something that’snatural and produce fuel, great– but what is the bad side of it?What else is it going to do?"Synthetic biology must not gothe way of GM. It must retainpublic trust. That meansunderstanding that fellowcitizens have their worries andconcerns which cannot just bedismissed.

Transparency is part of theanswer. In the CoalitionAgreement, we have undertakento create a new right for thepublic to request government-held datasets – informationwhich will be published in anopen and standardised formatfor ease of use. The controversyover climate change data at theUniversity of East Anglia hasreally highlighted the importanceof this measure. We must, ofcourse, have due regard topersonal privacy, the opportunity

. . . I recognise my deep

responsibility to the scientific

community in these austere

times. . .

. . . In the Coalition Agreement, we

have undertaken to create a new

right for the public to request

government-held datasets . . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


to commercialise research, andnational security – but,otherwise, scientific enquirydepends on practitioners beingable to test and challenge bothmethods and results. I havealready had some fascinatingdiscussions with Tim Berners-Lee and Nigel Shadbolt abouthow we might boost datasharing.

This argument fortransparency and openness isactually the best protection forscience. We cannot, for example,have writers facing libel chargesbecause they offer a scientificcritique of other people’s claims.This is an issue which I haveraised with Ken Clarke, the LordChancellor, and which hisdepartment recognizes theymust address.

So science is an everstronger voice in the nationalconversation. For the rest of thisspeech, I want to focus primarilyon the economic case forinvestment in science andresearch. In trying to link thesegrandiose arguments witheconomic returns, I’m remindedof a rather pompous Oxford donwho recommended the study ofGreek literature to his Victorianundergraduates, because it “notonly elevates above the vulgarherd but leads not infrequentlyto positions of considerableemolument.” And especiallywhen money is tight,emolument matters. Publicspending on science, just like

everything else, has to stand upto rigorous economic scrutiny.Let’s consider some of the mostfrequently used arguments.

The first relates to thebenefits – often unanticipated –which accrue from blue skiesresearch. Few scientists are assure of their purpose as thatman encountered by Gulliver,who was “eight years upon aproject for extracting sunbeamsout of cucumbers, which wereto be put in phials hermeticallysealed, and let out to warm theair in raw inclement summers.”The man had no doubts aboutimpact. As he told Gulliver, “hedid not doubt, that, in eightyears more, he should be ableto supply the governor’s gardenswith sunshine, at a reasonablerate”, and was desperate foradditional funding “as anencouragement to ingenuity,especially since this had been avery dear season forcucumbers.”

Margaret Thatcher was morecircumspect when she wrong-footed sceptical Cabinetcolleagues with her defence ofpublic spending on the LargeHadron Collider. “Yes, but isn’t itinteresting?” was enough to stifletheir objections. And her interestin the work at CERN wasrewarded by Tim Berners-Leeestablishing the groundwork forthe World Wide Web. I’ve seenthe original computer serverwith a note from Tim attached,instructing fellow scientists not

to switch it off. Our lives havetruly been revolutionised by hisinventiveness.

The surprising paths whichserendipity takes us down is amajor reason why we need tothink harder about impact. Thereis no perfect way to assessimpact, even looking backwardsat what has happened. Iappreciate why scientists arewary, which is why I’mannouncing today a one-yeardelay to the implementation ofthe Research ExcellenceFramework, to figure outwhether there is a method ofassessing impact which is soundand which is acceptable to theacademic community. Thislonger timescale will enableHEFCE, its devolvedcounterparts, and ministers tomake full use of the pilot impactassessment exercise whichconcludes in the Autumn, andthen to consider whether it canbe refined.

We can also learn fromelsewhere. For instance, thereare some interestingdevelopments underway in theUnited States, where the StarMetrics initiative is seeking totrack the science dollarspumped into universitiesthrough the recoveryprogramme and will then tracetheir impact on the broadereconomy. My department andthe Research Councils aremonitoring progress on thisfront.

But let’s go back to thosearguments for science. Theprevious government appearedto think of innovation as if itwere a sausage machine. You’resupposed to put money intouniversity-based scientificresearch, which leads to patentsand then spinout companiesthat secure venture capitalbacking. The mature businessprovides tax revenues for theGovernment, jobs for the localarea, a nice profit for theuniversity, perhaps with Porschesin the departmental car park. Itsounds very attractive and itdoes happen – ImperialInnovations has been a greatsuccess. But it’s too neat andtidy an account of scientific andcommercial progress. The worlddoes not work like this as oftenas you might think. And that isnot our failure – it is a gap inthat whole picture of innovation.Indeed it may actually have hadthe perverse effect of anexaggerated focus on IP andspinouts. On average theamount that universitiesgenerate from commercialisingtheir IP (through licenses andselling stakes in spinouts) is lessthen 3 per cent of their totalincome from business andcharities. Two Cambridge firms,ARM Holdings and AutonomyCorporation, are now in theFTSE100, but their route wasmore via mobility of researchersthan via conventional spin outs.There are many other ways ofharvesting benefits from

. . . Margaret Thatcher’s interest

in the work at CERN was

rewarded by Tim Berners-Lee

establishing the groundwork for

the World Wide Web. . .

. . . The surprising paths which

serendipity takes us down is a

major reason why we need to

think harder about impact. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


research. But the benefits arereal.

For example, I’m a firmbeliever in clusters – bestdefined as a low-riskenvironment for high-risk activity.I think of places like Dundee,where, according to the citycouncil, some 350 computergame and creative industriescompanies are based aroundAbertay University. The areaaround Dundee is now home toabout three quarters of all Britishjobs in computer gamedevelopment. At the same time,Dundee has made a name foritself in life sciences, where first-rate research has attractedsignificant investment frommulti-national businesses.

But that’s not the end of thestory. There are other issues aswell. Consider the spur ofnational pride – the pride, so tospeak, of planting our flag onEverest first. There are, of courseindividuals – whether Olympicmedallists or Nobel prizewinners – whose achievementscan be regarded as a vividreflection of the health of thecountry that produced them. Weall take pride in them. There’scertainly nothing wrong withwanting to achieve somethingfor your country. And fame,competition and pride arehuman motives that we find inevery walk of life. But none ofthis is an economic argumentfor being the first person tomake a scientific discovery. Whydoes it matter economicallythat we should be first or thatsomething should be discovered

by a Brit? What exactly is theeconomic problem if the nextscientific discoveries originateoverseas, rather than here?

I think that the answer is thatwe need enough good scienceso we have the capacity totackle a new problem, to reacteffectively to scientificbreakthroughs however orwherever they may arise, and tocapitalise on thosebreakthroughs via researchprogrammes and businessinitiatives of our own. Some 95per cent of scientific research isconducted outside the UK. Weneed to be able to apply it here– and, in advanced scientificfields, it is often necessary toconduct leading-edge researchin order to understand,assimilate and exploit theleading-edge research of others.It is this absorptive capacitywhich is crucial. Indeed, Griffiths,Redding and Van Reenen haveshown that higher domesticbusiness R&D spend also leadsto greater productivity beinggenerated at home from foreignR&D spend as well. And thereare powerful feedbackmechanisms on top of this –foreign companies cite thequality of the public researchbase as one of the mainreasons for locating their owninternationally mobile R&D here.

Now, this is, of course,something that we do already –yet the widespread notion isquite different; that the Britishinvent and then fail to execute.On the contrary, the first modelfor computer tomography arosein South Africa, but the first CT

scanner was made here in theUK. The ozone layer wasdiscovered by French physicists,but UK scientists devised a wayof measuring it, while membersof the British Antarctic surveyfound a big hole in it.

Government backing forresearch does make economicsense. I was particularlyinterested to read the recentImperial College DiscussionPaper by Jonathan Haskel andGavin Wallis, “Public support forInnovation, Intangibleinvestment and ProductivityGrowth in the UK MarketSector”. It shows particularlystrong spillover benefits fromR&D spend on researchcouncils. It shows a positivereturn from other forms of R&Dtoo, but the spillover benefitsseem to be greatest from theresearch councils. This isinteresting evidence thatresearch council spend is doingthe job it should be doing –generating wider benefits acrossthe economy as a whole. Andthe fact that one of the authorsis a Treasury official only adds toits value!

These arguments aboutclusters, about absorptivecapacity and the importance ofbasic research have already led

me to a number of conclusionsabout the role of government insupporting science andinnovation. I can’t talk aboutlevels of investment – that mustawait the CSR – but I do wantto share my thinking on policydirection.

First, it makes sense forgovernment to back sharedfacilities – research platforms ifyou like – which privatecompanies could not developon their own. So I’m delightedthat a state-of-the-art laboratoryis opening today at the HarwellScience and Innovation Campusin Oxfordshire. The new£26million lab is next to theDiamond Light Source, the ISISneutron source and the CentralLaser Facility. It will allowresearchers to work side-by-sidewith beam line experts in fieldsranging from drug developmentto novel materials. (They mighteven find that the mostimportant room on the site isthe coffee bar, as at the Hauserforum in Cambridge.) To date,experimentation at Diamondalone has helped firms like RollsRoyce to apply synchrotrontechniques for aerospace andenergy applications; Pfizer andGlaxoSmithKline on drugdiscovery and development;Johnson Matthey on improved

. . . in advanced scientific

fields, it is often necessary to

conduct leading-edge

research in order to

understand, assimilate and

exploit the leading-edge

research of others. . .

. . . The area around Dundee is now

home to about three quarters of all

British jobs in computer game

development. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


emissions control catalysts. Thisis how publicly backed R&Dboosts economic performance –one OECD study found that a 1per cent increase in public R&Dincreased overall productivity by0.17 per cent.

I’m similarly keen onpursuing further programmesalong the lines of Skynet, theUK’s single biggest space projectsystem and the provider ofsecure satellite tele-communications for Britain’sarmed forces. With Skynet, theMinistry of Defence purchased aservice, and requests furthercapability as necessary, but doesnot own the hardware. Instead,Astrium can sell sparebandwidth to other governmentdepartments and friendly states,thereby reducing MoD costs.Skynet is an example of smartpublic sector procurement.Instead of buying a satellite, theMoD bought a service andcreated a commercialopportunity at the same time.Spending about £220 billionpounds annually, it’s vital thatthe public sector uses thatpurchasing power effectively.There is a lot more that we cando here both to back SMEs andto back innovation. A purchasingcontract can be as effective away to get money to aninnovative small business as agrant or a capital investment:this is particularly important attimes when banks are soreluctant to lend.

The economist DaronAcemoglu has shown howdemand is sometimesaggregated or mediated throughGovernment, as with defence or(in the UK) healthcare. In thesecases the procurement decisionsof Government can haveimportant intended orunintended consequences forinnovation. ARM Holdings,whom I mentioned earlier,started life as a collaborationbetween Apple and Acorn, themakers of the BBC microcomputer. A BBC contract wascrucial in its expansion tobecome producer of the world’smost widely-used 32-bitmicroprocessor family. We mustget better at stimulatingbusinesses through this route sothat other small firms can behelped on the road to similarsuccess.

