ScienceinParl MAG Summer 07 › wp-content › ... · The debate on embryology is hotting up as we...

Science in Parliament Vol 64 No 3 Summer 2007

Summer 2007

SCIENCE INPARLIAMENT

The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee http://www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Shared Challenges, Shared SolutionsChemical Engineers publish Jubilee Report

The GeologicalSocietyBicentenary

Science andReligion

L’OréalWomen inScience Awards

ScienceEducation

ScienceinParl MAG Summer 07 13/7/07 9:37 am

The world needs science.Science needs women.

in partnership with the UK National Commission for UNESCO and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and in association with the

UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology

L’ORÉAL UK FELLOWSHIPS FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE

On 5th July 2007, the For Women In Science programme distinguished four promising young women with fellowships to encourage the advancement of their research. www.forwomeninscience.com

Dr Anna GitCancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute

Dr Araxi OdabachianCardiff University

Dr Theresa Burt de PereraUniversity of Oxford

Dr Seirian SumnerZoological Society of London


SCIENCE IN

PARLIAMENT

Sales of ‘organic food’have passed the £1billion mark for thefirst time. Marketgardening/farmingwas part of my lifeuntil I escaped touniversity in 1958.We produced ‘organicfood’. It was difficultto keep the aphids offthe lettuce and I have

dug many ‘failed’ crops under as a result ofinfestation. Our only pesticide in the 1940’s wasnicotine, which we burned in the greenhouses.Similarly, we lost tomatoes through ‘rust’ (fungalgrowth) on the stems of the plants, and our fruitwas full of grubs and our root crops similarlyinfested. My father and others like him wereextremely pleased when chemistry came to ourrescue with its ‘green revolution’.How many of the ‘organic’ growers in Britaintoday could survive if they were not surroundedby non-organic growers that are keeping the pestsout of the organic growers’ crops? I don’t want togo back to the ‘good old days’, thank you.If residual pesticide on our food was asdangerous as the Soil Association would have usbelieve, how come that we are living so muchlonger than in the 1940’s, when I was born?Indeed, copper sulphate, pyrethrum and theother chemicals used by organic farmers areprobably more dangerous to the environmentthan modern pesticides applied by modernfarming practices.Is ‘organic food’ an idea now hijacked by modernmarketing ploys? Please write and tell us whatyou believe.The debate on embryology is hotting up as weapproach a revision of the Human Fertility andEmbryology Act 1990 this Autumn. The Houseof Commons Science & Technology SelectCommittee has produced ‘Government Proposalsfor the Regulation of Hybrid and ChimeraEmbryos’ (HC 272), which gets behind researchon cytoplasmic hybrid embryos as a means ofproducing stem cells without involving humanembryos. By contrast, three groups have reportedtheir ability to re-programme normal skin cells totheir embryonic state.The Wellcome Trust-sponsored research that hasfound new genetic variants for seven commondiseases is another remarkable breakthrough thatis worthy of our attention.

Dr Brian Iddon MPChairman, Editorial BoardScience in Parliament

Science in Parliament has two main objectives:

a) to inform the scientific and industrial communities

of activities within Parliament of a scientific nature

and of the progress of relevant legislation;

b) to keep Members of Parliament abreast

of scientific affairs.

Summer 2007 Volume 64 Number 3

ContentsSummer Issue Contents

The Energy White Paper 2Opinion by Robert Freer

Venture Capital and Science: Mind the Gap 3Opinion by Brooks Newmark MP

The School Food Reform Journey 5Prue Leith

Yorkshire and Humber – the UK’s real powerhouse? 6Tom Riordan

The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 8Professor Stephen Hopper

The importance of maintaing chemistry within universities 10Professor David Phoenix

Shared Challenges, Shared Solutions 12Dr Ramesh Mashelkar

Why Science needs Women 14

Rocks of Ages 16Tim Radford

Science and Religion 18Addresses to the P&SC by Dr Ian Gibson MP, Prof David Jones and Prof Andy McIntosh

Science Education for the 21st Century 25Addresses to the P&SC by Prof Robin Millar, Dr Derek Bell and David Perks

Science and Innovation in France … and Europe 31Mark Sinclair, British Embassy, Paris

Engaging the Disengaged 32Dr Nigel Eady

It’s not just cricket – actually it’s physics 33

House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology 34

House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 35

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 36

Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and other News 38

Debates and Selected Parliamentary Questions and Answers 39

Euro-News 46

Science Directory 47

Science Diary 56

The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.

The Committee is an Associate Parliamentary Group of members of both Houses of Parliament and British members of the European Parliament, representatives of scientific and technical institutions, industrial organisations and universities.

ISSN 0263-6271Science in Parliament Vol 64 No 3 Summer 2007 1


2 Science in Parliament Vol 64 No 3 Summer 2007

This is the fourth report by theGovernment on nationalenergy policy in the last five

years and has the encouraging title“Meeting the Challenge”1. Butalthough it includes some positivesteps towards a sound nationalenergy policy it will still disappointthose looking for strong leadershipand a necessary sense of urgency andcommitment.

Previous energy reviews have beenlong on the need for consultation,discussion, debate and moreresearch, but less positive aboutmaking decisions and taking actionto avoid an impending energy crisis.Decisions delayed always becomemore expensive. Meanwhile all ourmajor power stations are ageing,many will close and there is littleincentive for generating companies toinvest in new ones. Keeping thelights on will become increasinglymore difficult.

Energy policy is a matter of nationalimportance because we cannotoperate or survive as a moderncountry without a secure and reliablesupply of energy. In the introductionto the Energy Challenge in 2006,Tony Blair specifically and correctlyidentified security of supply as themost important of the “immensechallenges” facing us. Identifying asingle focus helps to concentrateresources.

But the new White Paper seeks toachieve two objectives, to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and toensure we have a secure supply ofenergy. Trying to achieve twoobjectives simultaneously will almost

inevitably lead to tensions which willmake the problems that much moredifficult to solve.

There are practical differencesbetween these objectives.

Ensuring security of supply is astraightforward technical problem;we rely on power stations using coal,gas or uranium to produce powerwhen required.

Controlling emissions is a differentproblem because to be effective weneed to negotiate and achieveinternational co-operation withcountries whose priorities may bedifferent from ours. For example,liberalisation of the energy marketeven within Europe is proceedingmore slowly than expected. Ourefforts alone will not be significant;our example may be persuasive, butlater rather than sooner.

It is important that we plan to use adiversity of fuels. For the first time inour history we are no longer self-sufficient in energy and we will needto buy our fuels, coal, uranium andgas, in the most reliable markets.Coal is available throughout theworld and will continue to be amajor fuel, provided we can find away to burn it cleanly.

The White Paper says that “successfuldemonstration of CCS (carboncapture and storage) would be amajor contribution by the UK toglobal efforts to tackle climatechange” and it was thereforeunfortunate that the Governmentcould not provide sufficient incentiveto enable BP to proceed with theirinnovative project for CCS at

Peterhead power station. This couldhave been a model for othercountries to follow. But thecompetition for funds for CCS hasbeen put back to November and BPapparently decided this “was a delaytoo far”.

We also need to replace our oldnuclear power stations with newones, and the White Paper states “itis in the public interest to give theprivate sector the option of investingin new nuclear power stations”. TheGovernment now proposes a 20-week period of consultation beforethey make a decision. This hesitationis not supported by The Times whichsaid, “The Government must stopsending ambiguous signals and makeabsolutely clear as soon as possiblethat nuclear energy will have a largeand growing role in provision ofpower for the people.”

Other countries are busily planningand building new nuclear powerstations and it is unfortunate that theGovernment recently soldWestinghouse so that we will nowhave to buy our expertise fromabroad to restart an industry whichwe pioneered and of which we wereformerly among the world leaders.

In discussing renewable energy theWhite Paper says, “renewables arethe key to our strategy to tackleclimate change” and the target is “tosee renewables grow as a proportion

OPINION

The Energy White Paper2007Review by Robert Freer


Science in Parliament Vol 64 No 3 Summer 2007 3

of our electricity supplies to 10% by2010, and an aspiration to double by2020”. It is difficult to see how thiscan be achieved. Our presentelectricity demand is about 375Twh ayear to which hydro contributesabout 1% and wind energy alsoabout 1%. But historically demandhas been increasing at about 1% peryear and therefore new build isunlikely to keep pace with newdemand.

In contrast to its reluctance tosupport base load fuels it issurprising to learn that theGovernment intends to continue thelong term subsidy for wind energythrough the Renewables Obligationalthough the output is small andunpredictable. The InternationalEnergy Agency has said that thesubsidy for onshore wind farms isexcessively generous and even the

developers agree that without thissubsidy no-one would build them.Any form of electricity generationwhich requires to be supported bycontinuing subsidy cannot be goodengineering or good economics.

There are better low carbonalternatives available, such as thethermal recycling of Municipal SolidWaste through an Energy from Wasteplant, which could meet about halfthe 2010 target, and ground sourceheat pumps which produce 3kwh ofheat for 1kwh of electrical input. Butthe White Paper does not appear toexplore these possibilities fully.

The frequency of these energyreviews and White Papers calls intoquestion whether this is the correctway of establishing energy policy aspart of the national infrastructure,

and how technical advice fromindustry and the professionsintended to produce workable andaffordable solutions can best beincorporated into Government policy.If the Government Ministerresponsible for Energy had a seat inthe Cabinet perhaps long termplanning would have a greaternational priority.

This White Paper demonstrates thatpoliticians and scientists are clearlyconcerned by the linear increase incarbon dioxide emissions, but theyappear to be less interested in tryingto address the exponential increase inthe world population which is theroot cause of the problem.

1 Meeting the Energy Challenge – A White Paper onEnergy, May 2007. Department of Trade and IndustryCM 7124.

OPINION

Venture Capital andScience: Mind the Gap…Brooks Newmark MP

As an industry practitionerwith a number of years ofexperience in both venture

capital and private equity I welcomethe growth and achievement of theventure capital industry in the UK.

Indeed, we should be proud that theUK venture capital industry nowaccounts for over 50% of the wholeEuropean market.

I have more than just professionalpride in the industry’s success. I amalso confident that the central role ofventure capital in the UK economy is

helping a very wide range of sciencebased enterprises to flourish.

One VC fund alone, AmadeusCapital Partners, has backed almost60 technology companies at differentstages of business growth anddevelopment and in sectors rangingfrom communications andnetworking to medical technology.

Nevertheless, many science basedenterprises continue to face achallenge in early-stage funding.

In 1998, 10% of venture fundingwas invested in early stage

companies but that figure had fallento just 2% by 2005 because of theperception of poor returns on earlystage investments.

Some of this underperformance canbe attributed to the glut of moneymade available at the height of thedot-com bubble.



But problems are also caused by theway that the finance cycle hasdeveloped over the last few years tomake later stage investing look moreattractive to venture capital funds.

There are several reasons for this.Early stage investors take the highestrisk and must wait longer until anygains can be realised. Early stageenterprises are also smaller and moremanagement intensive for fundmanagers.

So the challenge facing the sciencebased enterprises is how to attractventure capital fund managers backinto the smaller, earlier-stage andriskier end of the market.

And that is also the fundamentalchallenge facing the Government.

It has responded in several ways butthere is still much more that couldbe done.

First, the Treasury has been engagedin a long running search for the socalled ‘equity gap’.

This exercise has proved to be muchlike looking for the ScarletPimpernel – it is elusive and tends tobe reported in different places.

The gap is said to exist betweenearly stage investors, or ‘businessangels’ who are often enthusiasts,family or friends, and larger scaleventure capital funding.

The Government has attempted torespond to the gap by targeting fiscalincentives to attract investment, andit has had some success in doing so.

But the difficulty in providing usefulfiscal incentives is that the sheervariety of needs faced by growingenterprises means that incentives areoften poorly targeted and can beopen to abuse by investors.

This inevitably leads to increasingcomplexity and tail-chasing.

The answer is not to tinker with theincentives in order to plug a gap, butto look at other methods of assistingscience based enterprises moredirectly.

Second, the Government shouldcontinue to look for and supportbest practice.

The Higher Education InnovationFund has provided approximately£265 million to help universitiesestablish technology transfer officesand become more commerciallyoriented.

The European Investment fund hasgiven significant support to theventure capital industry in Europeand enabled firms to raise venturecapital funds when they wouldformerly have been unable to do so.

Likewise, the UK High TechnologyFund had a significant impact insupporting early stage investors inthe UK but unfortunately there hasbeen no successor to the fund.

These initiatives invest funds withspecialist managers and are a veryeffective way of ensuring thatgovernment funds reach professionalmanagers in the target market.

The United States provides a goodexample of the benefit to the widereconomy of further support for earlystage venture capital.

The percentage of early stage deals isthe same, 34% versus 35%, but theamount of capital is much lower inthe UK with approximately 14 timesas much money invested in start-upsin the US than in the UK.

US initiatives like the Small BusinessInnovation Research Programme,which targets government Researchand Development funds at smallbusinesses, together withprocurement rules designed tobenefit early stage companies, wouldundoubtedly help science basedenterprises if they were implementedin the UK.

Third, there is a need to address thespecific challenges faced by sciencebased enterprises.

Many are spin-outs from universities,and these are a growing successstory. In 2004 the Library HouseSpin-out monitor identified 435technology spin outs from the 36

leading research universities in theUK.

Of these, 65% were at the seedfunding stage; which in itselfunderscores the need for more earlystage investment.

An excellent example of a universityspin-out is Surrey SatelliteTechnology, now the world’s leadingmanufacturer of small satellites andstill 85% owned by the University ofSurrey.

Arguably the next logical step wouldbe for the business to seek furtherventure capital involvement to helpit grow – and for the university toreap a healthy return on itsinvestment.

But one of the biggest concernsexpressed by the venture capitalindustry, and by university spin-outsthemselves, is the challenge ofattracting appropriately qualifiedmanagement into early-stageventures.

In fact, a study conducted in 2002by the Bank of England found thatattracting high quality managementto spin-out companies was a biggerproblem than attracting finance.

So the support that the VentureCapital industry offers to sciencebased enterprises goes deeper thanfinance; we must also continue tooffer the management expertise inorder to capitalise on thisinnovation.

My conclusion is optimistic. TheBritish venture capital industry isthriving and that success willcontinue to have a very positiveimpact on science based enterprises.

But the Government can always besmarter about how it spends itsmoney in support of early stagetechnology companies and how ittargets its fiscal incentives.

At the same time venture capitalfund managers must remaincommitted to investing inmanagement expertise as well asfinance.



It is over eight months since thenew standards for school food wereintroduced in England, a period

that has witnessed great innovation,commitment, dedication andoccasionally frustration amongst allthose responsible for food in schools.But also a period that has seen themost fundamental changes to schoolfood for over 20 years.

The reform agenda

When the School Food Trust wascreated by the DfES at the end of2005, it soon became clear thatinitiating what was nothing short of arevolution in the provision of schoolfood would never be an easy task forall schools and local authorities. Withvarying levels of infrastructure, trainedstaff, interested parents, committedcouncillors and engaged headteachers,there was never going to be a uniformresponse on the ground to theintroduction last September (2006) ofinterim standards.