So far I have identifiedpublicly funded research facilitiesand better public procurement.A third option worth exploring ispublic competitions for newtechnologies. Many of you willrecall the stir caused by JohnMcCain during the 2008 USpresidential race, when heproposed a $300 million prizefor battery technology to bringplug-in hybrids & fully electricautomobiles into commercialuse. It was criticised at the timein the New Scientist andelsewhere because it did notreflect the lessons that had beenlearnt on the best design of

such prizes. Economic analysiscan teach us a lot here. His ideahas impressive antecedents inthis country. As we know fromDava Sobel’s bestsellerLongitude, inventors earnedmore than £100,000 throughterms set out in the LongitudeAct of 1714, including £14,000to John Harrison for his work onchronometers over the course ofthree decades.

In the early twentieth century,teams competing in theSchneider Trophy for seaplanedevelopment sometimesreceived money from thegovernment, as well as RAFpilots on loan. Advances inaerodynamics and low-drag,liquid-cooled engines thencontributed to the effectivenessof the Spitfire. A US firm,InnoCentive, runs what hasbeen called an eBay forinnovators in which companiesset out problems which theirnetwork of 200,000 registeredexperts solve for a fee. Oneappraisal showed a third ofproblems which originatorscould not solve were solved byan outside expert who might befrom a different discipline. Andseparately, the charity, the XPrize Foundation, identifiesbigger challenges for which itsets a prize: it has driveninnovation in sub-orbital spaceflight – including with our veryown Richard Branson’s VirginGalactic. These sorts of networksare fundamental to a nation’sinnovative capacity and dependon a wide range of expertise.These prizes, if designed right,

can be effective drivers ofinnovation. And it need not beGovernment which sets the prizeor the challenge – it can happenin marketplaces on the web too.

The challenge we face is tomake best use of our sciencebase. Especially in a time ofausterity, we inevitably think ofthe way it can contribute toeconomic growth. I stronglybelieve that contribution maycome best if we encourageopenness and innovation, not ifwe try to micromanage ouruniversities, direct researchers orcount patents. If we get theenvironment right, the evidenceis overwhelmingly that scientificresearch can contribute toeconomic growth. A series ofexcellent recent reports have notjust shown this but gone furtherand identified policy options fordoing better in the future. I thinkof the report from the Council forScience and Technology, A Visionfor UK Research; The RoyalSociety report, The ScientificCentury; Herman Hauser’s reporton technology innovationcentres; Nesta’s recent work and,of course, James Dyson’s veryvaluable report for my party,Ingenious Britain. There is lot ofoverlap between them and theyprovide the intellectualfoundations on which we can setto work on the task ofrebalancing our economy. Theway forward lies in exploiting anevidently outstanding researchcapability with clear potential,under the right conditions, todrive sustainable economicgrowth.

. . . Skynet is an example of

smart public sector

procurement. . .

. . . If we get the environment right,

the evidence is overwhelmingly that

scientific research can contribute to

economic growth. . .

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECTCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE AND THE NEW PARLIAMENT

Andrew Miller MP, Chair, Commons SelectCommittee on Science and Technology

I am delighted to have been elected as Chairof the Science and Technology Committee.Electing the Chairs is a new departure for theHouse and as time goes on we will discoverwhether the new Committees are able toexercise more authority as a result of the electoralprocess. The members of the Committee havebeen elected or appointed by their own partymechanism and they are:

Gavin Barwell (Con)Gregg McClymont (Lab)Stephen Metcalfe (Con)David Morris (Con)Stephen Mosley (Con)Pamela Nash (Lab)Jonathan Reynolds (Lab)Alok Sharma (Con)Graham Stringer (Lab)Roger Williams (Lib Dem)

We are at the stage of planning ourprogramme of work for the future, but will behaving early evidence sessions with the ScienceMinister, David Willetts as well as the ChiefScientific Advisor, Professor Sir John Beddington

My predecessor, Phil Willis, worked very closelywith the scientific community and I pay tribute tothe work they did. Not only hard hitting—indeedcontroversial—reports such as that onhomeopathy, but valuable reports such as“Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart ofGovernment Policy”, which affect the wayGovernment uses science. Phil also did a terrificjob in keeping the Committee’s profile at theforefront of science scrutiny. He set a highstandard.

Having a parliamentary science committee isextremely valuable and important. It sits at theconvergence of strong forces: science,government, politics and ethics. Elected memberscome to science and technology issues fromdifferent angles, bringing values and judgementsthat differ from academics and industrialists. Weawait the make-up of the new Committee but it

may well follow the pattern of previousParliaments: a group of members some with ascientific background and expertise and otherswith a strong interest in science and technology.If the pattern is repeated, I would expectchallenging reports to the House of Commonsand to government.

I see two major issues on the horizon thatmay shape the new Committee’s futureprogramme.

First, there is the challenge of maintaining theexcellent UK science base in the currenteconomic climate. The relationship betweenscience and economic growth is complex but Idetect an awareness that investment in scienceprovides the seed corn for future economicgrowth. That is not to say that both the publicand private sector funding of science may facesevere constrains in the next few years. I cannotspeak for the Committee until it is formed but Iwould expect that it will take a close interest inspending on science and ensure that UK scienceis not severely damaged.

Second, one area I am interested in is how weas a society see and use science. On the onehand, as a society we should be excited aboutscience and get full value from the contribution itcan make to our social and economic wellbeing.But many of our best ideas are put intoproduction overseas and we do not get the fulleconomic benefit. As a society we should feelconfident in the use of science but many do notunderstand science and actually feel threatenedby it. Indeed, it could be characterised as an anti-science culture. It is vitally important and that wehave a society that understands and valuesscience and scientists. Science and Society is asubject I would like to the new Committee toexamine.

There are numerous, vital challenges facingthe new Government. It is my job to ensure thatthe new Science and Technology Committeecontinues to make an important contribution tothe scrutiny of science and science policy in thenew parliament.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE

The House of Lords Science andTechnology Select Committee wasappointed on 22 June 2010. Themembers of the Committee are:Lord Broers, Lord Crickhowell, LordCunningham of Felling, BaronessHilton of Eggardon, Lord Krebs(Chairman), Lord Methuen,Baroness Neuberger, Lord Patel,Baroness Perry of Southwark, LordRees of Ludlow, the Earl ofSelborne, Lord Wade of Chorley,Lord Warner and Lord Winston.

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE POLICYINTERVENTIONS

The Select Committee has appointed a Sub-

Committee to conduct an inquiry into the use of

behaviour change policy interventions in

Government, under the Chairmanship of

Baroness Neuberger. A call for evidence will be

published before the House rises for the summer

recess. Further information about the inquiry will

be available on the Committee’s webpages.

EVIDENCE SESSION WITH THEMINISTER FOR UNIVERSITIES ANDSCIENCE, THE RT HON DAVIDWILLETTS MP

The Select Committee will be holding a one-

off evidence session with the Minister for

Universities and Science, the Rt Hon David

Willetts MP, on the 13 July. A transcript of

evidence will be available on the Committee’s

webpages.

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR PUBLICLYFUNDED RESEARCH

An inquiry into setting science and technology

research funding priorities was launched in July

2009. The inquiry was undertaken by the Select

Committee under the chairmanship of Lord

Sutherland of Houndwood.

Cuts in overall public spending due to the

current economic climate have given rise to

some difficult decisions about how to allocate

public funds for science and technology research.

Effective mechanisms for allocating funds are vital

if the United Kingdom science base is to remain

healthy, both now and in the future, and is able

to continue to meet societal needs. In its inquiry,

the Committee investigated a range of issues

including how decisions about funding research

are made across Government and within

Government departments and other public

bodies, whether the balance between funding for

targeted research and unsolicited response-

mode curiosity-driven research is appropriate, and

how research is commissioned.

The Committee held a seminar with key

experts and relevant stakeholders on 14 October

and oral evidence sessions took place between

28 October and 4 February 2010. A wide range

of evidence was taken. Witnesses included: Lord

Drayson, (then) Minister for Science and

Innovation; Professor Sir John Beddington, the

Government Chief Scientific Adviser; Professor

Adrian Smith, Director General for Science and

Research at the Department for Business,

Innovation and Skills; Lord Sainsbury of Turville;

and representatives from the Research Councils

and from other relevant bodies and organisations.

The Committee’s report was published on 1 April.

The Government response is awaited. A debate

on the report is likely to take place during the

current session of Parliament.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT:A FURTHER UPDATE

In January 2010, the Select Committee

appointed a Sub-Committee to conduct a short

follow-up inquiry into the management of

radioactive waste, following the Committee’s

previous reports on the subject, the last of which

was published in session 2006-07.

The inquiry focused on the role and

performance of the Committee on Radioactive

Waste Management (CoRWM), the body which

provides independent scrutiny and advice on the

implementation of the Government’s Managing

Radioactive Waste Safely programme. The

Committee held evidence sessions with the

following: representatives from CoRWM; Lord

Hunt, (then) Minister of State at the Department

of Energy and Climate Change (DECC); and

representatives from DECC and from the Nuclear

Decommissioning Authority and published its

report on 25 March 2010. The Government

response is awaited. It is anticipated that the

report will be debated during the current session

of Parliament.

NANOTECHNOLOGIES AND FOOD

In November 2008, the Select Committee

appointed a Sub-Committee to investigate

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


nanotechnologies and food under the chairmanship of Lord Krebs.

The inquiry covered food products, additives and supplements, food

contact materials, food manufacturing processes, animal feed,

pesticides and fertilisers. It included examination of issues relating

to the current development of nanotechnologies and their use in

the food sector, health and safety, the regulatory framework, and

public engagement and consumer information. The Committee’s

report was published on 8 January 2010. The Government

published their response in March and the report will be debated in

the House on 13 July.

GENOMIC MEDICINE

During session 2007-08, the Select Committee appointed a

Sub-Committee, chaired by Lord Patel, to hold an inquiry into

genomic medicine. The Committee’s report was published on the 6

July 2009 and the Government response was published in the

following December. The report was debated in the House on 9

June 2010.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The written and oral evidence to the Committee’s inquiries

mentioned above, as well as the Calls for Evidence and other

documents can be found on the Committee’s website

www.parliament.uk/hlscience. Further information about the work of

the Committee can be obtained from Christine Salmon Percival,

Committee Clerk, [email protected] or 020 7219 6072. The

Committee’s email address is [email protected].

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTSECTIONNothing to Report

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (POST)WITH DEEP REGRET

Former Board Members and Staff of POST have been deeply saddened by the news of therecent death of Lord Flowers of Queensgate. Brian Flowers was an assiduous member ofPOST’s Board from its earliest days, and also a trustee of the Parliamentary Science andTechnology Information Foundation, until ill health forced him to resign a few years ago.