For those schools that had alreadygone some way to reforming theirschool meals the introduction of thestandards has been relatively painless,with little impact on their day-to-dayoperations or viability. For others, theprocess has been a real struggle and itwould be foolish to pretend otherwise.

2007 has, and will continue to be, ayear of further improvements. TheTrust has recently issued guidance tohelp schools meet the new standardsfor food other than lunch (vendingmachines, breakfast clubs, tuck shops

etc) which will become law inSeptember 2007. We have alsorecently published a revised guide tothe original standards which respondsto the wide range of questions we havereceived from schools, local authoritiesand caterers. It also provides furtherpractical advice on how to implementthe standards, whilst maintaining aviable food service.

The final pieces of the reform jigsaware the nutrient standards which willbecome mandatory for primaryschools in 2008 and secondary schoolsin 2009. The Trust will be producingits definitive guide to these later in theyear.

Cooking up success

Whilst implementing all themandatory reforms is absolutelyessential, the Trust is also determinedto ensure that children learn aboutfood and how to cook it. We knowthat if they are knowledgeable andinterested they are more likely tochoose a healthy diet. The Trust isseeking to create a national network ofcommunity cooking clubs which usethe school as a hub for their activity.Our ‘Let’s Get Cooking’ initiative –which at the time of writing is subjectto a Big Lottery Fund application –will help to bridge the gap betweenthe desire to cook and the skillsrequired to make it happen. We arehopeful that this project willcomplement the Government’s ‘licenceto cook’ proposals which are rolled outin 2008.

State of the school foodnation

In July 2007 the Trust will publish thefirst definitive picture of what hashappened to take-up figures sinceSeptember 2006. However, we alreadyknow from a variety of sources,including headteachers, that it is amixed picture, with some schoolsenjoying increased demand and somesuffering a fall.

The real divide appears to be betweenprimary and secondary schools, withthe latter facing the gargantuan task ofpleasing increasingly savvy teenageconsumers who are usually affordedthe choice of leaving the schoolpremises and seeking their physicaland mental fuel elsewhere.

How we convince the Starbucksgeneration that they should eat in anenvironment which quite often feelsDickensian in contrast to their normalsocial arena is quite a challenge.

The answer is a mixture of reformingthe school lunch hour to reducequeues, giving more time forsocialising and sport; it is making thedining environment a pleasant place tobe; it is ensuring those who qualify forfree school meals do not feelstigmatised or alienated; and it isheadteachers being brave enough toforbid forays into the High Street atlunch time, and saying no to pupilsbringing in products from outsidewhich undermine the healthy eatingagenda.

5

The School FoodReform Journey -much more thanjust eating healthilyPrue LeithChair of the School Food Trust


6

The cost of school food could alsohave a bearing on demand. I thinkthere is a real debate to be had aboutthe relative cost of school meals andwho and how we should pay for them.Whilst admitting that the cost of a twocourse school meal is relativelyinexpensive for many of us – between£1.50 and £2 – it is nonetheless ahefty whack for a three-child family ona low income.

What we need is innovation andcreative ways to develop loyaltyamongst our children to the schoolfood brand. A recent experiment in aschool in York showed that offeringfree school meals for a week resultedin a sustained increase in take-up ofover 17%. Our own research has alsorevealed that the two countries withthe highest take up in Europe –Sweden (85%) and Finland (90%) –both have free school meals for all.Such findings could be an importantconsideration for policy makers whenthey determine how we really ensurechildren are eating healthily atlunchtime.

Conclusion – we are all inthis together

Fulfilling our agenda sounds so simplewhen writing an article: produce anddistribute some guidance here,disseminate some best practice there,and surely all the problems will besolved. Unfortunately, the reality is fardifferent.

Delivering real and lasting changemeans that we all – children, parents,schools, local authorities, caterers andGovernment – have to work together.

This means allowing our childrenenough time to collect and eat theirfood. It means providing anenvironment that is interesting andenticing, not dull and depressing. Itmeans providing training for cooks toensure that food is delicious as well ashealthy. It means getting schoolleadership to encourage, lead andinspire change. And it meansreinforcing to parents and childrenthat for their sakes as well as forschools’ they should choose schoollunches.

This final point is of huge importanceif we are to create the demand thatwill mean an economically sustainableservice alongside well-nourishedchildren. So the Trust has decided touse its ‘Eat Better Do Better’ slogan toencourage parents and children to signup for school dinners. Getting themessage out there that changing yourdiet will benefit concentration,performance and attainment, as well asyour health, could start a move in theright direction – towards eating betterand doing better.

The School Food Trust is under noillusions that reforming school foodwill be a complex and challengingprocess. But we are optimists, becausewe know the rewards of improvingour children’s diet are so fundamental.We believe that together we can ensurehealthier, happier and better educatedchildren and young people. We hopethat all Parliamentarians will supportour activities as we continue to makechanges to improve the health andpotential of our children.


Yorkshire and Humber –the UK’s real powerhouse?Tom RiordanChief Executive, Yorkshire Forward

Too often Yorkshire and

Humber’s association with the

coal industry has held

negative connotations. The decline of

the industry in recent decades,

leading to extensive unemployment

and a downturn in the economic

fortunes in the region was one of the

most challenging in our

manufacturing history.

Today, however, the region is movingon, building on the legacy of energyproduction and the expertise that

Yorkshire and Humber holds indealing with the environmentalconsequences of this production.This knowledge is offering ourbusinesses new opportunities to leadthe way in addressing the globalneed for cleaner fuels and thedevelopment of sustainable energy.

Our fortunes are still inextricablylinked with energy production, asYorkshire and Humber sits on 22%of the UK’s indigenous coal supplies,and is home to three of Europe’slargest coal fired power stations,

which collectively generate 27% ofthe UK’s coal fired electricity.

But with the growing emphasis onenergy efficiency and greenhouse gasreduction, it is imperative that welearn how to update our productionmethods by embracing cleaner coaltechnologies like super-critical



boilers, advanced steam turbines andbio-mass co-firing.

Even with this technology, carbonemissions may not be reduced to anacceptable level. If the region canhave the same success with othertechnologies as it has had with bio-mass co-firing, which is proving tobe a real hit with the local farmers aswell as power generators, we will bein a position to continue to provideenergy in bulk with minimumenvironmental effect.

Add to this the possibility for acarbon capture and storage networklinked to power stations, andemissions from the region could befurther reduced.

Recognising the need for action, ourpower stations are already investingheavily in technical research andthere are plans for a self-sufficientbusiness park on the site of a collierythat has recently been re-opened inSouth Yorkshire. On the banks of theHumber, Conoco has one of thelargest combined heat and powerplants in Europe. Couple theseinvestments and others like themwith technological advances, andthere is huge potential for the regionto export the engineering andcomissioning of new technology inthis sector.

The challenge for Yorkshire Forward,as the regional development agencyfor Yorkshire and Humber and theorganisation charged with growingour region’s economy, is to bring thisexpertise together, not only to reducethe carbon footprint of our region,but to support Yorkshire andHumber in becoming a world leaderin moving to a lower carbon energy.It is estimated that the global marketfor environmental technologies isworth £400 billion, and we want toensure that Yorkshire and Humbergets its fair share of this business.

At a strategic level, Yorkshire andHumber remains the only region inthe UK to specify the reduction of

carbon emissions in its RegionalEconomic Strategy and we are theonly region to have set our owntargets for this reduction – 20% by2010. We are working with publicand private companies across theregion to get them committed toreducing their carbon footprint –already we have some of the biggestnames in industry on board as wellas almost two-thirds of the NHS.Amongst our allies is Drax powerstation, Europe’s largest coal firedelectricity plant, which produces 7%of England’s electricity and keeps thelights on in London as well asYorkshire and Humber.

In terms of knowledge base, the regionis home to one of the highestconcentrations of universities inEurope and of these, four: Bradford,Leeds, Hull and Sheffield have alldeveloped cutting edge expertise in thefield of environmental technologies.

For the past four years, YorkshireForward has pioneered a network ofunique Centres of IndustrialCollaboration, which harness theexpertise of research academics fromuniversities across the Yorkshire andHumber region and translate thisknowledge into commercially focusedresearch services which can beaccessed by companies to develop newproducts or improve existing processes.

These Centres – CICs – recognise thecritical role science and innovationplays in our region’s capacity forfurther economic growth andprosperity. So far they have workedon over 1400 collaborations withindustry and generated in excess of£50 million of research income forthe region.

A number of these centres are alreadyworking in the field of environmentaltechnologies and collaborating withcompanies to help them reduce theircarbon footprint – the EnvironmentalTechnologies CIC based at theUniversities of Hull and Leeds ishome to leading expertise in

environmental forensics, organicsprocessing and water dynamics.

Over at the University of Bradford,The Polymer CIC has been workingwith companies involved in plasticsmanufacturing to improve theirindustrial processes, which use agreat deal of energy. One suchcollaboration has enabled a companyto demonstrate the energy efficiencyof their plastics manufacturingmachinery, helping them to developtheir business and reduce theirenergy consumption in an industrythat is known as a high energy user.

Yorkshire Forward has also recentlyannounced an £8.7 millioninvestment in an environmentalenergy technology centre (EETC) thatwill provide premises for new andstart-up businesses specialising inlow carbon technologies. Our regionis already attracting innovativecompanies that are developing newproducts like fuel cells and groundsource heat pumps, and we want toencourage these businesses todevelop and grow.

The EETC building, located on theAdvanced Manufacturing Park inSouth Yorkshire, which alreadyprovides premises for forward-thinking engineering companies andspecialist engineering researchcentres, will itself incorporate someof the latest technology, including aniconic renewable energy mini grid tosupply electricity and heat to thetenants and provide a real life ‘plugand play’ demonstrator for newtechnologies.

These developments in research andbusiness support provide a firmfoundation for the region’s futurework in environmental technologies.I have no doubt that by workingtogether with universities andindustry, Yorkshire and Humber willcontinue to be at the forefront ofinnovative power generation.



In 2009, the Royal Botanic GardensKew celebrates 250 years as a plantscience powerhouse and much-

loved botanic garden of global reachand impact. This anniversary providesa significant opportunity both tocelebrate the past and look to thefuture. Here I would like to present anupdate on contemporary work andplanning for Kew.

A new mission

Recently, following my arrival asincoming Director succeedingProfessor Sir Peter Crane, theorganisation has developed a newmission: to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worldwide,enhancing the quality of life.

This mission statement has several keyelements. First, Kew’s primary purposeis to conserve and enhance plant andfungal life, as well as the WorldHeritage assets, collections andprogrammes in its remit – caring forand respecting significant natural andcultural heritage, and ensuringimprovements are of lasting universalvalue.

Second, it recognises that the mosteffective way Kew might have globalimpact is to inspire others. Inspirationembodies many ideas, includingleadership, discovery, teaching,partnering, and enabling.

Third, Kew delivers services and runsprogrammes: through excellence in thecare and enhancement of collections,World Heritage buildings andlandscapes; through science,horticulture, visitor services andeducation; through UK and overseaspartnerships; and through world-class

approaches to biodiversityconservation and sustainable living (egthe Millennium Seed Bank).

Fourth, the point of all of the above isto secure plant and fungalconservation worldwide. As anorganisation whose existence hasalways revolved around plant life andpeople, Kew must ensure the future ofthe organisms that are its primaryfocus. And this is especially importantin times of rapid climate change andglobal threat to wild biodiversity.

Fifth, Kew has a proud history as acentre of excellence in plant science.One-third of its 700 staff is involved inresearch. Science-based plant andfungal conservation, therefore, is asignificant hallmark and makes Kewunique.

Last, but not least, Kew does all this tomake things better for people, plantsand fungi – to enhance the quality oflife on earth. As a species we remaininextricably linked to other forms oflife on our planet, plants especially.Plants, as major assimilators of carbon,play a vital and relatively inexpensiverole in moderating impacts of climatechange. We must care for them, forself-interest if nothing else. It’s one ofthe practical things each one of us cando to make life better.

So how might Kew best make itscontribution towards improving thequality of life for people and plants intoday’s world?

Kew’s Global ConservationPartnership Programme

The recently released Stern Review onthe economics of climate change andreports of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change call for immediateaction to mitigate and adapt to climatechange. These reports conclude thatclimate change will affect all countries.The most vulnerable – the poorestcountries and populations – will sufferearliest and most, even though theyhave contributed least to the causes ofclimate change. The worst impacts ofclimate change can be avoided, if wetake strong action now. The costs ofstabilising the climate are significant –1 per cent of global GDP – butmanageable. Delay would bedangerous and much more costly.Failure to act could create risks, forour children and grandchildren, ofmajor disruption to economic andsocial activity, on a scale similar tothose associated with the great warsand the economic depression of thefirst half of the 20th century.

Plant-based solutions are a critical partof sensible, sustainable strategies tocope with the significantenvironmental challenges facing us all,especially climate change. The Trusteesof the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kewresolved in March that Kew will workwith partners and supporters bothnationally and internationally todevelop Kew’s Global ConservationPartnership Programme, a strategicand business plan for a greener worldrich in plant and fungal life. TheProgramme will identify and seek theresources necessary to beginimplementation by 2009 againstagreed targets. Kew’s GlobalConservation Partnership Programmewill be a key element incommemorating and celebrating RBGKew’s 250th anniversary. Our actionsin response to accelerating climatechange and loss of plant biodiversity

8

The Royal BotanicGardens, Kew:for peopleand plants worldwideProfessor Stephen D Hopper FLSDirector, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew



will help make the UK an internationalleader in this field.

While every effort is required toreduce carbon emissions, an equalfocus on safeguarding and increasingcarbon uptake by plants is necessary. Afifth of current carbon emissions aredue to ongoing destruction andburning of wild vegetation andassociated land use changes. Thisamounts to more than the world’stransport systems combined. Increasedplant productivity and conservation ofwild vegetation will deliver economiclong-term solutions to mitigating andadapting to climate change. Inaddition, these approaches will helpachieve the UN’s MillenniumDevelopment Goals – the set of targets,including environmental sustainability,to reduce global poverty and improveliving standards by 2015.

Increased carbon uptake by plants isbest achieved by four key strategies:

(i) conserving existing forests,woodlands and other wildvegetation that remain the world’smajor carbon sinks – amoratorium on further extensivedestruction is desperately needednow;

(ii) banking seeds and acceleratingthe science of restoration ecologyso that major repair and re-establishment of damaged wildvegetation can be fast-tracked –Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank is aworld leader in this vital area;

(iii) acquiring knowledge throughscience and practical experienceto enable the necessary andurgent cultivation of locally-appropriate plant species underchanging climatic regimes onagricultural, urban and suburbanlands and;

(iv) informing and inspiring peopleworld-wide about mitigation andadaptation strategies to cope withclimate change, loss of plantbiodiversity and other significantenvironmental challenges facingus all.

The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew andits global partners are well placed tomake significant contributions in thisurgent programme to create a greenerworld in the face of rapid climatechange, accelerating loss of wildbiodiversity and of the degrading of

9

productive lands. The organisation ispositioned and poised to adapt andexpand its international scientificleadership and extend its globalpartnerships and capacity building indeveloping countries.

Kew’s Global Conservation PartnershipProgramme embraces seven keyactions:

three actions collectively helpretain our major remaining carbonsinks such as rainforests andtemperate woodlands using Kew’sscience powerhouse and collectionsdata;

two help recover lost plantproductivity and carbonsequestration through expandingthe Millennium Seed Bank’sprogrammes and increasing Kew’srole in targeted restoration ecology;

one facilitates successful plant-based adaptation to climate changeby growing locally appropriateplant species on agricultural, urbanand suburban land;

and the last gives visitors to theGardens and to our digital mediagreater understanding ofindividual, national and globalactions needed to overcome thesethreats.

Together the seven key actions ofKew’s Global Conservation PartnershipProgramme will help maintain andbuild the resilience of plant ecosystemsthat are the essential precursor forsuccessful human adaptation toclimate change and otherenvironmental challenges.

Resourcing in times ofsignificant environmentalchallenge

Since it became a Non-departmentalPublic Body in 1984, the RoyalBotanic Gardens Kew has gone from95% Government funding to about50% today. It is sponsored by Defra,and raises additional funds throughentry fees (while still remaining free tochildren), a diverse and inspiringevents programme, retail and food,and with increasing support from thecorporate sector and Foundationsupporters. Previous DirectorsProfessor Sir Ghillean Prance andProfessor Sir Peter Crane led a series ofinitiatives to place Kew on itscontemporary financial footing.

This transition has meant that Kew hasengaged with its supporters andaudiences much more than everbefore, to ensure it remains relevantand valued locally, nationally andinternationally. The momentousinscription on UNESCO’s WorldHeritage register in 2003 signalledinternational recognition of itsenduring value as an organisation andcultural site. Moreover, Kew is theonly World Heritage site that hasattained accreditation for sustainablepractices under ISO 14001.

Kew and its partners around the worldhave demonstrated the power ofcollaborative global action for plantsand people, most recently through thesuccess in securing a billion seeds forthe future in safe storage in-countryand at Kew’s Millennium Seed Banksin Wakehurst Place, West Sussex. Thisprogramme established aninternational network of thousands ofpeople working together to enhancethe quality of life through plant-basedsolutions to the serious environmentalchallenges and loss of biodiversity weall face.

Over the next ten years, Kew willwork hard to realise an order ofmagnitude increase in its essentialglobal programme for people andplants. Business as usual for Kew is nolonger feasible, just as business asusual in other walks of life needs tochange and change soon if we are toadapt to and mitigate future outcomesof climate change and loss ofbiodiversity. We have to apply muchmore substantial thinking andinvestment in environmental scienceand solutions, as the Stern Reviewemphasized. Kew and partners realisethis and are focusing on the escalationof projects, training and scienceneeded to really make a difference inareas of their expertise.

Significant announcements and eventsare planned for the 250th anniversaryyear in 2009. It is hoped that the UKand international community, privateand Government, will respond to thedemonstrable potential for plant-basedsolutions to climate change, andcontinue to support and collaboratewith Kew and its partners so that theycan escalate to necessary levelsscience-based plant conservationworldwide.

Kew’s website is http://www.kew.org/



The high profile closure of anumber of chemistrydepartments alongside a string of

similar cuts at other institutions ledthe Royal Society to issue warningsthat the subject was in meltdownacross the university sector. Theargument that chemistry neededexpensive laboratories andsophisticated equipment and so, oneconomic grounds, was notsustainable in many UK universitieswas seen to gain increased credibility.

It would perhaps be logical to ask why,in this environment, has the Universityof Central Lancashire relaunched BScChemistry with plans to launch afurther range of additional definedfield chemistry courses? To understandthe importance and logic of thisdecision it is necessary to understandthe context in which the sciencestrategy at the University hasdeveloped over the last three to fouryears and to realise the fundamentalimportance of this essential scientificdiscipline with respect to some of thekey issues facing society today.

What is the future ofchemistry?

Chemistry could be simplysummarised as the study andmanipulation of molecules. It isimportant in its own right as anintellectual discipline but also for itsability to produce new molecules,materials and methods on which otherfields depend.

For the last 50 years, chemistry hasfocused on a range of problems basedon synthesis, catalysis, theunderstanding of bonding and thedevelopment of methods but societaldrivers for new technology arechanging. The focus is no longer theneed for fuels or the need for polymer-derived products such as paints and

fabrics. Instead, they are, amongstothers, environmental management,public health and new technologies fordefence against terrorism.

Chemistry is changing to meet thesenew challenges and is now engagingwith a different set of problemsderived from, for example, chemicalbiology and materials science. Thenext phase of chemistry is in someways so different from that of the last50 years it could be considered a newfield(s) of science, connected to theprevious by the common themes ofatoms, molecules, synthesis, andmeasurement, but differing in subject,scope, and objectives. It is my beliefthat such changes will requireUniversities to adopt a differentapproach to the subject in the future ifwe are to be internationallycompetitive.

How is this new paradigmincorporated into ouruniversity science strategy?

Issues of resource are important andthe changes to the Faculty haverequired multi-million poundinvestment over recent years andchanges to the staff profile but one ofthe biggest challenges was that of thegeneral insular nature of academicdepartments. The funding systems thatsupport research and teaching do nottend to drive interactions betweenacademic disciplines, and theseinteractions are essential for theemergence of globally competitivescience. Chemistry in the future will Ibelieve remain a core science but itsfocus and development will besignificantly different. The aim at theUniversity of Central Lancashire wasnot therefore to create a department ofchemistry but stimulate couplings ofchemistry programmes to physics,biology, environmental science,engineering, and other disciplines to

enable a focus on issues andapplications within society andindustry. This required the creation ofmultidisciplinary environments whichare recognised features of themultidisciplinary research carried outin other nations but which tend to beuncommon in UK universities. Thesegroupings were assembled around keythemes but aligned with areas ofresearch strength.

a) Medical Chemistry Medicinal chemistry is an importantdiscipline for its potential to supportthe pharmaceutical industry, but it hasnever been a major part of chemistrydepartments in the UK. With thecreation of a new school of Pharmacyand Pharmaceutical Sciences withinthe faculty we have been able to investsignificantly in research and teachingfacilities focused on pharmaceutics.This investment has attracted anumber of high calibre research andlecturing staff from the UK (egManchester and Imperial) as well asoverseas. This will form the focus for arange of courses around pharmaceuticsand medicinal chemistry.

The Faculty structure has also beenreviewed to bring areas of biomedicineand related areas of bioscience underthis same umbrella. It is recognisedthat the integration of chemistry andbiology is important for the future yetis lagging behind in the UK. Here wehope that by bringing specialiststogether from biology and chemistrywith focused investment in medicalscience we can enable significantprogress in this area. Chemicalgenetics, the use of small molecules toprobe cellular pathways, is an exampleof an area that combines chemicalsynthesis and cell biology both toreveal metabolic and signallingpathways and to discover potentialtargets for the early stages of drugdiscovery.

The importance ofmaintaining chemistrywithin universitiesProfessor David A PhoenixDean, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston



b) Green and Sustainable ChemistryThere is significant opportunity forchemistry to participate in all aspectsof green and environmental chemistry.Low-pollution chemical processing,waste management recycling,atmospheric and environmentalscience all draw heavily on chemistry.At present, however, in the UK thistype of research is still relativelylimited. In the faculty we are bringingtogether expertise around the built andnatural environment within oneSchool to focus on issues ofsustainability. This work builds onexisting recognised research areaswithin the faculty, such as wastemanagement, which already attractsmulti-million pound income streamsfrom industry and European sources.

Sustainable growth depends on theefficiency and nature of energy usage,the sources of raw materials used byindustry, and the cleanliness ofindustrial processes. The new coursein chemistry which starts thisSeptember has a number of specialistmodules with a theme aroundsustainability – ensuring the studentsget to compare and contrast new andtraditional types of synthesis –comparing yields and by-productformation for example in the twodifferent cases to gain greaterunderstanding of these key issues.

Eliminating the detrimental legacies ofpast practices, and halting thedegradation of the environment bypollution will also require what areessentially chemical solutions. Forexample, our work in the area ofnuclear science and technology, basedat Preston and our Institute for nuclearscience in West Cumbria, contributestrongly to this theme. We launchedthe UK’s first course in nucleardecommissioning this year withsupport from the NuclearDecommissioning Agency and otherstakeholders and this has a corechemistry theme.

c) Forensic Chemistry The UK is just beginning to engage theacademic community in work in thearea of crime and national security.The US, Israel, Germany, Sweden,Russia, and many other countriesentered the area of defence againstchemical and biological weapons someyears ago, and have much largerand/or more advanced programmes.Organisational structures that promotethis type of research and developmentare generally weak in the UK. Thefaculty currently leads a nationalknowledge exchange in this area andhas created a School of Forensic and

Investigative Sciences – the first tobring together scientists alongsidepolice officers, crime scene officers andmembers of other uniformed servicessuch as the fire service. Building onour expertise in fire and explosion,policing and analytical and materialchemistry, this School has been able tolaunch a range of Chemistry coursessuch as Forensic Chemistry anddefined field chemistry and looks atapplications linked to crime andnational security.

The vulnerability of open societies toterrorism is increasingly clear, andunquestionably a matter of nationalconcern in the UK. Chemistry forsensors, agents for decontamination,protective gear, and materials forhardening against chemical, biologicaland radiological attacks are all keyareas of science required to supportthe development of defences againstweapons of mass casualties. Newtechnologies for detection ofexplosives, materials diagnostic ofnuclear weapons, and drugs are alsoneeded and this will require a strongchemistry core.

d) Engineering & MaterialsChemistry

Materials science has emerged as amajor area of research in chemistry. Itcombines opportunities for inventionand fundamental science withimmediate applications in hightechnology products. While welladvanced in other nations, materialschemistry is still taking form in theUK. The field of materials science isnot yet as strongly integrated intoacademic chemistry departments as itis in the US, Japan, the Netherlands,and others.

Nanoscience is an area that requiresseamless integration of electricalengineering, applied physics,chemistry, and mechanicalengineering, and access to specialisedfacilities, and to this end these subjectshave been brought together in thefaculty to focus on a School ofAdvanced Technologies. This buildson our expertise in tribotechnologyand materials (both materials physicsand chemistry) coupled to investmentin a high performance computingenvironment to enable advancedmolecular modelling. A range ofmasters courses in nanotechnologyand related areas have been developed.This School also enables considerationof all issues in the product cyclehopefully helping address a criticismthat materials-related sciences in theUK have, in general, been late tocouple synthesis to function.

In summary, we have relaunched ourBSc courses in chemistry and will belaunching more over the next fewyears. This has not been, though, inthe context of a traditional chemistrydepartment but by recognisingchemistry as an integral part of futureadvances in many of society’s priorityareas. The research and teaching hastherefore been facilitated across areassuch as those shown above by creatingmultidisciplinary environments whichaim to facilitate research opportunitiesat the interfaces between disciplines. Itthus represents the type ofmulticentre, multidiscipline research atwhich the UK is traditionally weak.Key areas of chemistry research thatoffer particular scientific and industrialopportunities are therefore supportedand the use of such applications asthose listed provide the interest formany of the students who select thesecourses.

Is this a successful strategy? Thatremains to be seen but in the last fewyears the Faculty has had one of thefastest growth rates in terms ofresearch in the UK (as measured bykey indicators such as peer reviewedoutput and grant capture), it hasattracted significant increases instudent demand at undergraduate andpostgraduate level, is being successfulin recruiting high quality staff from theUK and overseas and is already in theprocess of launching a number ofdedicated overseas Science Institutesbased on this multi-disciplinaryapproach. I believe that as afundamental science chemistry mustbe supported but the UK can onlyafford a limited number of Universitieswith dedicated chemistry departmentslarge enough to cover the breadth ofchemistry needed, and at sufficientlevel, to be successful internationally.For others, though chemistry as afundamental science must also besupported, and if the challengesaround the insularity of academicareas can be overcome, the above isone approach that may have merit.

Acknowledgements: The abovecontains a number of extracts from thereport ‘An international assessment ofuniversity research in chemistry in theUK’ commissioned from the RoyalSociety of Chemistry by theEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council



The world is becoming moreglobal. This statement may readlike a tautology but it expresses

a real and important trend that showsno signs of abating. The trend isevident in the spread of popularculture from one region to others; theuniformity of fashion in oppositecorners of the globe; the dramaticescalation in air travel, as people –whether for work or leisure –increasingly sample other countriesand lifestyles.

Most especially, we can see therelentless march of globalisation inscience, technology and engineering.Certainly, every region has its localbusiness, environmental and societalchallenges, and presents localopportunities – shaped byenvironment, values, geography andother circumstances. But the solutionsto these challenges, and the means ofgrasping the opportunities, are seldomunique to a particular region.Increasingly those who seek them areable to benefit from ideas, practicesand experiences in other parts of theworld.

A role for chemicalengineers

By the same token, recognition isgrowing that different regions of theworld can benefit by working togetherin the development of shared solutionsto the big challenges that they have incommon. As the world becomes moreglobal, we will need more sharedsolutions. But shared solutions areonly possible if there is genuineengagement between all stakeholders;government and NGO’s, society andenvironmentalists, scientists andengineers. Chemical engineers have apivotal role to play in helping todevelop such shared solutions. As aprofession, we specialise in workingacross boundaries – with people fromdifferent disciplines, different

countries, different functions anddifferent backgrounds.

We recognise that there can be morethan one answer to a question orchallenge. The energy challenge is acase in point. Satisfying the world'sdemand for energy will require acombination of many energy sources,not just one. Moreover, we see that the'best' solution depends on both 'soft'and 'hard' parameters – societal moresas well as scientific metrics.

It is important that any sharedsolution must be scientificallyresponsible. As science andengineering grow in sophistication andcomplexity, this imperative presentschemical engineers with a greatopportunity. We can work to ensurethat the public policy debate in the UKand beyond is conducted onscientifically robust ground.

Serving the public interest

Another key contribution by chemicalengineers lies in our role in bringingthe fruits of research and innovationinto play in large-scale, commerciallyviable, sustainable process operationsthat meet the needs of society at large.

2007 marks the fiftieth Anniversary ofthe granting of IChemE’s RoyalCharter. The terms of the Charter leaveno doubt as to the requirement uponprofessional chemical engineers toserve the public interest:

“All Corporate Members shall at alltimes so order their conduct as touphold the dignity and reputation ofthe profession and safeguard thepublic interest in matters of health,safety and otherwise…”

Fifty years on from the granting of thecharter, IChemE remains committed tosupporting its international

membership in pursuit of this noblegoal and today’s chemical engineers arecontinuing the tradition of providingsolutions to meet real needs. Wedevelop and apply science andtechnologies that deliver economic,social and environmental benefits. Wepioneer new materials andmanufacturing techniques. We designand manage the large-scalemanufacturing processes thatcharacterise industrialised economiesand we continue to pursue sharedsolutions to many pressing globalchallenges including energy, food andwater.