Everyone associated with POST owed him a great debt of gratitude for the forthright way inwhich he promoted the role of POST as a horizon-scanning organisation – focussing onidentifying forthcoming issues before they reach the general policy stage.

RECENT POST PUBLICATIONS

Science in the New Parliament Special four page briefing, May 2010

At the time of every general election, POSTproduces a special briefing highlighting what itconsiders will be some of the main science-based issues that the new Parliament is likely toencounter. Some have already been covered by

POST in its series of regular briefings forparliamentarians (POSTnotes) and others will bethe subject of future notes. A great deal ofmaterial is compressed into POST’s usual fourpage briefing format for this publication, whichhas received numerous favourable comments.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


356 - Addictive Behaviours Four page POSTnote, May 2010

Behaviours such as gambling and over-eating can becomecompulsive and are linked to personal and social problems. Thisnote reviews research on the addictive dimensions of gambling,eating, sex, internet use and shopping. It provides an overview offactors contributing to addictive behaviours and their personal andsocial consequences. It also examines the implications for treatmentprovision, public health and prevention strategies and industryregulation.

357 - EU Fisheries ManagementFour page POSTnote, May 2010

The existing Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has not deliveredsustainable fisheries for Europe. In addition to lost fisheriesproductivity, there have been unwanted impacts on the marineenvironment and economically inefficient fisheries that are morevulnerable to financial shocks. The recent European Commission(EC) Green Paper on the reform of the CFP reconfirms the need toadopt an ecosystem approach to ensure the CFP supports theMarine Strategy Framework Directive. This POSTnote describeschallenges to ecosystem-based fisheries management and howthese might be tackled.

358 - Biochar Four page POSTnote, June 2010

Biochar is carbon rich material made by heating organic matter inlow oxygen conditions. It may have the potential to reduce levels ofatmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), thus helping the UK to meet itsgreenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. Furthermore, applyingbiochar to agricultural land could improve soil fertility, althoughresearch is far from definitive as results are variable. This POSTnoteexamines the current status of research into the production and useof biochar, the feasibility of using it to combat climate change, andany unintended consequences that may result.

359 - EU Science & Technology Funding Four page POSTnote, June 2010

The EU Seventh Framework Programme for Research andTechnological Development (FP7) is the world’s largest researchprogramme with a total budget of €53.2 billion. Based on pastperformance, FP7 could be worth over €7billion to the UK; about€1 billion a year. The development process of the next FP, whichwill replace FP7 in 2014, is under way. This POSTnote explains theFP system and current developments.

360 - Genetically Modified Insects Four page POSTnote, June 2010

Insects are essential to global ecology and show remarkablyvaried adaptations to their environment. They are also responsiblefor economic and social harm worldwide through the transmissionof disease to humans and animals, and damage to crops. Theirgenetic modification has been proposed as a new way of controllinginsect pests. However, regulatory guidelines governing the use ofsuch technology have not yet been fully developed.

CURRENT WORKBiological sciences and health - Assisted Reproduction, DeceptionDetection Technologies, Drug Pricing, Indoor Air Pollution

Environment and Energy - Future Electricity Transmission,Environmental Limits (long report), Sea Level Rise,

Physical sciences and IT - Digital Preservation, Disruption of theInternet, Space Weather, Solar Technologies, Electric Vehicles,National Infrastructure Resilience

Science, Technology and the Developing World – Biofortification

CONFERENCES AND SEMINARSOn 15th June, POST hosted its special post-election briefing for

new MPs, chaired by POST’s former Board member, Mr MichaelConnarty MP. Participating were David Willetts MP, Minister of Statefor Science and Universities, Professor Sir John Beddington,Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Lord Willis of Knaresborough,former chair of the House of Commons Science and TechnologyCommittee, and Andrew Miller MP, new chair of the House ofCommons Science and Technology Committee.

Also in June, , POST hosted a seminar, chaired by Lord Patel ofDunkeld, to present the results of its June 2010 POSTnote onGenetically Modified Insects, which has attracted a great deal ofattention. Presentations were made by Professor Paul Eggleston,Professor of Molecular Entomology, Keele University, Professor LukeAlphey, Chief Scientific Officer, Oxitec Ltd., Dr Jon Knight, SeniorLecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial CollegeLondon and Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, Co-Director, EcoNexus.

In July, Lord Selborne hosted a joint seminar organised by POSTand the Living with Environmental Change consortium.Environmental change (for example in climate, biodiversity, flooding)presents major challenges to both the natural world and society, andoffers opportunities for business and the emerging green economy.The Living with Environmental Change programme of 22 UK publicsector research and policy partners is optimising the coherence andeffectiveness of UK environmental research. By working inpartnership, the programme is ensuring that the UK obtains bestvalue as it mitigates, adapts to and capitalises on environmentalchange.

The seminar, addressed by Professor Andrew Watkinson, Directorof Living with Environmental Change and Colin Drummond, ChiefExecutive Viridor Ltd & Chair of Living with Environmental ChangeBusiness Advisory Board, was an opportunity to learn about howresearch is feeding into policy effectively.

STAFF, FELLOWS AND INTERNS AT POST Conventional Fellows John Bissell, Imperial College London, Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council FellowshipRebecca Caygill, Leeds University, Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council FellowshipFrederick Cook, John Innes Centre, Norwich, Biotechnology andBiological Sciences Research Council FellowshipMandeep Dhillon, Leeds University, Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council FellowshipRobert Dorrell, Bristol University, Natural Environment ResearchCouncil FellowshipRosalyn Robison, Cambridge University, Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council FellowshipOliver St John, Oxford University, Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council Fellowship

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


SELECTED DEBATES ANDPARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONSAND ANSWERS

Following is a selection of Debatesand Questions and Answers fromthe House of Commons and Houseof Lords.

Full digests of all Debates,Questions and Answers on topics ofscientific interest from both Housesof Parliament can be found on thewebsite:

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Please log in using the members’and subscribers’ password(available from the CommitteeSecretariat) and go to Publications:Digests

SELECTED DEBATES

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 10March

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North): The BritishIndian Ocean Territory consists of Diego Garciaand an archipelago of islands some distanceaway from Diego Garcia. Everyone nowrecognises that the way that the islanders weretreated was fundamentally wrong and many,many apologies have been offered to them. Theislands were part of the British Indian oceancolonies throughout the 19th century. In the1960s, the United States was casting around fora base in the Indian ocean, to have a site that itscargo planes, ships and submarines could use asa naval facility in the Indian ocean as part of itsVietnam war effort. The then US President,Lyndon Johnson, and the then British PrimeMinister, Harold Wilson, came to an agreementthat Diego Garcia could be used as a US baseand a lease arrangement was agreed. That wasdone in a considerable degree of secrecy andadditional requirements were made that theouter islands, as well as the island of DiegoGarcia itself, should be depopulated. Thepopulation was systematically moved away andeffectively dumped on the Seychelles andMauritius.

Laura Moffatt (Crawley): Most of us whohave grown up understanding the injustice thathas taken place and how islanders were treatedlike cattle and removed to Mauritius and theSeychelles have a great sense of the wrong thathas been done. Those people weresubsequently given access to a British passportand turned up in the centre of a town virtuallydestitute.. The system let them down in manyways. It is very special to realise that the childrenof that community are doing extremely well atschool and that its first students have gone touniversity.

Keith Simpson, Shadow Minister, ForeignAffairs The UK presence is tiny on Diego Garcia.The issue has been highlighted by accusations ofextraordinary rendition, and I do not want to gointo the details. The crucial point about themilitary presence on Diego Garcia, is that by

2014, we must consider proposals for anyrevisions of the agreement-2016 is the cut-offdate-and that is only four years away. My bestguess in 2010 is that it is highly unlikely that theUnited States will want to withdraw completelyfrom Diego Garcia, because of the way in whichthe world has changed.

Ivan Lewis, Minister of State Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs, Foreign andCommonwealth Office: There can be no doubtabout the responsibility and culpability of thiscountry for the decisions that were made in thelate ‘60s and early ‘70s. Because of that, we oweit to the Chagossian community to ensure thatwe behave appropriately and in a way that, whileremaining consistent with our interests, is alsosensitive to our responsibilities. The key issueraised during the debate was the right of return,and in that context it is important to look at thedifferent legal processes that have taken placeand explain why the Government felt that theywished to pursue the case legally. We have nochoice at this stage but to defend our position inthe courts, but we must remember that we areculpable for what happened historically. Thatmoral responsibility will never go away, and wehave to find ways, of constantly recognising that,accepting our responsibility and being held toaccount.

Climate Change: Copenhagen Conference

Debate in the House of Lords on Thursday 14January

Lord Oxburgh: I had not intended to talkabout science today because the science was notseriously questioned at Copenhagen - it was notthe issue. On the other hand, it is worth making acomment or two on it. When the former leader ofone of the world’s important countries, said, ashe commonly did, that the science is not certain,that was pretty much a content - free statement.It does not mean anything unless you specifywhat question the science is supposed to answer.Although scientists, climatologists and so forthdisagree about a great many of the details, thegeneral direction of change is not seriouslyquestioned by many. It is very difficult toquestion the influence of our greenhouse gasesin controlling the earth’s temperature and

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


question the fact that during the past 150 years we havesignificantly increased those by roughly 30 per cent. People whodeny that really have to recognise that they have to come up with awhole new theory for temperature distribution in the terrestrialplanets, which has stood the test of time for about 100 years, ifthey want to throw out the concept of greenhouse gas perturbation.When you come to the precise consequences of this - how muchice melts where; whether we are talking about 2 or 3 degrees -there is much more scope for disagreement over modelling andbetween the different approaches taken. However, there is nearlyuniform agreement on the general direction of change.

Turning to the Copenhagen conference, certainly the outcomewas a disappointment to many. One cannot avoid the feeling thatthe approaches to the conference were buoyed up on a somewhatunsubstantiated froth of optimism. There is nothing wrong withthat, but that is what I think it was. Certainly, many small anddeveloping countries must have come away with a feeling of deepdisappointment because they believe that they are the innocentvictims of environmental damage which they had no part increating.

One of the favourable outcomes of Copenhagen was that thereappeared to be a willingness on the part of the developed world torecognise that and to help both with adaptation and mitigation.There is some way to go and a great many details have to beworked out. However, arguably, the most important consequenceof the conference was that simply by going to Copenhagen in thenumbers they did, world leaders demonstrated the importance thatthey attached to tackling climate change.

Lord Rees of Ludlow: It is sometimes said fatalistically that theUK’s stance on climate change is of marginal import because ouremissions are only 1 or 2 per cent of the problem, but we haveleverage in two respects. The first is political. Our Government haveshown leadership both internationally and through the ClimateChange Act. We also have leverage through science andengineering. We have the expertise to spearhead the technologieswithout which there would be no transition to a low-carboneconomy for the world, and it is in our national interest to take alead. We need to keep our own lights on, but beyond thatimperative we should seize the chance to pioneer clean energy tomeet the entire world’s growing needs.

Lord Browne of Madingley: For many observers, theCopenhagen accord, signed at last month’s climate conference, is afailure. Targets for global emissions are conspicuously absent, andwhile national targets are included, they are set only on a voluntarybasis. The failure to acknowledge an ongoing process for convertingthe accord into a legally binding treaty is disappointing. But despitefalling short in these respects, the agreement makes significantprogress in others. It commits all major polluters, not justdeveloped countries, to take action on reducing emissions and tosubmit their plans to international oversight. The agreementenshrines a joint target to limit global warming to 2 degreescentigrade and it promises tens of billions of dollars for developingcountries over the next decade, financed through private and publicchannels.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: On the Government’s achievements,it was important that at Copenhagen there was an acceptance ofthe need to control global temperature by limiting emissions andpreventing deforestation and that there should be help fordeveloping countries. The mere fact that there was this accord atCopenhagen enables the United Nations system and all kinds ofinternational bodies, businesses and industries to continue thegeneral direction of work to reduce emissions, adaptation and workon the effects of climate change. If there had been a total failure,many of these important ongoing activities would have come to astop. However, there were some bad aspects and outcomes atCopenhagen. One of the features is that it was seen to be toomuch of a bureaucratic, governmental organisation. Some countries,particularly in the Far East, have realised that dealing with climatechange requires visionary, practical, visible, symbolic changes.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, on the spectrumbetween success and failure, the Copenhagen conference surelyhas to be placed nearer to the latter. We should have no illusionsabout that. To delude ourselves that the outcome was really quitegood, with clichés about half-full and half-empty glasses, is tounderestimate the length and difficulty of the road that theinternational community still has to travel if it is to handlesuccessfully the challenge of man-made climate change. Such anapproach will be likely to programme another more costly failurewhen the negotiations resume this year. We need to remember,too, that settling for an inadequate outcome on climate change, incontrast with some other multilateral negotiations, such as those ontrade or nuclear disarmament, where half a loaf can genuinely beworth more than no bread, is likely to bring in due course a realitycheck in the form of catastrophic global warming, which it will betoo late to mitigate and much more costly to handle.

Lord Stern of Brentford: I was at Copenhagen for the secondweek of the conference. I was there as an independent, as aprofessor at the London School of Economics and as chairman ofthe Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and theEnvironment at the London School of Economics, and I wasworking very closely with Governments from Europe, Africa, theUnited States, India and others. I pay tribute to the leadership of theUK authorities - the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State - fortheir very strong input. The outcome was disappointing in manyrespects and chaotic in others but there was significant progress. AtCopenhagen we laid the foundation for future work.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


EURO-NEWSCommentary on science and technology within the European Parliament and the Commission

COPENHAGEN, A MISSED CHANCE?

The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) had to wait17 years before seeing its objectives translated into quantifiedtargets, the famous 2°C temperature increase threshold. Althoughthe IPCC Vice-Chair, the climatologist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele,believes it is a figure that should be regarded with caution, theprogress it has represented should not be under-estimated. Today,governments the world over are being urged to act quickly toreview targets that are deemed insufficient.

Our dependence on oil – this fossil fuel that we must abandon,and not only because its reserves are depleted – is slowlybeginning to end. There is increasing research on other energysources. Also, after the false start of the first generation agrofuelsthat proved so costly, biofuels remain full of promise.

But the situation is urgent, that much we do know. Evidence ofthe impact of global warming on ecosystems is growing all thetime. Until recently we were not sure, for example, that carbondioxide would change sea water composition to the point ofthreatening marine ecosystems and biodiversity. We now know thisto be the case and ocean acidification has been added to the list ofworrying environmental problems.

The figures are growing more accurate and the climate modelsmore refined as the projections acquire more precise degrees ofprobability but grow ever more sombre in the process. Science isadvancing, albeit without absolute certainty and thus amid debate.So much the better. Witness these scientists whom we havegrouped together as ‘climate sceptics’ and who continue to doubtthe anthropic origin of global warming and/or the sound basis ofthe measures proposed to combat it.

Recent years have brought demands for greater politicalcommitment and a total review of our consumption practices, butwithout really achieving the hoped for effects. The agreementsreached at the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December are themost recent example. But these injunctions are causing us to leaveour fool’s paradise in which we knew nothing and wastedeverything. We must now reach the other shore.

LASER AND FUSION, THE PERFECT MATCH?

Access to clean and inexhaustible energy is no longer a mirage.This is the message being proclaimed by the supporters of nuclearfusion, delighted to see the prominence being given on thescientific scene to the ambitious HiPER (High Power laser EnergyResearch facility) project. The inertial confinement fusion developedby HiPER is an equally convincing alternative to the magnetic pathadvocated by its cousin ITER. There is still a long way to go butrecent experimental results are grounds for optimism.

Inexhaustible resources, low waste, low environmental impact,foolproof security and compatibility with existing electricity networks.The benefits of fusion are such that humanity can no longer do

without it. The process itself has been known since the ’50s: aforced meeting of the nuclei of deuterium and tritium to producehelium, neutrons and an enormous quantity of energy. Simpleenough on paper, but complicated to implement, given theconditions of extreme density and temperature at which thisreaction is triggered.

Theoretical and experimental studies concur on two possibleapproaches. The first is to design a torus in which hot plasma isconfined by a magnetic field – this is the ITER approach. Thesecond, inertial confinement, also known as laser fusion, involvesusing powerful laser beams to implode pellets of pre-compressedfuel. It is this second approach that HiPER’s designers have optedfor.

“We are pleased that since 2006, HiPER is among the scientificfacilities supported by ESFRI – European strategy forum on researchinfrastructures,” says Mike Dunne, general coordinator of theproject. “Right now, HiPER is in its preparatory phase, funded to thetune of three million euros by the ‘infrastructure’ activity of theSeventh Framework Programme (FP7) and several times thatamount by national agencies.” The technology demonstration phasewill begin in 2011, leading, at the end of the next decade, to theconstruction of the facility itself, at a cost of around 1 billion euros.

These colossal investments are explained at once by thecomplexity of the technological innovations themselves and by theapplications that are potentially available once the processes aremastered. “Fifty years of experiments have shown that self-sustaining fusion requires a temperature close to 50 milliondegrees and a density of at least 1 kg/cm³, 50 times that of gold”,Mike Dunne continues. “Moreover, it is a high repetition technology,since we need to align the laser pulses of around one nanosecondeach with pellets of one millimetre in diameter, five times asecond.” To achieve the goal of controlled fusion, scientists aretherefore exploring areas of physics that are still poorly understoodand which, it is hoped, will open the door to future applications.

“And the list will be long!” Mike Dunne adds. “Mastering highrepetition and high energy laser technology together opens the wayto activities as diverse as radioisotope production, oncology andeven next-generation light sources. On a more fundamental level,we can expect major breakthroughs in extreme materials scienceand in nuclear and plasma physics.”

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


SCIENCE DIRECTORYAerospace and AviationC-Tech InnovationEPSRCNational Physical LaboratorySemta

AgricultureBBSRCCABIThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyLGCNewcastle UniversityPHARMAQ LtdSociety for General MicrobiologySociety of BiologyUFAW

Animal Health and Welfare,Veterinary ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesThe Nutrition SocietyPHARMAQ LtdSociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety of BiologyUFAW

Astronomy and Space ScienceInstitute of PhysicsNatural History MuseumSTFC

Atmospheric Sciences, Climate andWeatherNatural Environment Research CouncilSTFC

BiotechnologyBBSRCBiochemical SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCNational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Brain ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company LtdMerck Sharp & Dohme

Cancer ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company LtdNational Physical Laboratory

CatalysisC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersRoyal Society of Chemistry

ChemistryC-Tech InnovationEPSRC

Institution of Chemical EngineersLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentrePlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Colloid ScienceLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreRoyal Society of Chemistry

Construction and BuildingInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical Laboratory

Cosmetic ScienceSociety of Cosmetic Scientists

Earth SciencesThe Linnean Society of LondonNatural EnglandNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural History MuseumSociety of Biology

Ecology, Environment andBiodiversityAMSIThe British Ecological SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersKew GardensLGCThe Linnean Society of LondonNational Physical LaboratoryNatural EnglandNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural History MuseumPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Economic and Social ResearchEconomic and Social ResearchCouncil

Education, Training and SkillsABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesAssociation for Science EducationAIRTOBiochemical SocietyBritish Science AssociationThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABIClifton Scientific TrustC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social Research

CouncilEPSRCEngineering UKInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistryRoyal Statistical SocietySemtaSociety of Biology

EnergyCABIC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

EngineeringC-Tech InnovationEPSRCEngineering UKInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipThe Royal Academy of EngineeringSemtaSTFC

Fisheries ResearchAMSIPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipSociety of Biology

Food and Food TechnologyBritish Nutrition FoundationCABIC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCNewcastle UniversityThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety of Biology

ForensicsInstitute of Measurement and ControlLGCRoyal Society of Chemistry

GeneticsABPIBBSRCHFEALGCNatural History MuseumSociety of Biology

Geology and GeoscienceAMSIInstitution of Civil EngineersNatural Environment Research Council

Hazard and Risk MitigationHealth Protection AgencyInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical Engineers

HealthABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social Research CouncilEli Lilly and Company LtdEPSRCThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyHealth Protection AgencyHFEAInstitute of Physics and Engineering inMedicineLGCMedical Research CouncilNational Physical LaboratoryThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Applied MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Heart ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company Ltd

Hydrocarbons and PetroleumInstitution of Chemical EngineersNatural History MuseumRoyal Society of Chemistry

Industrial Policy and ResearchAIRTOEconomic and Social Research CouncilInstitution of Civil EngineersThe Royal Academy of EngineeringSemtaSTFC

Information ServicesAIRTOCABI

DIRECTORY INDEX

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


IT, Internet, Telecommunications,Computing and ElectronicsEPSRCInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Intellectual PropertyABPIThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdNESTA

Large-Scale Research FacilitiesC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitute of PhysicsLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumSTFC

LasersInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

ManufacturingABPIAMSIEPSRCInstitution of Chemical EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratorySemta

MaterialsC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSTFC

Medical and Biomedical ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABIEli Lilly and Company LtdHFEAMedical Research CouncilMerck Sharp & DohmePlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal InstitutionSociety of BiologyUFAW

Motor VehiclesLondon Metropolitan Polymer Centre

OceanographyAMSINational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilPlymouth Marine Sciences Partnership

OilC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGC

Particle PhysicsInstitute of PhysicsSTFC

PatentsThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysNESTA

PharmaceuticalsABPIBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCMerck Sharp & DohmePHARMAQ LtdRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSociety of Biology

Physical SciencesCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitute of PhysicsLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical Laboratory

PhysicsCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Pollution and WasteABPIAMSIC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilPlymouth Marine Sciences Partnership

PsychologyBritish Psychological Society

Public PolicyBiochemical SocietyThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social Research CouncilEngineering UKThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyHFEAInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Chemical EngineersNESTAProspectRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety of Biology

Public Understanding of ScienceAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyThe British Ecological Society BritishNutrition FoundationBritish Science AssociationBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyClifton Scientific TrustEPSRC

Engineering UKThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyHFEAInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyMedical Research CouncilNatural History MuseumNESTAPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipProspectResearch Councils UKThe Royal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFCSociety of Biology

Quality ManagementLGCNational Physical Laboratory

Radiation HazardsHealth Protection AgencyLGC

RetailMarks and Spencer

Science PolicyABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Science AssociationCABIClifton Scientific TrustEconomic and Social Research CouncilEli Lilly and Company LtdEPSRCEngineering UKThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyHFEAInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCMedical Research CouncilNESTANational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipProspectResearch Councils UKThe Royal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSTFCSociety of BiologyUFAW

Sensors and TransducersAMSIC-Tech InnovationInstitute of Measurement and ControlSTFC

SSSIsKew GardensNatural England

StatisticsEPSRCEngineering UKRoyal Statistical Society

Surface ScienceC-Tech InnovationSTFC

SustainabilityThe British Ecological SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEPSRCThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersThe Linnean Society of LondonLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNatural EnglandPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety of Biology

Technology TransferAIRTOCABIC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitute of Measurement and ControlLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryResearch Councils UKRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Tropical MedicineHealth Protection AgencyNatural History MuseumSociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied Microbiology

VirusesABPIHealth Protection AgencySociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied Microbiology

WaterAMSIC-Tech InnovationInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General MicrobiologySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety of Biology

WildlifeThe British Ecological SocietyThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyThe Linnean Society of LondonNatural EnglandNatural History MuseumSociety of BiologyUFAW

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Biotechnologyand BiologicalSciences Research Council(BBSRC)Contact: Dr Monica Winstanley Head of External RelationsBBSRC, Polaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1UH. Tel: 01793 413204E-mail: [email protected]: www.bbsrc.ac.uk

BBSRC is the UK’s principal public funder ofresearch and research training across thebiosciences. BBSRC provides institute strategicresearch grants to eight centres, as well assupporting research and training in universitiesacross the UK. BBSRC’s research underpinsadvances in a wide range of bio-based industries,and contributes knowledge to policy areas whichinclude: food security, climate change, diet andhealth and healthy ageing.

Research Councils UKContact: Alexandra SaxonHead of CommunicationsResearch Councils UKPolaris HouseNorth Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1ET

Tel: 01793 444592E-mail: [email protected]: www.rcuk.ac.uk

Each year the Research Councils invest around £3 billion in research covering the full spectrum of academicdisciplines from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry and engineering, socialsciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities.

Research Councils UK is the strategic partnerships of the seven Research Councils. It aims to:

• increase the collective visibility, leadership and influence of the Research Councils for the benefit of theUK;

• lead in shaping the overall portfolio of research funded by the Research Councils to maximise theexcellence and impact of UK research, and help to ensure that the UK gets the best value for money fromits investment;

• ensure joined-up operations between the Research Councils to achieve its goals and improve services tothe communities it sponsors and works with.

ArtsandHumanitiesResearch CouncilContact: Jake GilmoreCommunications ManagerAHRC, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol,BS1 2AETel: 0117 9876500E-mail: [email protected]: www.ahrc.ac.uk

Each year the AHRC provides approximately £105million from the Government to support 700research awards and around 1,350 postgraduateawards in the arts and humanities, from archaeologyand English literature to dance and design. Awardsare made after a rigorous peer review process, sothat only applications of the highest quality arefunded. The quality and range of research supportedby this investment of public funds not only providessocial and cultural benefits but also contributes tothe economic success of the UK.

Contact: Jenny Aranha, Public Affairs Manager, EPSRC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1ETTel: 01793 442892E-mail: [email protected]:www.epsrc.ac.uk

EPSRC is the main UK government agency forfunding research and training in engineering andthe physical sciences, investing around £850 milliona year in a broad range of subjects – frommathematics to materials science, and informationtechnology to structural engineering.

EPSRC’s investment in high quality basic, strategicand applied research and training promotes futureeconomic and societal impact in the UK.

MedicalResearchCouncilContact: Sophie Broster-James20 Park Crescent, London W1B 1AL.Tel: 020 7636 5422 Fax: 020 7436 6179E-mail: [email protected]: www.mrc.ac.uk

For almost 100 years the Medical Research Council(MRC) has improved the health of people in the UK andaround the world by supporting the highest qualityscience.

The MRC is funded by the UK taxpayer. We areindependent of Government, but work closely with theHealth Departments, the National Health Service andindustry to ensure that the research we support takesaccount of the public’s needs as well as being ofexcellent scientific quality. As a result, MRC-fundedresearch has led to some of the most significantdiscoveries in medical science and benefited millions ofpeople, both in the UK and worldwide.

NaturalEnvironmentResearch CouncilContact: Judy ParkerHead of CommunicationsPolaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1EUTel: 01793 411646 Fax: 01793 411510E-mail: [email protected]: www.nerc.ac.uk

The UK’s Natural Environment Research Councilfunds and carries out impartial scientific research inthe sciences of the environment. NERC trains thenext generation of independent environmentalscientists.

NERC funds research in universities and in anetwork of its own centres, which include:

British Antarctic Survey, British GeologicalSurvey, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, andNational Oceanography Centre.

Science &TechnologyFacilities CouncilMark FosterPublic Affairs ManagerRutherford Appleton LaboratoryHarwell Science & Innovation CampusDidcot OX11 0QXTel: 01235 778328 Fax: 01235 445 808E-mail: [email protected]: www.stfc.ac.uk

Formed by Royal Charter in 2007, the Science andTechnology Facilities Council is one of Europe's largestmultidisciplinary research organisations supportingscientists and engineers world-wide. The Counciloperates world-class, large-scale research facilities andprovides strategic advice to the UK Government ontheir development. The STFC partners in the UK’s twoNational Science and Innovation Campuses. It alsomanages international research projects in support of abroad cross-section of the UK research community. TheCouncil directs, co-ordinates and funds research,education and training.

Economic andSocial ResearchCouncilContact: Lesley Lilley, Senior PolicyManager, Knowledge Transfer,Economic and Social Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue,Swindon SN2 1UJTel: 01793 [email protected]://www.esrc.ac.uk

The ESRC is the UK’s leading research and trainingagency addressing economic and social concerns.We pursue excellence in social science research;work to increase the impact of our research onpolicy and practice; and provide trained socialscientists who meet the needs of users andbeneficiaries, thereby contributing to the economiccompetitiveness of the United Kingdom, theeffectiveness of public services and policy, andquality of life. The ESRC is independent, establishedby Royal Charter in 1965, and funded mainly bygovernment.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36

Science in Parliament Vol 67 No 1 Spring 2010 59

AIRTO

Contact: Professor Richard Brook OBE FREng AIRTO Ltd: Association of IndependentResearch & Technology Organisations Limitedc/o Campden BRI, Station Road, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire GL55 6LD.Tel: 01386 842247Fax: 01386 842010E-mail: [email protected]: www.airto.co.uk

AIRTO represents the UK’s independent researchand technology sector - member organisationsemploy a combined staff of over 20,000 scientistsand engineers with a turnover exceeding £2 billion.Work carried out by members includes research,consultancy, training and global informationmonitoring. AIRTO promotes their work by buildingcloser links between members and industry,academia, UK government agencies and theEuropean Union.

British NutritionFoundationContact: Professor Judy Buttriss,Director General52-54 High Holborn, London WC1V 6RQ

Tel: 020 7404 6504Fax: 020 7404 6747Email: [email protected]

Websites: www.nutrition.org.ukwww.foodafactoflife.org.uk

The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) was

established over 40 years ago and exists to deliver

authoritative, evidence-based information on food

and nutrition in the context of health and lifestyle.

The Foundation’s work is conducted and

communicated through a unique blend of

nutrition science, education and media activities.

Association of the BritishPharmaceuticalIndustry Contact: Dr Allison Jeynes-EllisMedical & Innovation Director12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DYTel: 020 7747 1408Fax: 020 7747 1417E-mail: [email protected]: www.abpi.org.uk

The ABPI is the voice of the innovative pharmaceuticalindustry, working with Government, regulators and otherstakeholders to promote a receptive environment for astrong and progressive industry in the UK, one capable ofproviding the best medicines to patients.

The ABPI’s mission is to represent the pharmaceuticalindustry operating in the UK in a way that:• assures patient access to the best available medicine;• creates a favourable political and economic

environment;• encourages innovative research and development; • affords fair commercial returns

Association of Marine Scientific Industries Contact: John MurrayAssociation of Marine Scientific Industries28-29 Threadneedle Street,London EC2R 8AYTel: 020 7628 2555 Fax: 020 7638 4376E-mail: [email protected]: www.maritimeindustries.org

The Association of Marine Scientific Industries(AMSI) is a constituent association of the Society ofMaritime Industries (SMI) representing companies inthe marine science and technology sector,otherwise known as the oceanology sector.

The marine science sector has an increasinglyimportant role to play both in the UK and globally,particularly in relation to the environment, securityand defence, resource exploitation, and leisure.AMSI represents manufacturers, researchers, andsystem suppliers providing a co-ordinated voice andenabling members to project their views andcapabilities to a wide audience.

Contact: Dr Helen Munn,Executive DirectorAcademy of Medical Sciences10 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AHTel: 020 7969 5288 Fax: 020 7969 5298E-mail: [email protected]: www.acmedsci.ac.uk

The Academy of Medical Sciences promotesadvances in medical science and campaigns toensure these are converted into healthcare benefitsfor society. The Academy’s Fellows are the UnitedKingdom’s leading medical scientists and scholarsfrom hospitals, academia, industry and the publicservice. The Academy provides independent,authoritative advice on public policy issues inmedical science and healthcare.

Biochemical SocietyContact: Dr Chris KirkCEOThe Biochemical SocietyCharles Darwin House12 Roger StreetLondon WC1N 2JUTel: 020 7685 2433Fax: 020 7685 2470

The Biochemical Society exists to promote andsupport the Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. Wehave nearly 6000 members in the UK and abroad,mostly research bioscientists in Universities or inIndustry. The Society is also a major scientificpublisher. In addition, we promote Science Policydebate and provide resources, for teachers andpupils, to support the bioscience curriculum inschools. Our membership supports our mission byorganizing scientific meetings, sustaining ourpublications through authorship and peer reviewand by supporting our educational and policyinitiatives.