Global consultation

To coincide with its jubilee year,IChemE engaged in a major globalconsultation with its 27,000 membersin more than 100 countries. At theheart of the consultation lay a toughquestion: “What does society need;what are the desirable outcomes andhow can chemical engineers work inpartnership with others to make ithappen?”

The findings of the consultation werepublished in May in the form of a“Roadmap for 21st Century ChemicalEngineering”. This document willunderpin IChemE’s work in the yearsahead but a more digestible summaryaimed at policy makers and opinionformers is presented in a JubileeReport, “Shared Challenges, SharedSolutions” and the key points aresummarised below.

12

Shared Challenges,Shared SolutionsDr Ramesh MashelkarIChemE President



FFUURRTTHHEERR IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONNA copy of ‘Shared Challenges, Shared Solutions’, the IChemE’s Jubilee Reportcan be downloaded at www.icheme.org/jubileereport For further information contact:Andy Furlong, Director of Policy & Communication, IChemE, Davis Building,Rugby, CV21 3HQ Tel: 01788 534484 Email [email protected]

Where do chemical engineers stand:On Sustainable Technology?

“IChemE supports the more rapid pursuit of a globalenergy policy based on using non-fossil primary energysources.”

“IChemE supports the continuing introduction ofappropriate legislation, taxes and other fiscal measuresto drive the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ mentality deeper intoindustry and the consumers of its products.”

“IChemE believes that the necessary change inbusiness strategy to speed the introduction of innovativeand sustainable technologies should be boardroom led.”

On Health, Safety and Environmental Risk?

“IChemE will exert greater influence on the processsector, regulators and academia to develop and utilisenew ways for cost effective and sustainable riskreduction.”

“IChemE will engage with corporate leaders, regulatorsand other professional bodies to create cultures thatdeliver real improvements in health, safety andenvironmental performance.”

“IChemE will influence industry groups and regulators totake a more proactive approach to passing on lessonslearnt from industrial incidents.”

On Energy?

“IChemE believes that nuclear power will continue tofulfil a significant part of global energy demand in theshort and medium term.”

“IChemE supports the view that, because the world islocked into fossil fuels usage for some time to come, thetechnological means of reducing CO2 emission from theiruse must be implemented globally as an environmentaland political priority.”

“IChemE supports increased R&D on the developmentand deployment of renewable technologies and powerstorage systems, and the development of secondgeneration bio fuels.”

“IChemE believes that the widespread application ofclean generation technology, coupled with carboncapture and storage and more efficient electricitygeneration and use, is essential to achieve majorreductions in CO2 emissions.”

On Food and Drink?

“IChemE supports the development of technologies to

maximise the use of viable waste streams from the foodsupply chain.”

“IChemE believes that chemical engineers must play aprominent role in the development of precisionagriculture technology and rendering farming methodssustainable.”

“IChemE will continue to press government to take ascience based approach in the development of policiesfor agriculture.”

“IChemE supports appropriate regulation to enforceclearer and standardised labelling of food productscoupled with consumer education to influence choiceand market driven demand.”

“IChemE believes that the delivery of safe, healthy andnutritious food will require the input of chemicalengineers to explore new avenues in science andtechnology.”

On Water?

“IChemE will work with other stakeholders to impressupon governments and international bodies theimportance of developing and implementing sustainableregional water management strategies, especiallythrough realistic charging.”

“IChemE is committed to the search for technologieswhich contribute to sustainable water supplies. TheInstitution will continue to press governments andcompanies to fund research programmes which supportthis objective.”

“IChemE supports the introduction of appropriateregulation that encourages more sustainable watersupply and wastewater disposal, eg by water reuse inhomes and buildings, and beneficial use of sewagesludge rather than landfill.”

On biosystems?

“IChemE seeks to expand the recruitment of schoolleavers to biochemical and chemical engineeringcourses. Hailed as the third industrial revolution, bioprocess engineering must feature strongly in the degreecourse offer.”

“IChemE supports reducing the environmental impact ofindustrial activity and will encourage members topromote new pollution abatement strategies and thedesign of sustainable processes. We will work withcompanies to highlight this approach and environmentalsuccess stories to the public.”

The Jubilee Report

The publication of the Jubilee Reportmarks a milestone in IChemE’s historyand the contribution made bychemical engineers to meeting theworld’s needs. But more importantly,I believe, it presents a perspective onhow the profession aims to developand enhance its contribution in theyears ahead.

Making that happen depends on manyfactors: on attracting a steady flow ofyoung people into the chemicalengineering profession; on clear andconsistent communication of our

capabilities to those who can benefitfrom working with us; and on society,policy makers and other stakeholdersbeing prepared to engage more deeplywith us to find the shared solutionsthe world needs.

It therefore gives me great pleasure tooffer a brief taster of the IChemE’s

Jubilee Report and its findings via thepages of Science in Parliament. It isnot merely a report of past successes.It is much more a “call to arms”,especially for those outside thechemical engineering profession, towork together with us on furthershared solutions for the opportunitiesand challenges facing us all.



As Gordon Brown made clear in hislast budget, improving and developingthe science and research capabilities ofthe UK is vital to assure futureeconomic growth. If the UK is tocompete in a global knowledgeeconomy, it is important to attractmore of the best talent into research, inaddition to building a broaderspectrum of skills and expertise.

Women scientists are crucial toachieving these aims, but are currentlysignificantly under-represented in thesector, making up only 19% of theUK’s total science, engineering andtechnology (SET) workforce.1 And thedearth of women making it to the topin science isn’t simply a problem forthe individual women concerned; itrepresents a serious hurdle to Britain’seconomic competitiveness in thefuture.

For many reasons, women are failing tobuild long-term, successful careers inscience. It was in response to this issue,and stemming from a fundamentalbelief that ‘the world needs science,and science needs women’, that L’Oréaland UNESCO came together in 1998to launch the global For Women InScience Programme.

The award programme was designed topromote and highlight the criticalimportance of ensuring greaterparticipation of women in science, byawarding promising female scientistswith fellowships to help them furthertheir research.

Since the programme’s launch in 1998,national award schemes have beenrolled out in 22 countries. This monththe first winners of the L’Oréal UKFellowships For Women In Science,which were launched in January, areannounced.

The UK awards, run in partnershipwith the UK National Commission forUNESCO and the Royal Institution ofGreat Britain, will offer threefellowships of £10,000 to assistoutstanding young female scientists tofurther their research. L’Oréal UK isoffering a further fellowship of

late twenties and early thirties canresult in loss of momentum, reducedpublication output, and leave womenwithout a research post to return to.”

This was certainly the case forMyfanwy Lloyd, an astrophysicist anduniversity lecturer, who was a winnerof a L’Oreal/ UKRC bursary, aprogramme of financial support forfemale scientists that preceded the UKFor Women In Science scheme.

She was close to giving up her careerfollowing the birth of her children,finding the difficulty of maintaining awork life balance too stressful.

Myfanwy had returned to work atManchester University, initially parttime, then full time, after her firstchild. But returning part time after thebirth of her second child, she foundthe burden of lecturing in physics andastronomy, while devoting time to herresearch into planetary nebulae, andstill trying having time for her family,too much.

Close to giving up completely, she tookan 18 month career break on theadvice of the University and, with thehelp of the L’Oréal UK/UKRC bursary,was able to buy out half her teachingload this year, effectively buying timeand freedom to spend on her research.

“As a woman in this field you feelunder pressure to be the best. You can’tjust be ordinary. Working part time,you can feel under valued.”

Another barrier faced by women is the‘boys-club’ mentality of some researchdepartments, where being in theminority, female scientists can beexcluded and their contributionsdevalued.

Dr Nancy Lane, a Senior ResearchAssociate at the Zoology Department ofCambridge University and a memberof the L’Oréal UK For Women InScience Fellowships jury panelelaborates:

“Women are just as capable ofcreativity and innovation as men, but itis not expected of them and only

£10,000, in association with the UKResource Centre for Women in Science,Engineering and Technology (SET), toa woman scientist returning toscientific research following a careerbreak.

Despite the UK’s growing reputation asa centre of excellence for science andresearch, the problem of nurturing andretaining female talent is as acute hereas elsewhere internationally. Womenmake up 37% of those enteringscience, engineering and researchprofessions after first degree and post-graduate courses.2 However, they formonly 25% of the science workforcequalified at these levels.3

Even in those disciplines where womendominate at under-graduate and post-graduate levels, the number of womenin more senior positions is low. In thebiosciences, where women make up63% of under-graduates, theyconstitute only 12% of universityprofessors. Worryingly, across all SETdisciplines women hold a measly 6%of professorships.4

So what is causing this black hole, inwhich bright young women scientistsenter research careers, only todisappear within ten years?

Annette Williams is Director of the UKResource Centre for Women in SET,which was established in 2004 todeliver a substantial part of theGovernment’s Strategy for Women inSET. The UKRC works with theResearch Councils UK to promotewomen’s access to mainstream researchfunding and improve careermanagement for researchers across theboard.

She explains some of the pitfalls forfemale scientists:

“The career structure for researchers isproblematic. Moving from post-doctoral positions to an establishedacademic or research post is wheremany women get stuck and end up ona succession of fixed term contracts,unable to access independent grantfunding. Taking a career break in your

Why Science needs WomenWith L’Oréal this month announcing the winners of the first For Women In Science UK Fellowships,

we look at reasons why women are failing to build successful careers in science.



infrequently have they had a chance toshine. Groups in labs tend to publishas a collective, and it is difficult toestablish which person is the creativegenius behind the research. It isgenerally assumed to be the PI(principal investigator), who alsobrings in the grant money, and thatperson is rarely a woman. A change ofculture is needed in order to provideequality of opportunity.”

Finally, there is a real need to providestrong role models for women workingin science, and also for girls thinkingabout career options at school.

One such role model is Baroness SusanGreenfield, the first female Director ofthe Royal Institution of Great Britainand the president of the For Women InScience jury panel.

She feels that from the youngest agepossible, children should beintroduced to the excitement ofscience, and its impact on every aspectof modern life.

“At the moment, the demands of theNational Curriculum and the teaching ofvarious exam syllabuses might divertyoung people from pursuing theirgenuine curiosity and fun of the subject.”

According to Susan, we should also befocusing on the positive side of a careerin science. “We need to communicatethe advantages. A career in science canoffer a very cosmopolitan lifestyle andmany opportunities to travel. The mostimportant thing to stress is thestimulation and enjoyment of doingwork that is creative, often ground-breaking and completely unique toyou.”

Since the L’Oréal UNESCO For WomenIn Science programme was launched,over 350 women across the world havebeen recognised for their careers andreceived funding to further theirresearch.

In its augural year in the UK, theprogramme is already proving just hownecessary schemes like this are. SophieGasperment, L’Oréal’s UK MD explains:

“We’ve seen a fantastic reception to theawards this year. We received anoverwhelming number of applicationsand the calibre was exceptionally high.I’m delighted that, in conjunction withour partners, we are able to helpfurther the careers of some exceptionalyoung female scientists and help raiseawareness of this critical issue.”

Professor Alec Boksenberg, Chair of theUK National Commission for UNESCOadds: “The UK jury has had theprivilege of considering a really verytalented pool of highly qualified femaleresearchers in the early stages of theircareers spanning a broad range ofscientific fields. This year’s first UKwinners will become part of animpressive For Women In Sciencecommunity which stretches acrossevery continent.”

Phil Willis MP, the Chair of theCommons Science and technologySelect Committee, who also sits on thejury panel continues:

“The barriers placed in the way ofwomen are seriously denying UKScience access to some of its mosttalented researchers. This is an issueUK Science and its traditionalinstitutions cannot ignore.

It’s great that L’Oréal and its partnersare doing something in response. Let’shope that the young women whoreceive fellowships this year go on toact as mentors, encouraging the nextgeneration of female scientists in theUK.”

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS1 http://www.setwomenresource.org.uk/2 First Destinations 2004-5 data from HESA, 20063 Labour Force Survey, Four quarters for 20064 HESA, 2007

L’Oréal UK For Women In Science Fellowship winners Dr Araxi Urrutia Odabachian, Cardiff University (left); Dr Theresa Burt dePerera, University of Oxford (second from left); Dr Anna Git, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute (second from right);and Dr Seirian Sumner, Zoological Society of London (right), pictured with Baroness Susan Greenfield, President of the For Women InScience Jury Panel (centre).


You could make a world of

claims for geology, including,

of course, the ground upon

which we stand. Geology may be a

downward-looking science, but it

secures our wealth, our bricks and

mortar, our energy and indirectly our

health as well. It helped explain how

we got here, how long we might stay,

and why our leasehold looks a bit

doubtful right now. The great human

adventure began with geology: the first

cutting-edge technology was

hammered from flint or obsidian at

least two million years ago; civilisation

grew from the systematic cultivation of

the weathered sedimentary deposits

10,000 years ago; geometry – the clue

is in the word itself – was fashioned

almost 4,000 years ago as a way of

measuring terrain.

Paradoxically, geological science is

relatively new and first emerged from

the shadow of theology. A text dating

from 1690 was called “Geologia: or a

Discourse concerning the Earth before

the Deluge” but according to the

Oxford English Dictionary it was not

until 1795, two years before his death,

that the great James Hutton used the

words “geology” and “geological” in

the modern sense of systematic

investigation of the Earth’s crust.

Hutton was the man who looked at

the epic story told in the rocks and

reported that he saw “no vestige of a

beginning, no prospect of an end.”

Since then, geologists have tried to

read the Earth like a book, with some

difficulty. The storyline is patchy, the

plot contorted, the authorship in

permanent dispute. Pages have been

torn from the text, the rest are foxed

or watermarked. Whole chapters are

lost for ever. Characters appear from

nowhere, and disappear as

mysteriously. The script is disputed,

and there are still arguments about the

lexicon or the grammar. But

somewhere in the lapidary prose of the

Earth’s crust is the story of the making

of a planet, with its rocks, its oceans

and its atmosphere and its almost

imperceptible alteration over billions

of years by the life that colonised it.

Much of this great detective story is

told in the papers of the Geological

Society of London, now online in the

form of the Lyell Collection, and the

papers of Charles Lyell, the great

Victorian geologist who served as

mentor and friend to Charles Darwin,

are a reminder of the complexity of

the challenge and the thoroughness

with which scientists tried to meet it,

everywhere in the world.

In 1845, for instance, Charles Lyell

reports on the Miocene strata of a 400

mile tract of American landscape

running from Maryland to South

Carolina, extending from Delaware Bay

to the Cape Fear River, and what he

sees reminds him of beds of rock in

Suffolk, and in the Touraine of France.

“On the right bank of the James River,

at City Point, Virginia, about twenty

miles below Richmond, in a cliff about

thirty feet high, I observed the yellow

and white Miocene sands resting on

dark green earth and marl of the

Eocene formation, just as the yellow

sands of the crag rest on the blue

London clay in some parts of the coast

of Suffolk and Essex,” Lyell writes. In

Wilmington, North Carolina, he

examines the beds of shells and notes

similarities with formations on the

other side of the Atlantic, and in other

parts of the US, but adds with a note

of caution “As, however, it would be

very rash to assume that all the

Miocene deposits of the United States,

especially in countries as far apart as

Maryland and South Carolina, were of

strictly contemporaneous origin, the

fossil faunas of each region should be

carefully distinguished, and considered

separately.”