British ScienceAssociation Contact: Sir Roland Jackson Bt,Chief ExecutiveBritish Science Association, Wellcome Wolfson Building, 165 Queen’s Gate,London SW7 5HD.E-mail:[email protected] Website: www.britishscienceassociation.org

Our vision is a society in which people are able toaccess science, engage with it and feel a sense ofownership about its direction. In such a societyscience advances with, and because of, theinvolvement and active support of the public.

Established in 1831, the British Science Associationis a registered charity which organises majorinitiatives across the UK, including National Scienceand Engineering Week, the British Science Festival,programmes of regional and local events and theCREST programme for young people in schools andcolleges. We provide opportunities for all ages todiscuss, investigate, explore and challenge science.

The BritishEcologicalSocietyThe British Ecological SocietyContact: Ceri Margerison, Policy OfficerBritish Ecological SocietyCharles Darwin House, 12 Roger Street,London, WC1N 2JUTel: 020 7685 2500 Fax : 020 7685 2501Website: www.BritishEcologicalSociety.orgEcology into Policy Bloghttp://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/

The British Ecological Society’s mission is to advanceecology and make it count. The Society has 4,000members worldwide. The BES publishes fiveinternationally renowned scientific journals andorganises the largest scientific meeting for ecologists inEurope. Through its grants, the BES also supportsecologists in developing countries and the provision offieldwork in schools. The BES informs and advisesParliament and Government on ecological issues andwelcomes requests for assistance from parliamentarians.

Contact: Annette SmithChief ExecutiveAssociation for Science EducationCollege Lane HatfieldHerts, AL10 9AATel: 01707 283000Fax: 01707 266532E-mail: [email protected]: www.ase.org.uk

The Association for Science Education (ASE) is thelargest subject association in the UK for teachers,technicians and others interested in scienceeducation. Working closely with the scienceprofessional bodies, industry and business, ASEprovides a UK network bringing togetherindividuals and organisations to share good ideas,tackle challenges in science teaching, developresources and foster high quality continuingprofessional development.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


C-TechInnovationLimitedContact: Paul RadageCapenhurst Technology Park,Capenhurst, Chester, Cheshire CH1 6EHTel: +44 (0) 151 347 2900Fax: +44 (0) 151 347 2901E-mail: [email protected]: www.ctechinnovation.com

Innovation Management and TechnologyDevelopment organisation offering an end-to-endinnovation management service, able to assist atevery step of the innovation journey. We work withSMEs, Blue Chips, Central, Regional and LocalGovernment. Our activities include research anddevelopment, engineering design as well as a wideranging innovation, business and technologyconsultancy. See www.ctechinnovation.com formore details.

CABIContact: Dr Joan Kelley, Executive Director,Global Operations, CABIBakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TYTel: 01491 829306 Fax: 01491 829100Email: [email protected]: www.cabi.org

CABI is an international not for profitorganization, specialising in scientificpublishing, research and communication. Ourmission is to improve peoples’ lives worldwideby finding sustainable solutions to agriculturaland environmental issues. Activities range fromassisting national policy makers and informingworldwide research to supporting income poorfarmers. We also house and manage the UK’sNational Collection of Fungus Cultures whichwe are exploring for potential new drugs,enzymes and nutraceuticals.

CavendishLaboratoryThe Administrative Secretary, The CavendishLaboratory, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK.E-mail: [email protected]://www.phy.cam.ac.uk

The Cavendish Laboratory houses the Department of Physicsof the University of Cambridge.

Its world-class research is focused in a number ofexperimental and theoretical diverse fields.

Astrophysics: Millimetre astronomy, optical interferometryobservations & instrumentation. Astrophysics, geometricalgebra, maximum entropy, neutral networks.

High Energy Physics: LHC experiments. Detectordevelopment. Particle physics theory.

Condensed Matter Physics: Semiconductor physics, quantumeffect devices, nanolithography. Superconductivity,magnetic thin films. Optoelectronics, conducting polymers.Biological Soft Systems. Polymers and Colloids. Surfacephysics, fracture, wear & erosion. Amorphous solids.Electron microscopy. Electronic structure theory &computation. Structural phase transitions, fractals, quantumMonte Carlo calculations Biological Physics. Quantumoptics.

British Societyfor AntimicrobialChemotherapyMrs Tracey GuiseExecutive DirectorBritish Society for Antimicrobial ChemotherapyGriffin House53 Regent PlaceBirmingham B1 3NJT: 0121 236 1988W: www.bsac.org.uk

Founded in 1971, and with 800 membersworldwide, the Society exists to facilitate theacquisition and dissemination of knowledge in thefield of antimicrobial chemotherapy. The BSACpublishes the Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy (JAC), internationally renowned forits scientific excellence, undertakes a range ofeducational activities, awards grants for researchand has active relationships with its peer groupsand government.

The BritishPsychologicalSocietyContact: Dr Ana PadillaParliamentary OfficerThe British Psychological Society30 Tabernacle StreetLondon EC2A 4UETel: 020 7330 0893Fax: 020 7330 0896Email: [email protected]: www.bps.org.uk

The British Psychological Society is an organisationof over 45,000 members governed by RoyalCharter. It maintains the Register of CharteredPsychologists, publishes books, 10 primary scienceJournals and organises conferences. Requests forinformation about psychology and psychologistsfrom parliamentarians are welcome.

Contact: Kate BaillieChief ExecutiveBritish Pharmacological Society16 Angel Gate, City RoadLondon EC1V 2PTTel: 020 7417 0113Fax: 020 7417 0114Email: [email protected]: www.bps.ac.uk

The British Pharmacological Society has now beensupporting pharmacology and pharmacologists forover 75 years. Our 2,000+ members, fromacademia, industry and clinical practice, are trainedto study drug action from the laboratory bench tothe patient’s bedside. Our aim is to improve thequality of life by developing new medicines to treatand prevent the diseases and conditions that affectmillions of people and animals. Inquiries aboutdrugs and how they work are welcome.

Chartered Institute of Patent AttorneysContact: Michael Ralph -Secretary & RegistrarThe Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys95 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1DTTel: 020 7405 9450Fax: 020 7430 0471E-mail: [email protected]: www.cipa.org.uk

CIPA’s members practise in intellectual property,especially patents, trade marks, designs, andcopyright, either in private partnerships or industrialcompanies. Through its new regulatory Board, CIPAmaintains the statutory Register. It advisesgovernment and international circles on policyissues and provides information services, promotingthe benefits to UK industry of obtaining IPprotection, and to overseas industry of using Britishattorneys to obtain international protection.

Clifton Scientific TrustContact: Dr Eric AlboneClifton Scientific Trust 49 Northumberland Road, Bristol BS6 7BATel: 0117 924 7664 Fax: 0117 924 7664E-mail: [email protected]: www.clifton-scientific.org

Science for Citizenship and Employability,Science for Life, Science for Real

We build grass-roots partnerships between school andthe wider world of professional science and itsapplications

• for young people of all ages and abilities

• experiencing science as a creative, questioning,human activity

• bringing school science added meaning andnotivation, from primary to post-16

• locally, nationally, internationally (currently between Britain and Japan)

Clifton Scientific Trust Ltd is registered charity 1086933

Eli Lilly andCompanyLtdContact: Thom Thorp, Head External AffairsTel: 01256 315000Fax: 01256 775858Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Lilly HousePriestley Road, Basingstoke, Hants,RG24 9NLEmail. [email protected]: www.lilly.co.uk

Lilly UK is the UK affiliate of a major Americanpharmaceutical manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Companyof Indianapolis. This affiliate is one of the UK's toppharmaceutical companies with significantinvestment in science and technology including aneuroscience research and development centre andbulk biotechnology manufacturing operations.

Lilly medicines treat schizophrenia, diabetes, cancer,osteoporosis, attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder, erectile dysfunction, severe sepsis,depression, bipolar disorder, heart disease andmany other diseases.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Contact: Robert Neilson, General SecretaryFairmount House, 230 Tadcaster Road,York, YO24 1ESTel: 01904 610821 Fax: 01904 612279E-mail: [email protected]: www.ipem.ac.uk

IPEM is a registered, incorporated charity for theadvancement, in the public interest, of physics andengineering applied to medicine and biology. Itaccredits medical physicists, clinical engineers andclinical technologists through its membershipregister, organises training and CPD for them, andprovides opportunities for the dissemination ofknowledge through publications and scientificmeetings. IPEM is licensed by the Science Council toaward CSci and by the Engineering Council (UK) toaward CEng, IEng and EngTech.

Contact: Joseph Winters76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NTTel: 020 7470 4815E-mail: [email protected]: www.iop.org

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity

devoted to increasing the practice,

understanding and application of physics. It has

a worldwide membership of more than 36,000

and is a leading communicator of physics-

related science to all audiences, from specialists

through to government and the general public.

Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a

world leader in scientific publishing and the

electronic dissemination of physics.

IChemE is the hub for chemical, biochemical and process engineering professionals worldwide. We are the heart of the process community, promoting competence and a commitment to sustainable development, advancing the discipline for the benefit of society and supporting the professional development of over 30,000 members.

Contact: Andrew Furlong, Director t: +44 (0)1788 534484 f: +44 (0)1788 560833 e: [email protected] www.icheme.org

Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthorityContact: Peter ThompsonDirector Strategy and Information21 Bloomsbury StLondon WC1B 3HFTel: 020 7291 8200Fax: 020 7291 8201Email: [email protected]: www.hfea.gov.uk

The HFEA is a non-departmental Government bodythat regulates and inspects all UK clinics providingIVF, donor insemination or the storage of eggs,sperm or embryos. The HFEA also licenses andmonitors all human embryo research beingconducted in the UK.

Health ProtectionAgencyContact: Justin McCracken, Chief ExecutiveHealth Protection Agency Central Office7th Floor, Holborn Gate, 330 High HolbornLondon WC1V 7PPTel: 020 7759 2700/2701Fax: 020 7759 2733Email: [email protected]: www.hpa.org.uk

The Health Protection Agency is an independent UKorganisation that protects the public from threats totheir health from infectious diseases andenvironmental hazards.

The HPA identifies and responds to health hazardsand emergencies caused by infectious disease,hazardous chemicals, poisons or radiation.

It gives advice to the public, provides data andinformation to government, and advises peopleworking in healthcare. It also makes sure the nationis ready for future threats to health that couldhappen naturally, accidentally or deliberately.

Institute ofPhysics andEngineeringin Medicine

Institution of Civil EngineersContact: Vernon Hunte, Senior Public Affairs Executive ,One Great George Street, Westminster,London SW1P 3AA, UKTel: 020 7665 2265Fax: 020 7222 0973E-mail: [email protected]: www.ice.org.uk

ICE aims to be a leading voice in infrastructureissues. With over 80,000 members, ICE acts as aknowledge exchange for all aspects of civilengineering. As a Learned Society, the Institutionprovides expertise, in the form of reports, evidenceand comment, on a wide range of subjectsincluding infrastructure, energy generation andsupply, climate change and sustainabledevelopment.