There you have geological science:

simultaneously sweeping and non-

committal; spanning continents and

fretting about the occurrence of

univalves; making connections but

trying not to make too much of them.

The surprising thing, surprising

because when Lyell wrote, the science

was in its infancy and the Earth still a

profound puzzle, is how much of the


Rocks of agesTim Radford* ponders what lies beneath the grass roots



language of geological science was

already confidently in place; and how

eagerly the first geologists were using

it to describe the four corners of the

globe. In 1859, my homeland of New

Zealand had been a British colony for

just 19 years, and my home city of

Auckland was just a tiny settlement,

but I’d recognise it immediately from

Charles Heaphy’s description in the

Proceedings of the Geological Society:

“The isthmus may be considered as a

basin of Tertiary rock. Through it have

burst up, dotting its surface, as many

as sixty-two separate volcanos (sic);

showing in nearly every instance a

well-defined point of eruption –

generally a cup-like crater, on a hill

about 300 feet high above the plain.”

Actually, according to a recent issue of

Geophysical Research Letters the latest

count is 49 basaltic volcanoes, and the

Auckland sediments are Quaternary-

Miocene, but today’s geologists have

more time, better techniques and

equipment beyond the wildest dreams

of Lyell’s contemporaries.

The Geological Society of London is

200 years old this year, and its two

centuries of existence describe a

trajectory of understanding in the

Earth sciences as a whole. What began

as a detailed attempt to understand the

relationship between the passage of

time and the visible rocks, became an

attempt to tell the whole story of the

Earth, from its hellish beginnings 4.5

billion years ago to its present

extraordinary condition as the only

known home for life in the vastness of

the universe. Lyell’s inheritors still

sample, examine and make guesses

about the origins of rocks on Earth,

but they have also stood on the Moon,

and with help from sophisticated

automata explored the terrain of Mars

and even Saturn’s moon Titan.

Geology has spawned, stimulated or

triggered a cascade of now-separate

sciences: palaeontology, archaeology,

oceanography, atmospheric science,

climatology, volcanology, seismology

and geophysics all begin from geology,

and feed back into it.

In less than one human lifetime, Lyell’s

inheritors devised, tested and

confirmed a revolutionary theory of

plate tectonics that now explains why

mountains grow, why continents

move, why precious minerals

concentrate in certain formations, and

why volcanoes and earthquakes are

not just inevitable, but helpful in the

long run, in renewing and reshaping

life’s only home. Its members were

among the giants, but it would be

wrong to suggest that the Geological

Society of London was always at the

cutting edge of the great scientific

revolutions of the last two centuries.

The presidential addresses of 1859

and 1860 are remarkable for what they

do not say about Darwin’s theory of

evolution, even though Charles

Darwin was an honoured member.

Gordon L Herries Davies, in

"Whatever Is under the Earth", the

official history of the Geological

Society of London, recalls a leading

figure saying “I’ve been reflecting on

what the Society did in the 1960s for

the establishment of Plate Tectonic

Theory. The answer seems to be

almost nothing.”

But learned societies have a way of

learning from their own mistakes:

that’s why they survive. The Society,

which began from a casual meeting of

13 men in a London alehouse in 1807,

17

will stage a bicentenary conference at

the QEII conference centre in London

September 10-12, to emphasise just

how much the modern Earth sciences

can contribute to the modern world.

On the final day, the President of the

Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow,

Richard Fortey, President of the

Geological Society, and others will

confront the challenges of climate

change, dwindling mineral and carbon

resources, natural hazards and the

struggle to find water for increasingly

thirsty continents. There will, of

course, be pure science as well: at least

one speaker will address the recent

discoveries of more than 150 extra-

solar planets: that is, planets that orbit

distant suns. No-one has ever seen one

of these objects: their existence has

been inferred from subtle observation

of their parent stars, but astronomers

and planetary geologists are preparing

experiments that could one day

directly detect their reflected light and

read the chemistry of their

atmospheres. The research is worth

doing for its own sake, but of course

everyone knows what the real prize

would be: the discovery of another

blue planet 25 or 50 light years away,

a distant world with liquid water on

its surface, and oxygen and methane

in its atmosphere.

This chemical mix would be evidence

not just of a habitable planet, but of an

already inhabited planet, a home to

extraterrestrial life. That’s some pay-off

for a science that began by looking at

the ground beneath our feet, to

discover neighbours far beyond the

nearest stars.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/lyellcentre

*Tim Radford writes for The Guardian ofwhich he is a former Science Editor andLiterary Editor.



but based on their interpretation of

creationism as written in the Bible.

The debate about the scientific validity

of evolution and alternative theories is

not a new matter that has emerged

with the coming of the so called

‘intelligent design’ theory. The bible

belt of America saw one of the first

major clashes over the teaching of

evolution in schools. Dayton,

Tennessee in 1925 saw the famous

Scopes trial, which was built up as a

clash between the forces of modernity

and the forces of religion. Were

children to be allowed to be taught

science that contradicted the Bible and

engaged them in new ideas, or were

they to continue under a law that

made the Bible “the yardstick to

measure every man’s intellect, to

measure every man’s intelligence, to

measure every man’s learning”, as

member of the defence counsel

Clarence Darrow put it. Although the

defendant, John Scopes, lost the trial,

it was widely viewed as a victory for

the Darwinian side as their arguments

seemed to be the more powerful.

Despite such apparent victories for

scientific endeavour as the Scopes

trial, the 21st century continues to see

those who wish to see the Bible as the

foremost text for academic inquiry.

The debate over the way in

which evolution is taught in

schools is often seen as a

microcosm for the ‘battle’ between

religion and science. Arguments about

the origin of man are viewed as being

represented by the Darwinian school

of thought on one side, boasting

modernity and enlightenment, and

some form of creationism on the other

side, holding on to tradition and

belief. Framing the debate in this way

can however over simplify it and lead

to a position where both sides are

reduced to name calling. The focus

must remain on how science is to be

taught and what the best way is to

produce students that are inquisitive

and intellectually strong. In my

experience the only way science can

be taught to accomplish this aim is to

use research and observation to come

to a result that is verifiable and

evidence based. Faith should not play

a part in the scientific process. When

we look at intelligent design it cannot

be seen to pass the scientific test.

Ever since the publication of Darwin’s

masterpiece, the Origin of Species, many

people of a religious disposition have

sought to discredit evolutionary theory

based not on scientific fact or research

Emmanuel College in Gateshead has

been allowed to teach intelligent

design in science lessons as a ‘faith

position’ equal to that of the ‘faith

position’ of evolution. To put these

two theories on the same academic

level seems somewhat absurd to most

people in the scientific community.

One position, namely evolution, is

supported by vast amounts of

evidence and research, while

intelligent design is supported by

none. Michael Behe, one of the most

prominent exponents of intelligent

design, testified in 2005 before a court

in Dover, Pennsylvania, that no

scientific evidence in support of the

intelligent design hypothesis had been

published in peer-reviewed scientific

journals.

The pseudoscientific position of

intelligent design, a term employed by

the US National Science Teachers

Association, could not be in starker

contrast with Darwin’s theory.

Evolution, as currently taught, is based

on evidence from a number of

different scientific disciplines. It

encompasses biology, chemistry,

zoology and above all genetics, to

bring together evidence and present it

in a completely rational and coherent

manner. Intelligent design simply does

SCIENCE AND RELIGIONMEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON MONDAY 23RD APRIL

Faith vs Fact –Evolution in theClassroomDr Ian Gibson MP



not have the overwhelming weight of

scientific evidence behind it that

evolution does. On the debate

between evolution and intelligent

design The Royal Society has said that

“intelligent design has far more in

common with a religious belief in

creationism than it has with science,

which is based on evidence acquired

through experiment and observation.”

Claims of supernatural intervention in

the origin of life should not be taught

as science as they cannot be tested by

experiment and do not generate any

predictions. When intelligent design,

and other such supernatural based

theories, are held up to the same

scientific scrutiny as evolution we can

see that the two should not be taught

side by side.

Evolution should however, like other

subjects in science, be allowed to be

questioned and be made to

demonstrate its validity. Even though

there is overwhelming evidence to

show that evolution can explain how

the world around us came to be,

students should be encouraged to

question what the theory has to say

and try and build on it. Proponents of

intelligent design should not however

use gaps in scientific knowledge in

order to muddy the waters between

positions of evidence and faith.

Evolution is a difficult subject for

young minds to understand and they

should not be confused by misleading

or inconclusive arguments against it.

Sceptics of evolution point out that the

process has not been observed and can

therefore not be taught as a position

based on fact. This is a shallow

argument as evolution states that

processes involving the changing of

species happen over long periods of

time. There is no one jump from a

slug to a horse, but a long and gradual

process of mutation and

transformation, the climbing of ‘Mount

Improbable’ as Richard Dawkins

describes it, which results in new

species, or sub-species, emerging.

Mixing different areas of science

together to cause confusion about

evolution does not serve its detractors

well. The second law of

thermodynamics is said, by those who

believe in design, to show that

evolution by natural selection would

be impossible. Such expressions have

however not been backed by evidence

based research. The University of

Leeds, where Professor Andrew

McIntosh, originator of McIntosh’s

Law of Thermodynamics, is based,

have issued warnings against

introducing faith-based arguments into

science and have looked to distance

themselves from such positions. The

University could have been speaking

for the whole academic community

when it said that it “wishes to distance

itself publicly from theories of

creationism and so-called intelligent

design which cannot be verified by

evidence.”

The ability of scientists never to settle

for an answer that cannot be verified

has seen advances in the original ideas

expressed by Darwin. Due to progress

in technology and the bringing

together of ideas from various

branches of science, we now have a

remarkable amount of evidence to

support his claims. Darwin’s book, The

Descent of Man, told us that man had

evolved from an ape-like primate. Not

until we unravelled the human

genome were we able to see just how

similar we are to other creatures. We

now know that we share 98 per cent

of our genetic make up with

chimpanzees, which surely cannot be

a coincidence of design. Looking at

our DNA has told us things about

ourselves that religion cannot seek to

explain. Up to 97 per cent of our three

billion DNA base pairs are non-

functional. Why would an intelligent

designer make such superfluous

substances? Might this phenomenon

be better explained as a relic of

evolution?

Religion does have an important role

to play in society but clearly does not

have much to say on the matter of

evolution. Not all scientists are of the

anti-religious disposition of Professor

Dawkins. Some of our most eminent

scientists, such as Einstein and Lord

Winston, express a feeling for some

other sense of their being. Einstein

stated in 1939 that “the knowledge of

truth as such is wonderful, but it is so

little capable of acting as a guide that

it cannot prove even the justification

and the value of the aspiration toward

that very knowledge of truth. Here we

face, therefore, the limits of the purely

rational conception of our existence.”

Religion can have much to say in the

way we try to live our lives and offer

some guidance on how to be a moral

person. Science really does not have

much of a voice when it comes to

explaining how people ought to live in

order to be a better person. The truth

that science offers us may be a truly

wonderful and beautiful thing, but a

purely rational concept of our

existence does not go any way to

explaining the feelings of faith that

billions of people around the world

feel in moments of crisis and doubt.

These feelings of faith however should

not be allowed to undermine a

scientific process based on research,

evidence and the ability to inquire to

an uncertain end.



SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Teaching Darwinism andCreationism in Schools:A Roman CatholicPerspectiveProfessor David Albert JonesProfessor of Bioethics, St Mary’s University College, Twickenham

Andrew Dickenson White in

his two volume work AHistory of the Warfare of Science

with Theology in Christendom (1896) saw

the whole of the history of science as a

continual struggle against theology. In

the area of anatomy he tells us that a

“yet more serious stumbling-block,

hindering the beginnings of modern

medicine and surgery, was a theory

regarding the unlawfulness of

meddling with the bodies of the

dead… Hence Tertullian denounced

the anatomist Herophilus as a butcher,

and St Augustine spoke of anatomists

generally in similar terms.” The

complete text of this book is easily

available on the internet and you can

find this quotation about Tertullian

calling Herophilus a butcher quoted a

number of times.

It is worth pointing out, as the late

Professor White conspicuously failed

to do, that what Tertullian objected to

was not dissection but vivisection.

Tertullian learnt from the pagan writer,

Celsus, that Herophilus had practiced

vivisection on criminals and slaves,

women as well as men, perhaps as

many as 600 of them. Herophilus

remains the father of anatomy, and

made many discoveries, but if

anatomy declined radically after him it

was not because of religious objections

so much as because of his methods.

Tertullian said he treated men and

women cruelly in order to unlock the

secrets of nature, “he hated men that

he might know” (On the Soul 11).

I start with this story because it strikes

me that the supposed warfare of

science and religion is a myth (See JH

Brooke (1991) Science and religion: somehistorical perspectives; W Carroll (2005)

“Galileo and the Myth of Heterodoxy,”

in JH Brooke and I Maclean (eds)

Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science andReligion). It is a myth in the sense that

it is not a credible hypothesis in the

history of science, but also in the other

sense of myth, an idea that can shape

someone’s world view, that influences

how they see the past and how they

act in the present. AD White was so

fixated with blaming religion for the

decline of anatomy that he was

prepared to gloss over the six hundred

slaves who were tortured to death in

the name of knowledge. He was so

keen to pin the blame that he did not

stop to examine the facts.

What then, as a matter of fact, has

been the Catholic Church’s reaction to

theories of evolution within the

biological sciences? It may be

surprising to some, but the answer

seems to be that the Catholic Church

has not been overly concerned about

the issue. It has neither

enthusiastically embraced it nor has it

challenged the science of it. Where

there has been concern about

evolution it has largely been concern

over the ideological misuse of

evolution by social and political forces

– by social Darwinians, neo-

colonialists, racists and eugenicists.

In general the Catholic Church is

much less concerned than some

Christian traditions to defend what

some call the ‘literal’ truth of the book

of Genesis. There is a problem here

with what we mean by the literal

meaning – that is, with how we

identify the literary form of the

passage so as to know what its

intended meaning is (See Pius XII

(1943) Divino Afflante Spiritu – see also

Vatican II (1965) Dei Verbum and the

Pontifical Biblical Commission (1994)

The Interpretation of the Bible in theChurch). Certainly Catholics are not

bound to believe in a six-day creation.

Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the most

influential theologian of the Latin

Church, did not believe that the world



was created in six days, and he warned

that it was “reckless and incompetent

expounders of Holy Scripture” who

interpreted the Bible as intending to

teach natural science (Augustine TheLiteral Meaning of Genesis I.19).

It is significant that there is no cause

célèbre in the Roman Catholic

tradition to rival the Huxley-

Wilberforce debate of 1860 or Scopes

‘Monkey’ Trial? of 1925. The closest

analogy to this is probably the

temporary silencing of Pierre Teilhard

de Chardin, the Jesuit Palaeontologist

in 1950. Yet he was disciplined not for

embracing the scientific theory of

evolution, but for the way he

reinterpreted religious doctrines of sin

and salvation, in the light of evolution.