The Food andEnvironmentResearch AgencyContact: Dr R Angus HearmonDirector of External AffairsThe Food and Environment Research AgencySand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZTel: 01904 462284Fax: 01904 462486E-mail: [email protected]: www.defra.gov.uk/fera

The Food and Environment Research Agency’s overarching purpose is to support and develop asustainable food chain, a healthy naturalenvironment, and to protect the global communityfrom biological and chemical risks.

Our role within that is to provide robust evidence,rigorous analysis and professional advice toGovernment, international organisations and theprivate sector.

Contact: Laura MarshPR and Communication ManagerEngineeringUKWeston House, 246 High HolbornLondon WC1V 7EXTel: 020 3206 0444Fax: 020 3206 0401E-mail: [email protected]

EngineeringUK is an independent organisation thatpromotes the vital role of engineers, engineeringand technology in our society. EngineeringUKpartners business and industry, Government and thewider science and technology community:producing evidence on the state of engineering;sharing knowledge within engineering, andinspiring young people to choose a career inengineering, matching employers’ demand forskills.

The Institute ofMeasurementand ControlContact: Mr Peter Martindale,CEO and SecretaryThe Institute of Measurement and Control87 Gower Street, London WC1E 6AFTel: +44 (0) 20 73874949Fax: +44 (0) 20 73888431E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.instmc.org.ukReg Charity number: 269815

The Institute of Measurement and Control provides aforum for personal contact amongst practiioners,publishes learned papers and is a professionalexamining and qualifying organisation able to conferthe titles EurIng, CEng, IEng, EngTech; Companies andUniversities may apply to become Companions.Headquartered in London, the Institute has a strongregional base with 15 UK, 1 Hong Kong and 1 MalaysiaLocal Section, a bilateral agreement with the ChinaInstrument Society and other major international links.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Institution ofEngineering and Technology

Contact: Paul DaviesIET, Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage, SG1 2AYTel: +44 (0) 1438 313311Email: [email protected]: www.theiet.org

The IET is a world leading professional organisation,

sharing and advancing knowledge to promote

science, engineering and technology across the

world. Dating from 1871, the IET has 150,000

members in 127 countries with offices in Europe,

North America and Asia-Pacific.

The mission of Kew is to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worldwide, enhancing thequality of life. Kew is developing its breathing planetprogramme with seven key strategies:

• creating global access to essential information

• identifying species and regions most at risk

• helping implement global conservation programmes

• extending the Millennium Seed Bank’s globalpartnership

• establishing a global network for restoration ecology

• identifying and growing locally appropriate speciesin a changing climate

• using botanic gardens as shop-front opportunitiesto inform and inspire

Contact: Prof Simon J. OwensTel: 020 8332 5106Fax: 020 8332 5109Email: [email protected]: www.kew.org

Two stunning gardens-devoted to building andsharing knowledge

London MetropolitanPolymer CentreContact: Alison Green, London Metropolitan University166-220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DBTel: 020 7133 2189E-mail: [email protected]: www.polymers.org.uk

The London Metropolitan Polymer Centre providestraining, consultancy and applied research to theUK polymer (plastics & rubber) industry. Recently,LMPC has merged with the Sir John CassDepartment of Art, Media & Design (JCAMD) toprovide a broad perspective of materials scienceand technology for the manufacturing and creativeindustries. JCAMD contains Met Works, a uniquenew Digital Manufacturing Centre, providing newtechnology for rapid prototyping and manufacture.The new department will offer short courses inpolymer innovation, print technology andsilversmithing & jewellery.

LGCQueens Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex, TW11 0LYTel: +44 (0)20 8943 7000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8943 2767E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lgc.co.uk

LGC is an international science-based company andmarket leader in the provision of analytical, forensicand diagnostic services and reference standards tocustomers in the public and private sectors.

Under the Government Chemist function, LGCfulfils specific statutory duties as the referee analystand provides advice for Government and the wideranalytical community on the implications ofanalytical chemistry for matters of policy, standardsand regulation. LGC is also the UK’s designatedNational Measurement Institute for chemical andbiochemical analysis.

With headquarters in Teddington, South WestLondon, LGC has 28 laboratories and centres acrossEurope and at sites in China, India and the US.

Sir John Cass Department of Art, Media & Design

Marks &Spencer PlcContact:Paul WillgossWaterside House 35 North Wharf RoadLondon W2 1NW.Tel: 020 8718 8247E-mail: [email protected]

Main Business ActivitiesRetailer – Clothing, Food, Home and FinancialServices

We have over 600 UK stores, employing over75,000 people - 285 stores internationally in40 territories.

We are one of the UK’s leading retailers, withover 21 million people visiting our stores eachweek. We offer stylish, high quality, great valueClothing and Home products, as well asoutstanding quality foods, responsibly sourcedfrom around 2,000 suppliers globally.

TheNational Endowmentfor Science, Technologyand the ArtsContact: Madeleine HallwardHead of Public Affairs1 Plough PlaceLondon EC4A1DETel: 020 7438 2615Fax: 020 7438 2501Email: [email protected]: www.nesta.org.uk

NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts – an independent organisation with a missionto make the UK more innovative. It operates in three mainways: by investing in early-stage companies; informingand shaping policy; and delivering practical programmesthat inspire others to solve the big challenges of thefuture. NESTA’s expertise in this field makes it uniquelyqualified to understand how the application of innovativeapproaches can help the UK to tackle two of the biggestchallenges it faces: the economic downturn and theradical reform of the public services.

UK Subsidiary of Merck & Co., IncContact: Margaret Beer/Rob PinnockLicensing & External Research, EuropeHertford RoadHoddesdonHerts EN11 9BUTel: 01992 452837Fax: 01992 441907e-mail: [email protected] /[email protected]

Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD) is the UKsubsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., of WhitehouseStation, New Jersey, USA, a leading research-basedpharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,manufactures and markets a wide range ofinnovative pharmaceutical products to improvehuman health. Our mission is to provide societywith superior products and services by developinginnovations and solutions that improve the qualityof life.

National Physical LaboratoryNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex TW11 0LWTel: 020 8943 6880 Fax: 020 8614 1446E-mail: [email protected]: www.npl.co.uk

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is the UnitedKingdom’s national measurement institute, aninternationally respected and independent centre ofexcellence in research, development andknowledge transfer in measurement and materialsscience. For more than a century, NPL hasdeveloped and maintained the nation’s primarymeasurement standards - the heart of aninfrastructure designed to ensure accuracy,consistency and innovation in physicalmeasurement.

The Linnean Society of LondonContact: Dr Ruth Temple, Executive SecretaryBurlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BF

Tel: 020 7434 4479Fax: 020 7287 9364E-mail: [email protected]: www.linnean.org

The Linnean Society of London is the world’s oldestactive biological society. Founded in 1788, theSociety takes its name from the Swedish naturalistCarl Linnaeus whose botanical, zoological andlibrary collections have been in its keeping since1829. The Society continues to play a central role inthe documentation of the world’s flora and fauna,recognising the continuing importance of suchwork to many scientific issues.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


The Nutrition Society Contact: Frederick Wentworth-Bowyer, Chief Executive, The Nutrition Society,10 Cambridge Court, 210 Shepherds Bush RoadLondon W6 7NJTel: +44 (0)20 7602 0228Fax: +44 (0)20 7602 1756Email: [email protected]

Founded in 1941, The Nutrition Society is the premierscientific and professional body dedicated to advance thescientific study of nutrition and its application to themaintenance of human and animal health.

Highly regarded by the scientific community, the Societyis the largest learned society for nutrition in Europe.Membership is worldwide and is open to those with agenuine interest in the science of human or animalnutrition.

Principal activities include: 1. Publishing internationally renowned scientific learned

journals2. Promoting the education and training of nutritionists3. Promoting the highest standards of professional

competence and practice in nutrition4. Disseminating scientific information through its

publications and programme of scientific meetings

PHARMAQ Ltd

Contact: Dr Lydia A BrownPHARMAQ Ltd Unit 15 Sandleheath Industrial Estate,Fordingbridge Hants SP6 1PA.Tel: 01425 656081Fax: 01425 655309E-mail: [email protected]: www.pharmaq.nohttp://www.pharmaq.co.uk/shop

Veterinary pharmaceuticals specialisingin aquatic veterinary products. Fishvaccines, anaesthetics, antibiotics andother products.

Contact: Rosie CarrThe Laboratory, Citadel HillPlymouth PL1 2PB

Tel: +44 (0)1752 633 234Fax: +44 (0)1752 633 102E-mail: [email protected]: www.pmsp.org.uk

The Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnershipcomprises seven leading marine science andtechnology institutions, representing one of thelargest regional clusters of expertise in marinesciences, education, engineering and technology inEurope. The mission of PMSP is to deliver world-class marine research and teaching, to advanceknowledge, technology and understanding of theseas. PMSP research addresses the fundamentalunderstanding of marine ecosystems and processesthat must be applied in support and developmentof policy, marine and maritime industry and marinebiotechnology.

Contact: Iffat MemonPublic Affairs ManagerThe Royal Academy of Engineering3 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5DGTel: 020 7766 0653E-mail: [email protected]: www.raeng.org.uk

Founded in 1976, The Royal Academy of Engineeringpromotes the engineering and technological welfareof the country. Our activities – led by the UK’s mosteminent engineers – develop the links betweenengineering, technology, and the quality of life. As anational academy, we provide impartial advice toGovernment; work to secure the next generation ofengineers; and provide a voice for Britain’sengineering community.

Prospect

Contact: Sue Ferns, Prospect Head of Research and SpecialistServices, New Prospect House8 Leake St, London SE1 7NNTel: 020 7902 6639 Fax: 020 7902 6637E-mail: [email protected]

Prospect is an independent, thriving and forward-looking trade union with 122,000 members acrossthe private and public sectors and a diverse range ofoccupations. We represent scientists, technologistsand other professions in the civil service, researchcouncils and private sector.

Prospect’s collective voice champions the interests ofthe engineering and scientific community to keyopinion-formers and policy makers. Withnegotiating rights with over 300 employers, we seekto secure a better life at work by putting members’pay, conditions and careers first.

The RoyalInstitutionContact: Dr Gail CardewHead of ProgrammesThe Royal Institution21 Albemarle Street, London W1S 4BSTel: 020 7409 2992 Fax: 020 7670 2920E-mail: [email protected] Website:www.rigb.org

The core activities of the Royal Institution centrearound four main themes: science research,education, communication and heritage. It has amajor Public Events Programme designed toconnect people to the world of science, as well as aUK-wide Young People’s Programme of science andmathematics enrichment activities. Internationallyrecognised research programmes in bio- andnanomagnetism take place in the Davy FaradayResearch Laboratory. The building has recentlyundergone a £22 million refurbishment, and nowfeatures an extended museum, new social spacesand upgraded facilities in the historic lecturetheatre.