It is also worth pointing out that the

writings of Teilhard de Chardin were

deeply controversial among some

scientists (see for example Peter

Medawar’s entertaining but

intemperate review of The

Phenomenon of Man). Pope Pius XII,

in the letter that was interpreted as an

attack on Teilhard de Chardin, in fact

argued that academics were free to

discuss the doctrine of evolution “in as

far as it inquires into the origin of the

human body as coming from pre-

existent and living matter” (Pius XII

(1950) Humani Generis).

On the fiftieth anniversary HumaniGeneris Pope John Paul II went further

and said, “new findings lead us toward

the recognition of evolution as more

than an hypothesis. In fact it is

remarkable that this theory has had

progressively greater influence on the

spirit of researchers, following a series

of discoveries in different scholarly

disciplines. The convergence in the

results of these independent studies –

which was neither planned nor sought

– constitutes in itself a significant

argument in favour of the theory”

(John Paul II (2000) Message To The

Pontifical Academy Of Sciences: OnEvolution). This was reported in the

press at the time as a U-turn, but in

fact the doctrine of evolution had not

been condemned by Pius XII or by

any pope. Rather, the statement of

John Paul II was no more or less than

an acknowledgement of the place of

evolutionary theology within the

biological sciences. John Paul II did

not quote, but might well have been

aware of, the assertion of Theodosius

Dobzhansky: “nothing in biology

makes sense except in the light of

evolution”.

From a Catholic perspective, should

Darwin’s theories on the mechanism of

evolution be taught in schools? Clearly,

yes. Darwinian evolution is in fact

taught in Roman Catholic Schools in

England and Wales as part of the

national curriculum, and, as far as I

am aware, the teaching of evolution

within biology lessons has never been

an issue of dispute between the

government and the Catholic Church

in the history of state funded Catholic

schooling in the United Kingdom from

the Balfour Act of 1902 until the

present.

Should alternatives to Darwin’s theory

be taught in School? Clearly

contemporary disputes within the

discipline of biology should be taught

in schools, and there have been

important developments in

evolutionary theory in the hundred

years or so since Darwin, not least in

the field of genetics.

Should six-day-creationism or

‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in

school? Six-day-creationism is, to my

mind, utterly incredible, both from the

perspective of scriptural interpretation

and from the perspective of the natural

sciences. Intelligent Design is not such

an absurd theory, and there are a

minority of Catholics who take it

seriously. However, I think that, taken

on face value, as science it is nowhere

near sufficiently established to warrant

attention at school age. It is also

striking that the theory, inasmuch as it

finds any adherents among scientists,

seems to be held more frequently by

mathematicians and engineers than by

biologists. In addition, speaking as a

theologian, Intelligent Design is

problematic from the perspective of

theology, for it seems to make divine

creation too closely analogous to a

physical process of making, and hence

the creator too much like another

creature.

What then is to be taught in relation

to Intelligent Design? None of the

alternatives are attractive:

1. Don’t mention it: This allows

adherents to claim victory by

default and leaves the weak

arguments in favour of Intelligent

Design to go unanswered.

2. Mention it in order to criticise it

and use it as a foil to explain well

established biological science. This

would be my favoured approach.

3. Mention it only in religious studies

lessons. This means it is discussed

but in a context of relative

scientific ignorance.

On this basis I would accept the

discussion of Intelligent Design within

biology lessons, though I should make

clear that here I speak simply as an

individual not for the Catholic Church

as a whole. As far as I am aware, in

many state schools (Catholic and

secular), children are exposed to the

‘creation-evolution’ debate only in

religious studies lessons, and hence in

isolation from the teaching of science

itself. This, which is the present

default position, does not seem to me

an entirely healthy state of affairs.



SCIENCE AND RELIGION

True Science and OriginsAndy McIntoshCo-director of Truth in Science* and Professor of Thermodynamics, University of Leeds

The trouble with Truth

To tell the truth is dangerous. To listento it is enraging. (Danish Proverb)

Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989)invented the Soviet nuclear bomb andthen became a Russian peace activistuntil his death in 1989. He receivedthe Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 (via hiswife, as he was not allowed to leaveGorky). In his last speech before hedied, he said, “I spent my whole lifebelieving that the most powerfulweapon in the world is the atomicbomb; Now I believe I was wrong. Themost powerful weapon in the world isthe truth.” (Quoted in Ravi Zacharias‘Recapture the Wonder’, Nelson, 2003).

The Royal Society has the motto‘Nullius in verba’ – on the words of no-one. There is a great danger that weinfringe the spirit of free enquiry andeven freedom of speech, if we insistthat in the sciences that only onephilosophical view of the evidence isallowed – Evolution. This raises thequestion just what is science and howshould it be practised?

Truth and Science

What is science and how should wedo our science? Experimental scienceand science based on naturalisticphilosophy can be, and often aretoday, two different things. We havethe same evidence to look at – same

fossils, same rock, same plants,animals etc, and yet we can come tovery different conclusions. The reasonis because of the different startingpoints. We need to be aware of threeissues as we approach scientificenquiry.

1 Ontological – What is reality?

Naturalistic science postulates: Whatultimately exists is physicalmatter/energy and nothing else.

However the more enlightened

scientist knows that true science is

limited. It cannot deal with the whole

of reality. Scientific methods deal with

measurable quantities, but cannot

objectively give the basis of thinking

and rational thought itself. That is

science cannot answer the very

foundation on which science is based

– reason and rationality. C S Lewis

many years ago showed the absurdity

of the materialist who argues that all is

matter and energy (see C S Lewis

Miracles). Will and rationality cannot

be reduced to a mere dependent chain

of events. If we could find for all

thoughts a reason for why someone

thought the way they did, then the

very basis of rationality and reason

would be lost. Lewis has long been

forgotten, but we do well to remember

that reason and logic rely on

something beyond matter and energy.

2 Epistemological – How do weknow what we know, andunderstand the Universe?

Naturalistic science (methodologicalnaturalism) proposes: Everything thatoccurs in the universe can, inprinciple, be completely explained byreference solely to physical laws.

In this way, the naturalistic scientist isforced to conclude that there isnothing outside what the physical lawscan interpret – but that of course issimply a product of his naturalisticassumptions. But the true historicalbasis of science is in fact from anotherperspective. That is, the Universeexists in such a way that it is able tobe examined and understood, andfurthermore that there is evidence of itbeing constructed by intelligence.

It is not information from mindlessmatter arranged in a particular order,but matter coming frominformation/intelligence. Thisresonates with a large body ofscientists who, whether religious ornot, do not wish that secularism actsas a religion that will allow no rival. Itis this that is behind the whole issuetoday. Secularisation must not be areligion which stifles truth.

It is important to realise thatIntelligent Design is not a new theory

*Truth in Science is an organisation set up to promote scientific enquiry, where rigorous testing of scientific views on

origins is encouraged: www.truthinscience.org.uk



of origins – it was held by all thegreats of the past – Boyle, Maxwell,Faraday, Newton, Einstein. It is not apresuppositional view of truth, butrather a natural, evidentialistconclusion from scientists across thereligious spectrum.

The alternative, methodologicalnaturalism, cannot deal with theunderlying issues of what matter,knowledge, rationality and mind reallyare, because by definition mind is nottranscendent in this paradigm.

3 Methodological – How do we doour science?

Naturalistic science states: Adequatescientific explanations of occurringevents and phenomena should, in thelast analysis (including origins), onlyrefer to physical entities and laws.

The humbler approach of a scientist issurely to consider that if intelligence isneeded to understand the worldaround him or her, then this is due torationality and intelligence beingbehind the natural order.

Even if Intelligent Design is incorrect,Sakharov shows that there shouldalways be open discussion in findingtruth: “Profound insights arise only indebate, with a possibility ofcounterargument, only when there is apossibility of expressing not only

Fig. 1 Trilobites had very advanced visual systems. With compound eyes (made up of

many lenses of calcium carbonate), they had special corrective features to avoid a double

image. Some had corrective double lenses with the upper lens purposely 180° out of

phase. These most complex lenses are in the Cambrian (conventionally dated as 450-

500M years ago), and at the start of the phanerozoic era.

correct ideas but also dubious ideas.”(Andrei Sakharov ‘Progress, Coexistenceand Intellectual Freedom’, 1968)

Freedom of paradigm is essential inunderstanding science, and scienceitself is at great risk if we imposeevolution with no critical appraisal inour schools and Universities. This isalready being done with disastrousresults. We need to teach our youngpeople not what to think so much ashow to think – independently. ‘Nulliusin verba’ must be maintained.

To a growing body of scientists, thedesign position is scientifically, andintellectually, the most satisfying.

Intelligent Design is thebest scientific paradigm tounderstand naturalmechanisms

Examples of mechanisms abound.Both living creatures today, as well asfossilised remains even from Cambrianrocks (for instance the double calcitelenses in some trilobites of theCambrian – Fig 1), indicateremarkable and intricate mechanismswith no evidence of simplerprecursors. Other examples from flightin nature are the bird feather (Fig 2,see next page) which involves anintricate hook and ridge structurewhich only becomes evident under the

microscope, and the avian lung whoseoperation is unique and completelydifferent in operation to mammals andreptiles, the latter of which aresupposed to be birds’ ancestorsaccording to evolution. Any transitionis lethal and respiration in a supposedtransition is impossible.

The science of informationand thermodynamics

But at the fundamental level thereason evolution will not work isbecause of thermodynamics andinformation.

The laws of thermodynamics have onelaw in particular—the Second Law ofThermodynamics – which says that ina closed system the amount of energythat is no longer available for usefulwork is increasing. This is energy ‘lost’to the system per unit degree oftemperature, and it is called theentropy of the system. The principle ofenergy loss for doing useful work stillapplies in an open system, since unlessthere is a machine to use the energyadded, there is no benefit. Boeing 777scannot be made in a car factory byadding loads of sunlight or electricityunless the machinery is available touse that energy to build Boeing 777s.Similarly the human brain cannot beformed from simpler machines just byadding energy if there is no machinery



In discussion the following points were made:

Although the Second Law of Thermodynamics had been advanced to justify the argument that evolution can only evergenerate small-scale changes in plants and animals and can never be considered responsible for major changes in biota, thecontrary view was expressed that it did not actually apply to evolution, which is an open biological system where mutationscan occur. So it is not clear where thermodynamics fits into that model. The second law says that everything is runningdown. If you add energy to an open system it does not change anything unless there is machinery there which is able tocapture the extra energy, requiring functional complexity which implies a designer. An open debate is therefore requested.

One suggestion that has been made is that the complexity of life is such that it could not possibly have happened by naturalselection. That is not a scientific comment. It is a philosophical or religious assertion. Darwinism has been tested althoughDarwin never really tested it himself. He wrote the Origin of Species and then speculated about how complex structures inbiology could have occurred. We have a responsibility to teach what is sustainable in science and Darwin is sustainable. Onthe other hand, Intelligent Design is a belief, and one is entitled to it, but we should not teach it in science.

The wide range of views between Biblical fundamentalists on the one hand and Richard Dawkins on the other tends todominate the scene, whereas as a Christian one has no trouble adopting an intermediate position. Neo-Darwinists insist thishas all happened through chance alone. However, a Christian may find that insufficient explanation for the world as wefind it. For example, how does one explain the coming into existence of DNA?

However, this esoteric discussion is missing the point that the main concern must be that children in school are not beinggiven a sound grounding in proven science such as Darwinism and alternative unproven theories are being advancedinstead in the very limited time available for science teaching. People are perfectly at liberty to believe in and promotealternative theories, but their discussion should not form part of the core study of proven scientific facts in the schoolcurriculum.

Base Tip

Pigeon Secondary

Fig. 2 Bird feather construction showing hook and barbule construction

available to do this. The spontaneousformation of such machinery will nothappen.

Evolution proposes that newmachinery arises of itself with no mindbehind it. This idea is franklythermodynamically absurd.

Experimentally, this has not beenobserved and is contrary to all thethermodynamic principles of energytransfer.

Furthermore new machines are notmade by simply adding energy toexisting machines. Intelligence isalways needed.

Careful experimental science does notsupport ‘just so’ attempts to get roundthe clear evidence of design in nature.At the very least these matters shouldbe critically considered in scienceteaching today, both in secondary andtertiary institutions.



SCIENCE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURYMEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON MONDAY 21ST MAY

Science Education forthe 21st CenturyProfessor Robin MillarUniversity of York

There are concerns about the

quality and effectiveness of

school science education in the

UK, and in almost every developed

industrialised country. These are of

two main kinds. First, in many

countries the proportion of young

people who choose to continue to

study science beyond the point where

it is compulsory is falling, particularly

in physics and chemistry. Second,

public understanding of science – and

trust in science – often appear to be

low. So people’s views on important

issues, such as genetically modified

(GM) organisms and global climate

change, are often not well-informed –

with potentially significant

consequences for the public response.

School science has an important role

in addressing both of these concerns:

Science in schools must maintain its

traditional and vital focus on preparing

the most interested and talented pupils

for science courses at university. At the

same time, it must equip all students

for what has been called ‘scientific

literacy’ or ‘science for citizenship’.1

This ‘dual mandate’ poses a very real

challenge for school science. On the

one hand, it has to provide all young

people with a sufficient grasp of the

scientific account of the physical

universe – and of the methods of

enquiry and the commitment to

careful reasoning from evidence which

are central to science – to allow them

to take an active and informed role in

making the decisions and choices that

face us as individuals and as a society.

It should give all students a positive

experience of science, a sense of why

science is valuable to them, even if

they do not intend to pursue a career

that requires more advanced study of

science. At the same time, school

science must also provide a sound

foundation for further study of science

for those who may want to follow this

route, either out of personal interest or

as a possible career direction – and it

must do so in a manner that

stimulates and retains the enthusiasm

of students who have a particular

interest in and aptitude for science.

If we only wanted to do one of these

two jobs, the task of designing a

science curriculum would be

considerably easier. Indeed, we have

in the past had science courses that

were widely seen as a suitable

preparation for more advanced study,

when offered to the highest achieving

20% of the student cohort. But these

have proved very much less

satisfactory as a form of school science

for the whole cohort – and the

changes that have been made to

broaden access have steadily

diminished their suitability and

effectiveness for the higher attaining

group. There is much less experience,

either in the UK or elsewhere, of

school science courses to develop the

kind of understanding of science that

is of value to people who do not aspire

to careers that require more advanced

science. But there is very general

recognition that this is crucially

important in developing the social and

political climate within which science

and technology can thrive in an open

society. We urgently need to develop

expertise in designing science courses

that can do this job well.