The Royal SocietyContact: Dr Peter CotgreaveDirector of Public AffairsThe Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AG.Tel: 020 7451 2502 Fax: 020 7930 2170Email: [email protected]: www.royalsociety.org

The Royal Society is the UK academy of sciencecomprising 1400 outstanding individualsrepresenting the sciences, engineering andmedicine. As we celebrate our 350th anniversary in2010,our strategic priorities for our work atnational and international levels are to:

• Invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation• Influence policymaking with the best scientific

advice• Invigorate science and mathematics education• Increase access to the best science internationally• Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and

excitement of scientific discovery.

Natural England

Contact: Ken RoyDirector of EvidenceNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGL50 3RAEmail: [email protected]: www.naturalengland.org.uk

Natural England has the responsibility to enhancebiodiversity, landscape and wildlife in rural, urban,coastal and marine areas; promote access, recreationand public well-being, and contribute to the waynatural resources are managed so that they can beenjoyed now and by future generations. In deliveringthese responsibilities, we work with a range of partnersto continue to develop the broad evidence base weneed to underpin both our operational decisions andour advice to government and others.

NaturalHistoryMuseumContact: Joe BakerSpecial Adviser to the DirectorNatural History MuseumCromwell RoadLondon SW7 5BDTel: +44 (0)20 7942 5478Fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5075E-mail: [email protected]: www.nhm.ac.uk

The Natural History Museum is the UK’s premierinstitute for knowledge on the diversity of thenatural world, conducting scientific research ofglobal impact and renown. We maintain anddevelop the collections we care for and use them topromote the discovery, understanding, responsibleuse and enjoyment of the world around us.

The Science of Nature

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


Societyof Biology

Contact: Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive9, Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EFTel: 020 7936 5900 E-mail: [email protected] www.societyofbiology.org

The Society of Biology is a single unified voice forbiology: advising Government and influencingpolicy; advancing education and professionaldevelopment; supporting our members, andengaging and encouraging public interest in the lifesciences. The Society represents a diversemembership of over 80,000 - including, students,practising scientists and interested non-professionals - as individuals, or through learnedsocieties and other organisations.

The Royal Societyof ChemistryContact: Dr Stephen BennParliamentary AffairsThe Royal Society of ChemistryBurlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BATel: 020 7437 8656 Fax: 020 7734 1227E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]: http://www.rsc.orghttp://www.chemsoc.org

The Royal Society of Chemistry is a learned,professional and scientific body of over 46,000members with a duty under its Royal Charter “toserve the public interest”. It is active in the areas ofeducation and qualifications, science policy,publishing, Europe, information and internetservices, media relations, public understanding ofscience, advice and assistance to Parliament andGovernment.

Contact: Dariel BurdassMarlborough House, Basingstoke Road,Spencers Wood, Reading RG7 1AG.Tel: 0118 988 1809 Fax: 0118 988 5656E-mail: [email protected]: www.sgm.ac.uk

SGM is the largest microbiological society inEurope. The Society publishes four journals ofinternational standing, and organises regularscientific meetings.

SGM also promotes education and careers inmicrobiology, and it is committed to representmicrobiology to government, the media and thepublic.

An information service on microbiological issuesconcerning aspects of medicine, agriculture, foodsafety, biotechnology and the environment isavailable on request.

UniversitiesFederation for Animal WelfareContact: Dr James Kirkwood, Scientific DirectorThe Old School, Brewhouse HillWheathampstead, Herts. AL4 8AN.Tel: 01582 831818. Fax: 01582 831414.Email: [email protected]: www.ufaw.org.uk Registered in England Charity No: 207996

UFAW is an internationally-recognized independentscientific and educational animal welfare charity. Itworks to improve animal lives by:

• supporting animal welfare research.

• educating and raising awareness of welfareissues in the UK and overseas.

• producing the leading journal Animal Welfareand other high-quality publications on animalcare and welfare.

• providing expert advice to governmentdepartments and other concerned bodies.

Society of Cosmetic Scientists

Contact: Lorna Weston,Secretary GeneralSociety of Cosmetic ScientistsLangham House EastSuite 6, Mill Street, Luton LU1 2NATel: 01582 726661Fax: 01582 405217E-mail: [email protected]: www.scs.org.uk

Advancing the science of cosmetics is the primaryobjective of the SCS. Cosmetic science covers a widerange of disciplines from organic and physicalchemistry to biology and photo-biology, dermatology,microbiology, physical sciences and psychology.

Members are scientists and the SCS helps themprogress their careers and the science of cosmeticsethically and responsibly. Services includepublications, educational courses and scientificmeetings.

Society forAppliedMicrobiologyContact: Philip WheatSociety for Applied MicrobiologyBedford Heights, Brickhill DriveBedford MK41 7PHTel: 01234 326661Fax: 01234 326678E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.sfam.org.uk

SfAM is the oldest UK microbiological society andaims to advance, for the benefit of the public, thescience of microbiology in its application to theenvironment, human and animal health, agricultureand industry.

SfAM is the voice of applied microbiology withmembers across the globe and works in partnershipwith sister organisations to exert influence onpolicy-makers world-wide.

The Royal StatisticalSocietyContact: Mr Andrew GarrattPress and Public Affairs OfficerThe Royal Statistical Society12 Errol Sreet, London EC1Y 8LX.Tel: +44 20 7614 3920Fax: +44 20 7614 3905E-mail: [email protected]: www.rss.org.uk

The Royal Statistical Society is a leading source ofindependent advice, comment and discussion onstatistical issues. It promotes public understandingof statistics and acts as an advocate for the interestsof statisticians and users of statistics. The Societyactively contributes to government consultations,Royal Commissions, parliamentary select committeeinquiries, and to the legislative process. In 2009, theRSS celebrated 175 years since its foundation in1834.

Semtathe Sector Skills Councilfor Science, Engineeringand Manufacturing Technologies

Contact: Customer Services14 Upton RoadWatfordWD18 0JTTel: 0845 643 9001Fax: 01923 256086E-mail: [email protected]: www.semta.org.uk

Semta’s skills service for UK science, engineeringand manufacturing employers

• Training needs assessment against a company’sbusiness objectives.

• Quality programmes from The National SkillsAcademy for Manufacturing

• A training management service.

• Access to available funding and accredited trainingproviders.

• Research into training needs to influencegovernments’ support for skills strategies

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36


SCIENCE DIARYTHE PARLIAMENTARY ANDSCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Contact: Secretariat020 7222 7085:parliamentaryandscientificcommittee@hotmail.co.ukwww.scienceinparliament.org.ukTuesday 19 October 17.30Discussion meetingTopic and speakers to be confirmedWednesday 27 OctoberAnnual LunchDavid Willetts MP Guest SpeakerTuesday 16th November 17.30Discussion meetingTopic and speakers to be confirmedTuesday 7th December 17.30Discussion meetingTopic and speakers to be confirmed____________________________________

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION

The Royal Institution has now re-openedfollowing its £22 million refurbishment,including the new Time & Space restaurant,bar and café. All events take place at theRoyal Institution unless otherwise stated.See www.rigb.org or telephone 020 74092992 for full details and to book tickets.For additional details of these and otherevents visit www.rigb.org_____________________________________

THE ROYAL SOCIETY

Throughout 2010 the Royal Society iscelebrating its 350th anniversary in ayearlong celebration of the impact thatscience has had, and continues to have, onour lives.The Royal Society hosts a series of freeevents, both evening lectures and two-daydiscussion meetings, covering the wholebreadth of science, engineering andtechnology. In addition for its 350thcelebrations the Society is teaming up withmajor cultural institutions in London as partof its Capital Science programme. Events,exhibitions and conferences are also beingheld in over 70 museums and galleriesaround the UK as part of the Royal Society’sLocal Heroes programme. For further details,please visit http://royalsociety.org/events/_____________________________________

THE ROYAL ACADEMY OFENGINEERING

3 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y5DGwww.raeng.org.uk/events [email protected] 7766 0600_____________________________________

THE ROYAL SOCIETY OFCHEMISTRY

For details please contact Dr Stephen [email protected] or phone 0207 440 3381_____________________________________

ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH

22-26 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2PQ.Tel: 0131 240 5000 Fax: 0131 240 [email protected]_____________________________________

BRITISH SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

Please visitwww.britishscienceassociation.org for eventsprogramme._____________________________________

ROYAL PHARMACEUTICALSOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN

Contact: [email protected]/events_____________________________________

THE LINNEAN SOCIETY OFLONDON

Burlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BFTel: +44 (0)20 7434 4479 ext 11www.linnean.orgUnless otherwise stated events are held atthe Linnean Society of London_____________________________________

sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT 3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJTel: 020 7222 7085 Fax: 020 7222 7189Editor: Professor Peter SimpsonEditorial Assistant: John Slater

Editorial/Management Board:Mr Andrew Miller MP (Chairman)

Published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee,3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ.

Published four times a year. The 2010 subscription rate is £70.00.Single numbers £17.50

ISSN 0263-6271

All enquiries, including those from members wishing to take the front or back covers, advertise in the journal orappear in the directory to Secretariat, Tel 020 7222 7085

Copyright ©2010 by Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. All rights reserved. None of the articles in thispublication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of thecopyright owner.

Typeset and printed by The Bridge Press.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36

MAKING BRITAIN HEALTHY: UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF IN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS IN THE NHS

Seventy percent of clinical decisions are based on an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test. These have an increasing role to play to deliver cost effective healthcare and improve outcomes for patients.

However, to fully realise these patient benefits and cost efficiencies we need the Government to:

Encourage increased access to point of care diagnostics in the community - allowing more rapid treatment of patients in a setting convenient for their daily lives

Address the way money flows within the NHS to reduce perverse incentives which block the use of new tests or better use of existing tests

Ensure that the DH supports NHS organisations in embedding recommendations and guidance for diagnostics from NICE

•

•

•

BIVDA is the national trade association for the manufacturers and distributors of IVD products in the UK. We currently represent more than 95% of the industry and over a hundred organizations ranging from British start-up companies to UK subsidiaries of multinational corporations. BIVDA members employ over 8,000 people in this country including in manufacturing and R&D, with a total industry turnover of approximately £900 million of direct sales.

About BIVDA

British In Vitro Diagnostics Association · 1 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9BTTelephone: 020 7957 4633 · Fax: 020 7957 4644 · Email: [email protected] · Website: www.bivda.co.uk

Please don’t hesitate to contact the Director General, Doris-Ann Williams if you would like any further information about any of the aspects of this issue or about in vitro diagnostics in general. She is always more than willing to visit you in Westminster.

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 14/7/10 11:36

8865 sip SUMMER 2010 - Sc · PDF fileMatthew Foote, Peter Gibbs, Michael McCarthy A GAP IN THE...

Documents

Transcript of 8865 sip SUMMER 2010 - Sc · PDF fileMatthew Foote, Peter Gibbs, Michael McCarthy A GAP IN THE...