The fundamental reason why the dual

mandate poses a challenge for school

science is that science courses

designed for each of these two

purposes would be quite different in

content, depth of treatment, and

emphasis. A science curriculum for

citizens would aim to help all students

understand enough science, and

enough about scientific methods of

enquiry, to make better-informed

choices and hold better-informed

views on issues that affect them

directly – like whether or not to have a

child vaccinated, or to eat food

produced from GM crops, or to

support measures to reduce carbon

emissions. It would teach some basic

scientific knowledge, but would also



highlight the importance of basing

claims on careful reasoning from

evidence and of peer review in

checking and scrutinising claims that

are made. The science education of

future scientists, on the other hand, is

an induction into an accepted set of

explanations for the behaviour of the

natural world. It begins from the

foundations, and proceeds in slow

logical steps. It involves extensive

practice in applying standard methods

and in carrying out standard

procedures. Students have little

opportunity for independent thinking

or for genuinely open enquiry until

they reach an advanced stage. They

learn little that they can apply

practically in everyday situations. Not

surprisingly, many students see little

reward for the effort of trying to

understand it: “A lot of the stuff is

irrelevant. You’re just going to go away

from school and you’re never going to

think about it again.”2

Studies in other developed countries

report similar views.3 Teaching

‘academic’ science to the whole school

population results in fewer students

wanting to continue to study science –

and to negative views of science and

science education in general. One

particularly telling piece of evidence

comes from the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS). In this study, random

samples of 15-year-olds in over 40

countries took a test of school science

knowledge and completed a

questionnaire designed to assess their

attitude towards science. If we plot the

average score for each country against

the percentage of students in that

country with a high positive attitude

towards science, the graph shows a

strong negative correlation between

the two variables.4 A high average

score goes along with a low proportion

of 15-year-old students with a positive

attitude towards science. In other

words, those countries which teach

science in a way that results in high

average scores on a rather traditional

science test have the smallest

proportion of students with positive

attitudes towards science and school

science.

The problems we, and many other

countries, currently face are a

consequence of thinking that one

science curriculum, if suitably

designed, can achieve both of the aims

of the school science curriculum – the

‘dual mandate’. Instead this leads to an

unsatisfactory compromise – a course

which does neither of the jobs of the

science curriculum well. The first step

towards a solution is to acknowledge

the need for different kinds of science

courses for different purposes, and for

different students – depending on

their interests and their future

aspirations. We need to move away

from a failed ‘one size fits all’ model of

the science curriculum towards a more

flexible set of options, each of which

can be designed more effectively for

purpose.

This is what I and my colleagues have

been trying to do over the past 8 years

in the work that has led to the TwentyFirst Century Science GCSE specification

– one of four available to schools from

September 2006. In developing it, we

wanted to improve significantly on its

predecessor, Double Award Science, in

two main ways. We wanted to find a

way to teach some stimulating and

conceptually challenging science to

students with an interest in science –

something which had been gradually

eroded over the previous 20 years.

And we also wanted to design a course

that could provide aallll students at this

age with the kind of understanding of

science that would help them engage

more thoughtfully and critically with

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS1 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and

Technology, Third Report (2000)2 This comment, by a 16-year-old school student,

comes from: Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2000).Pupils’ and Parents’ Views of the School Science Curriculum.London: King’s College.

3 Lyons, T. (2006), Different countries, same sciencelessons. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591-614.

4 Ogura, Y. (2006). Unpublished graph. Tokyo:National Institute for Educational Research. Based ondata from: Martin, M.O. et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat ofthe Third International Mathematics and Science Study atthe eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

science as they meet it in their

everyday lives – in particular, to

develop their skills in looking

thoughtfully and critically at the

evidence that supports the kinds of

claims that are made and to develop

their ability and confidence to discuss

and evaluate these. I emphasise ‘all

students’ here, because this kind of

understanding of science is also

essential for those who wish to pursue

the study of science further. So we

developed a Science course to develop

the ‘scientific literacy’ of all students –

and a more formal and abstract

Additional Science course for those

who chose it. We quickly realised the

importance of also offering an

Additional Applied Science course –

for students with a more practical

interest in science as it is used in some

real workplace situations.

If we want to address both aspects of

the ‘dual mandate’ for the school

science curriculum, we need to accept

that no single course, however well-

designed, will do both jobs well. We

need a variety of provision, for

students with different interests and

aspirations. And we need a continuing

effort – involving everyone with an

interest in school science – to review,

revise and improve the science courses

we offer both to those who may go on

to work with science, and those who

will not.



SCIENCE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

The Importance ofGood TeachersDr Derek BellChief Executive, The Association for Science Education

The Devonshire RoyalCommission of 1875 claimedthat ‘the present state of

scientific instruction in our schools isextremely unsatisfactory’1 remindingus that this is not the first time scienceeducation has come under scrutiny.More recently, a wide range of bodiesacross government, business, industryand the scientific and engineeringcommunities have also expressed theirviews on why students should betaught science.

There is widespread acceptance that allstudents should have access to thestudy of science throughout their yearsof compulsory education. TheAssociation for Science Education(ASE) has for many years championedthe cause of ‘Science for All’ and, sinceits origin in 1901, has worked toimprove teaching and learning inscience through its members workingtogether to share good practice and toexpress views on science education.ASE argues 2 that all pupils shouldexperience, and have access to, abroad, relevant science curriculum,which puts the understanding ofscience and its applications in a socialcontext. Furthermore pupils shouldexperience a variety of teaching andlearning approaches, includingpractical work, in order to extend,develop and adapt their knowledge,understanding, skills and attitudes inscience. Regardless of whether it is inprimary or secondary school, the roleof teachers, who are enthusiastic, havegood subject knowledge, a clearphilosophy of science education andhigh quality expertise in teaching, is a

key element in meeting theseaspirations. As Osborne and Collins3

concluded,

“In essence, school science’s mostvaluable resource is not its equipmentor its laboratories but a cadre of well-qualified, enthusiastic teachers who arejustly remunerated for their skills.”

These teachers would be the first toacknowledge they could not do itwithout the support of theircolleagues, technicians and teachingassistants who make up the widerscience team.

The challenge for science education inthe 21st Century is translating suchaspirations into practice. The answersare not straight forward but it is worthreminding ourselves why most of uswent into teaching in the first place. Inpart it is to do with our interest in oursubject but for many it is because wewanted to share it with young people,getting them engaged, experiencingsomething different or coming tounderstand something that started as a‘mystery’. To do this all teachers haveto juggle a wide range of demands,principally, the curriculum, theassessment requirements, the facilitiesand resources available and their ownpedagogical skills in order to engagetheir students. Each of these elementsobviously relates to, and impacts on,the others thus emphasising thecomplexity of the task and the level ofexpertise required by a highlyaccomplished teacher.

Thus if we want high quality scienceeducation in and for the 21st Century

we need to ensure that teachers andother members of the science team arewell prepared and have access to highquality CPD in order to keep up todate, maintain their own enthusiasmand are able to adapt to changingcircumstances. This of course is easiersaid than done but below I haveattempted to illustrate some of theimplications for teachers that arisefrom different aspects of providingscience education which is appropriatefor young people. Although the mainfocus here is on secondary education,the issues identified also relate toprimary science.

It is important to stress that there aremany positive claims that can be madeabout science education in the UK: theperformance of the UK in internationalcomparisons, Ofsted Inspectionreports showing improvements in thequality of teaching, the success ofprimary science and the fact that thereare many pupils who do enjoy science.Such positive aspects are all too easilyforgotten in the debates that take placeyet these are strengths on which wecan build and make progress.

Facilities and resources

In some schools the sciencelaboratories have not changed formany years but science has moved on.The sophistication of the equipmentthat is available for carrying outpractical work has also moved on. Thepotential of ICT and other



technologies provides a myriad ofopportunities to improve the qualityand excitement of teaching andlearning. Science education in the 21stCentury must embrace thesedevelopments, not just because theyare new but because they providegreater insights into, and ways ofinvestigating and learning about, thenatural world.

Apart from the obvious fact thatprovision of new facilities andequipment needs careful planning andthe funding to go with it, teachers andtechnicians need to be comfortableworking in the new environments andwith using the equipment. This in turnrequires time not only in training butalso to follow up the training and trythings out.

Curriculum

Debates about the curriculum seem tobe endless but, whatever thecurriculum specification, we musthave appropriately qualified teachersto teach it. Simply to argue thatteachers should have a degree in aparticular subject does not guaranteethat they can teach what they know toyoung people nor that they have thebreadth of knowledge from theirdegree course to cover that requiredby the curriculum. This problem isgenerally acknowledged andindividual teachers take it onthemselves to ensure that they doknow what it is they have to teach.However at a system-wide level it isnot so straight forward. A report in20064 set out concerns that in mathsand science (principally physics andchemistry) there are not enoughqualified teachers to teach thecurriculum required. Some steps arebeing taken to address this issue in theshort term but ultimately it means thatmore individuals trained in thescientific disciplines need to beattracted into teaching and those inthe profession need to engage insubject-specific CPD.

Assessment

Closely tied up with the curriculum isthe issue of assessment which in turndrives what is actually taught andwhat students are asked to ‘learn’ fortests and examinations. We deludeourselves if we think it was different inthe past. As teachers we have all triedto improve our students’ chances ofsuccess by doing ‘revision’ andhighlighting particular aspects of thetopic that ‘are likely to come up in theexam’. So what has changed? Thefrequency of external tests andexaminations and the culture of‘league tables’ have certainlycontributed to creating anenvironment in which the assessmentregime has, at the very least, restrictedopportunities for exploring the subjectbeyond the scheme of work.

Paradoxically, assessment used in aformative manner, rather than forsummative purposes, is an integralpart of the learning process. Thepotential impact of formativeassessment on the achievements ofstudents was summed up by Black andWiliam5 saying,

“There is a body of firm evidence thatformative assessment is an essentialfeature of classroom work and thatdevelopment of it can raise standards.”

However for teachers to maximise thebenefits of formative assessmentrequires changes in their practice.

Engaging Students

Getting pupils engaged with thescience can be done in different waysbut not every approach will engage allstudents. Grabbing interest with a‘spectacular or intriguingdemonstration’ can be effective as isfinding a way of making it ‘relevant’ tothem. This will differ from student tostudent, for some ‘relevant’ means thework should be ‘applied’. For others itis the need for some ‘personal link’,discussion of ‘ethical issues’, hearingabout a scientific discovery orinvestigating something they

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS1 Quoted in House of Commons Science and

Technology Committee, 2002. Science Education from14-19, Third report of session 2001-2002, Volume 1para 1. London: The Stationery Office Limited

2 ASE Strategic Plan 2005-20103 Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2000) Pupils’ and Parents’

views of the school science curriculum. London: King’sCollege London, School of Education

4 Moor et al (2006) Mathematics and Science in SecondarySchools: The deployment of teachers and support staff todeliver the curriculum Research Report 708, DfESLondon

5 Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box:raising standards through classroom assessment. London:King’s College London, School of Education.

personally find fascinating. Sparkingsome kind of interest is an importantfirst step in pupils’ learning.

Pedagogy

Whichever way you consider scienceeducation for 21st Century there areimplications for the teachers bothindividually and collectively. Theimportance of their teaching skills,their knowledge of the subject, theirunderstanding of children’s learning,amongst other things, cannot bedenied. Yet too often in the debatesabout curriculum, assessment andresources the implications for teachershave not been made explicit. Recentdevelopments which have raised theprofile of subject-specific CPD, havestarted to address the situation. Iwould argue that in looking ahead weneed to reconsider how we managethe introduction of changes at nationaland school level. Teachersimplementing the changes need to bewell prepared but, importantly, thereshould be enough time, support andflexibility for teachers and schools tobe able to decide how best they meetthe needs of their students.

Science education has come a longway in the last 100 years and will,without doubt, move on in the 21stCentury but the interactions betweenteachers and pupils will remain at itsheart. It is through highlyaccomplished teachers skilfullymanaging the, often competing,demands that we will enthuse the nextgenerations in science.



SCIENCE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Science forScience’s SakeDavid PerksHead of Physics, Graveney School, Tooting

When I wrote my essay “Whatis science education for?” Iwas asking a seemingly

uncontroversial question. However, theresponse to the essay proved this is nota question we feel confident we cananswer with any degree of certainty. Inresponse to the introduction of the newScience GCSE last September, based onthe Twenty First Century Science(TFCS) GCSE pilot, I wrote a critiqueof the direction educational reform wastaking. In essence, I was asking for apause to take stock before wecommitted ourselves to a course ofaction from which it will be very hardto extract ourselves in the future. Thefurore surrounding the publication ofmy essay proved there is real concernabout the rush to reform schoolscience. Famously Baroness Warnockwas quoted on the front page of TheTimes calling the new Science GCSE “fitfor the pub” rather than the basis for asound science education.

On the other hand, almost everyonethinks that “something must be done”to improve science education. Thedecline in numbers taking science at A-level and university, especially the hardscience sciences – physics andchemistry – has now reached the statusof a national disaster. Despiteadvertising campaigns, the lure of popstars like Myleene Klass and out-and-out bribery to attract new scienceteachers into the profession we stillface a dire shortage of qualified physicsteachers in our classrooms. The closureof university departments seems tohave reached the proportions of nearcollapse in the physical sciences. Butthis is not the only driver towards thereform of science education.

The position of science in society hassuffered a dramatic decline with theresponse to BSE, MMR and GM foodsjust to name a few crises that havefaced the government over the lastcouple of decades. Scientists are nowtainted by their relationship toindustry and government. We justdon’t trust them like we once did. Forgovernment the issue of trust hasbecome a direct target of educationalreform. Robin Millar and JonathanOsborne made it clear in Beyond 2000(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education/publications/bey2000.pdf) that scienceeducation had to educate the citizen to“have sufficient knowledge andunderstanding to follow science andscientific debates with interest, and toengage with the issues science andtechnology poses – both for themindividually, and for our society as awhole”. That is science educationshould be about creating thescientifically literate citizen.

The problem is that all this asks toomuch of the GCSE science curriculum.The conflicting demands of creatingfuture scientists and producingscientifically literate citizens do not siteasily at the heart of science education.They pull science education in twototally different and at timescontradictory directions.

I believe neither perspective is right.Science education can only work if webelieve science is worth knowingabout in its own terms. Trying to claimwhat amounts to crude politicalimperatives as the rationale for scienceeducation can only serve to underminefurther the value we give to science. Itis our failure of nerve when it comesto explaining what we are doing in the

school science laboratory whichencourages us to look for other widelydisparate justifications for scienceeducation. Science education will notwork if we don’t believe that it isworth educating young people withknowledge and understanding ofscience for its own sake. And byscience I mean academic science, aproper foundation in the disciplinesnecessary to study science to a higherlevel. Science for science’s sake is theonly option if we want young peopleto believe that learning science hassomething to offer them all. Thetrouble is that few adults believe thatthis is either possible or worthwhile.

But just because something is difficultthat is no reason to give up. One ofthe most disheartening things aboutthe debate about science education isthe assumption that traditional scienceeducation is boring. From politiciansto the authors of Beyond 2000, there isa common assumption that sciencetaught as an academic subject isirrelevant to young peoples’ lives andso inherently dull. Even moreinsidious is the implication thatscience is just too hard for most youngpeople. All of this is just a reflection ofour lowering of expectations of whatyoung people can achieve. It is all tooeasy to produce findings in attitudinalsurveys that young people are turnedoff by their science lessons. But thebanally obvious point is that if we



don’t think science is interesting aspoliticians and educators then childrenhave little chance of finding itimportant. Children have a habit ofreflecting back our own concerns to us– with a pinch of disinterest just forgood measure.

But even if we take the reforms ontheir own terms, they just don’t addup. The TFCS GCSE pilot which hasnow become the flagship specificationfor the OCR examining board and thedriving force behind the QCAs newprogramme of study for key stage 4(14-16 year olds) is worthinterrogating in its own terms. Thecentre piece of this new GCSE is theemphasis on scientific literacy or asthe QCA calls it “how science works”.This marks a dramatic shift away fromacademic science towards anappreciation of how science affects theconsumer of science. The problemswith this approach are threefold: itneither seems capable of encouraginga broader uptake of the sciences postGCSE; nor will it provide the basis fora greater trust of science forconsumers of science; and lastly it justisn’t science.

The clearest demonstration of theflaws of this approach is to look athow it deals with issues in science.The “science in the news” aspect of theTFCS GCSE replaces experimentalcoursework. This was trialled atGraveney School with year 9. The taskselected asked pupils to consider“Should Britain replace it’s ageing

nuclear power stations?” The materialprovided by the exam board consistedof information in the form of presscuttings about energy production andconsumption. I added my own presscuttings as this issue was very much inthe news at the time. The response ofpupils to this task was interesting.They asked me questions like “What isnuclear power?” “Is radioactivitydangerous?” “What is a nucleus?” etc.They wanted to know about thescience and were to put it bluntly notinterested in playing politics withnuclear power. Asking fourteen yearolds to deal with a question posed inthis way is asking them to deal with anissue the Government finds itselfstruggling to answer to its critics.

This approach fails on many levels. Itfails to recognise how young peoplelearn. Instead of being offered ethicalchoices to decide upon fourteen yearolds want to be told what they shouldknow and learn. Expecting teachers tohave a clear enough perspective onsuch questions is asking too much ofthem. They will reflect wider concernsin the public arena about science,amplifying pupils’ own doubts aboutthe use of science rather thanclarifying issues. Science teachers arenot experts in ethics any more thanthey are experts in the Government’spolitical priorities. As a result,controversial issues within theclassroom very quickly becomereduced to a matter of ethics based ona lack of information. This was one ofthe conclusions I drew from an earlier

In discussion the following points were made:

One of the slides appeared to indicate that if you want more science, teach less of it! However social science data arealways messy and possibly not reliable. An early choice is required between Science and Humanities at age 14.

The low carbon economy will require applied scientists in the future. Presently foreign nationals fill nine of every ten postsdue to the lack of national graduates.

The view that science will not be required after leaving school is widely held. Hence much more effort is required atPrimary Schools.

If science is boring, it is not well taught. Exciting subjects are those that are well taught. Kids are fascinated by science, butthere is hard work to do as well and this needs pointing out. Science for Science Sake was endorsed and is important in itsown right.

There are not enough practicals at schools. These require resources and competent teachers. Teaching can with advantagebe linked to real life challenges (such as military experience, for example) with beneficial results.

project I was involved in with theWellcome Trust on sex selection -http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node5962.html .

So turning science lessons into mediastudies classes by mimicking the worstaspects of breakfast time TV is notgoing to encourage pupils to trustscience. Nor is it going to foster theirinterest in studying what amounts to ademanding choice at A-level andbeyond. In fact, just these points wereraised by my colleague Tony Gilland atThe Institute of Ideas when he lookedat the publication of research followingup the pilot TFCS GCSE. Pupilsfollowing the course were if anythingless likely to trust scientists and lesslikely to want to pursue science to ahigher level (“New science GCSE: Afailed experiment?” Tony Gilland,http://www.instituteofideas.com/sciedproject.html).

When pupils arrive at secondaryschool, science is one of the mostexciting subjects on offer. Seeing theireyes light up when they first get to usea Bunsen burner never fails to enthralme. I have never found it hard tocapture pupil’s interest in science.They all want to know how to doscience. Turning their naturalenthusiasm into the hard worknecessary to master the scientificdisciplines is the job of the scienceteacher. I fail to see how replacingBunsen burners with cuttings from theDaily Mail is going to help us to dothis.



Closer to home: Science andInnovation in France … and Europe

Mark SinclairFirst Secretary, Science & Innovation, Paris

Swapping the Science andInnovation role in Boston for thatin Paris has certainly brought

home a few differences. There’s thelanguage of course – although evenhere English is increasingly thelanguage of science. But also theculture of science and innovation:from an environment where the Stateplayed a relatively minor role in theinnovation engine and where strategywas emergent at best, to one where theState is firmly in the driving seat andstrategy abounds. And there’s not thesame stream of UK science visitorskeen to learn from the world’s numberone innovation hub. But perhaps ournearest neighbour should be betterknown: there is certainly plenty goingon here.

France is a major force in Europeanresearch, spending around 2.2% of itsGDP, some €35 billion, of which 46%comes from the State. But despite thehigh volume there are concerns overthe efficiency and effectiveness of theresearch output. Publications andcitations are lower overall than theUK, yet the very best research here isoutstanding, with a higher share thanthe UK of highly cited papers in themost prestigious journals. Patentnumbers are higher too butexploitation of that knowledge andlinks between public research andindustry are below internationalbenchmarks.

The French Government has beenmaking serious efforts to overhaul thepublic research sector. The ResearchBill of 2006 introduced reforms aimedat increasing prioritisation andstrategy, more systematic evaluation ofresearch, encouraging co-ordinationbetween research organisations,making scientific careers more

attractive, increasing innovation andtechnology transfer and increasingintegration into the European ResearchArea. In an effort to improve theinnovation performance of industry,the State funded the creation ofcompetitiveness clusters – associationsof companies, research centres andeducational institutions, working inpartnership under a commondevelopment strategy. Sixty-six ofthese poles de competitivité werecreated, 6 of which are regarded asworld-class with another 10 closebehind. These are well funded withpreferred access to public researchcalls. Many are creating realmomentum regionally and developingnew international links.

Last month of course saw the electionof Nicolas Sarkozy as president.Research and higher education reformfeatured strongly in his campaign. Anhistoric effort is needed, he said, toavoid losing the battle for intelligence.He promised to increase highereducation spending by €5 billion(50%) in five years, and strengthenuniversity governance, offering themreal autonomy and placing them at thecentre of research. R&D spending is tobe increased by 40% (€15 billion, 4billion of which will come out of thepublic purse), aimed at reaching 3% ofGDP by 2012. The new Governmentis moving swiftly. Valérie Pécresse,appointed to a new Cabinet-levelposition as Minister for research andhigher education, has begunconsultation on a bill on universityautonomy scheduled for debate in anextraordinary legislative session thisJuly.

In the Paris Embassy, I am delighted tohave taken over a team that hasproduced a string of solid outcomes in

terms of increased bilateral co-operation. As our forthcoming annualreport will show, my colleagues in therest of the S&I European Networkhave an excellent story to tell too. Butwe are facing some strategic challengesthat mean we need to look continuallyfor ways to increase the value we add.There is the familiar competition forresources, including strong demandsfrom our own S&I colleagues in therapidly developing economies of theworld. But the important newchallenge is that of getting the bestvalue for the UK from a hugelyincreased EU Framework Programme7 (FP7), now worth €50 billion over 7years. UK academics have tended todo well in the FPs (they were involvedin 47% of all multilateral FP6contracts) but take-up by UK industryis poor. There is a UK cross-departmental effort to turn thisaround. Our network has beenspecifically asked by GSIF (the cross-departmental committee responsiblefor international science andinnovation issues) to focus on helpingthe UK achieve its goals in FP7.

To bring about these new multilateralcollaborations we will need to worktogether across Europe, harnessing theresources we have in 11 countries(including Switzerland, Israel andRussia) and finding a way of reachinginto those other countries with asignificant science or innovation effortwhere there is currently no UK S&Iresource.

Putting this new approach intopractice will be a challenging task, butone that we are looking forward totackling. The prize is worth it.



Engaging the DisengagedDr Nigel Eady

Science in Society Officer, the BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science)

Recent years have seen a shift inscience engagement activitiesfrom rigid ‘top down’

approaches to methods thatconsciously allow participants to sharepower in decision-making. However,the community x-change, aninnovative project run by the BA(British Association for theAdvancement of Science), shows thereis still a long way to go.

Power to the people

Since the House of Lords Science inSociety report of 20001 there has beena steady stream of developments in thescience communication field. Everyoneis ‘doing dialogue’ and the processesand approaches of participation aregradually becoming embedded withininstitutions. The formation ofSciencewise2, the proposed ExpertResource Centre for Public Dialogue onScience and Innovation3 and theBeacons for Public Engagement4 alldemonstrate awareness, at a high levelin public institutions, of the need for asocial licence for the advance ofscience.

However, whilst these developmentshave been welcomed in many quarters,there still exists a suspicion regardingthe quality and utility of these sorts ofprocesses. Whilst new ‘hardware’ existsto probe public views some doubtwhether culture change, the ‘software’required for a meaningful response, hasoccurred.5

Over-representing theunder-represented

In this context, the community x-change was designed to explore a newmethodology for dialogue. This ‘two-way’ approach takes elements from a

number of different initiatives,including citizens’ juries and commonlanguage projects, to provide time andspace for citizens to discuss issues oflocal concern as well as those withnational implications – year one of thisproject addressing climate change. Aseries of structured deliberativeworkshops were held where citizens,including scientists and policymakers,could share their opinions and discussstrategies for positive change.

A distinguishing element of thisprocess is that it seeks the views ofvoices currently excluded from publicdebate. It is easy to tick the diversitybox for such an engagement processwhilst never getting beyond thegatekeepers within local communities.Two outreach workers were thereforeemployed to involve a wide range ofparticipants in the workshops,especially targeting the marginalised insociety. Over a number of months theymet and worked with a wide range oflocal groups to encourage theirinvolvement in the process.

Through this project we wanted tolearn how to improve practices ofdialogue, particularly those allowingcurrently excluded voices to influencepolicy. We wanted to learn how toimprove involvement processes whichaddress issues that communities, aswell as policymakers, deem to be ofconcern. We also wanted to develop

the capacity of our electedrepresentatives to engage withparticipatory processes. With this inmind, close contact with policymakersand stakeholders was maintainedthroughout, in order to ensureappropriate outputs.

A safe space

The community group of about thirtyparticipants included representativesfrom a broad range of groups: blackand minority ethnic communities, non-English speakers, ex-offenders andyoung people, to name a few. A smallnumber of scientists were also involvedwho were not experts on climatechange but deliberately recruited ascitizens.

Providing a safe space for participantsto discuss local issues of concern gavedepth to the process. Many of the localissues, for example public transport,could be discussed within the broadframework of the environment,allowing climate change to beintroduced more naturally to thediscussions. However, deep-feltpersonal feelings were also uncoveredwhich impinged on the global scienceissue, one participant commenting, “Ican’t even influence my localcommunity so how can I influenceclimate change.” We also observed thatwillingness to value, and promise to acton, the views of a community quicklyremoves perceived barriers. Manyparticipants greatly appreciated theopportunity to meet with other localpeople outside of their normalacquaintance.

The future

Participants presented their videoreport of the workshops at the BA



Festival of Science in September 2006and the videos are now available toview online.6 To extend the influence ofthe discussions, a series of events basedon resources from the project are nowrunning across the country throughout2007.6

The project has now entered a periodof reflection and evaluation. Furtherworkshops are planned in Liverpool,European Capital of Culture 2008, tocoincide with the BA Festival ofScience. There has been a great deal oflearning within the project team aboutthe benefits of collaborating with local

communities and we will endeavour toembed future processes more deeply inlocal community structures. Forexample, we will provide greater levelsof support to the group after theworkshops to enable them to engageover a longer period of time with issuesdiscussed. The danger with allengagement being that aspirations andexpectations are raised, only for theindividuals to be left high and dry oncethe project team move on. Withoutdoubt, a comparable challenge ispresenting the views expressed in amanner that influences decision-makers both locally and nationally.

The community x-change is funded bySciencewise, Defra and the WellcomeTrust.

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS1 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee,

Third Report, 23 February 2000http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm

2 Sciencewise http://www.sciencewise.org.uk/3 Pre-budget report, 6 December 2006 http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/pre_budget_report/prebud_pbr06/prebud_pbr06_index.cfm

4 See http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2006/06_49/5 The Public Value of Science, Demos, 5 September

2005http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/publicvalueofscience, p.19

6 See http://www.the-ba.net/communityxchange

It’s not just cricket –actually it’s physics

Ever wanted to face a ShaneWarne spin delivery or smash aGlen McGrath speed bowl? A

new bowling simulator may enable youto do just that. The machine is the firstof its kind to use physics, real cricketballs and novel speed and spingenerating mechanisms to imitaterealistic deliveries (eg spin, swing andpace) as generated by professionalcricket players. Dr Andy West, themachine’s inventor at LoughboroughUniversity described it at an Institute ofPhysics conference, Physics andEngineering – Synergy for Success, inOctober last year.

Dr West said: “By considering thephysics of air flow around a ball andlaunch conditions we have made arobotic bowler that we can programmeto mimic Warne, McGrath or the styleof any other bowler. When we weredesigning the machine, we consideredall the things that real players use, suchas the orientation of the seam and thespeed at which the ball is released tovary how a ball travels when it isbowled.”

“Real life bowlers can get tired or

injured during extensive trainingperiods so the machine is ideal forbatsmen to practise with. The teamcoach can programme it to bowlwhatever sequences of deliveries hewants. Alternatively, exactly the sameball can be bowled again and again(referred to as shot grooving) untilcricketers become expert at hittingthem.”

The trajectory of the ball from thebowling machine to the batsman isdependent on how the boundary air,the air next to the ball, moves aroundit and how it separates or moves awayfrom the ball. There are two differenttypes of air flow – laminar, which issmooth – and turbulent, which isrough. In laminar flow the boundarylayer separates approximately halfwayaround the ball whereas in turbulentflow the separation is later.

The seam on a cricket ball “trips” theair flow into turbulence so there isrough air flow on one side of the balland smooth air flow on the other. Thiscreates an uneven air flow around thewhole ball which causes a sidewaysdrift. The size of the drift depends on

the angle of the seam, the speed of theball and the condition of the originalair flow around the ball. It is essentialtherefore that the seam is alignedaccurately to enable any machine to beable to generate this type of “swing”delivery.

Dr West continued: “Consideration ofthe physics of flight and therequirements of players and coacheshas enabled us to make a very realisticbowling machine that will be great forprofessional cricketers to practise with.However our vision is that the machineis not just for the professional. Thecricket emulator is part of a co-ordinated suite of sports simulationmachines that have been or arecurrently under development atLoughborough covering sports such asgolf, football, cycling, rowing andweight training.”

The presentation, The Development of aNovel Cricket Bowling System, was madeby Dr Andrew West and Laura Justhamfrom Loughborough University at theInstitute of Physics conference, Physicsand Engineering – Synergy for Success,on 5th October 2006.



House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology

Under the Standing Orders, the Committee’s terms of reference are to examine “the expenditure, policy and administration of the Office of Scienceand Innovation and its associated public bodies”.

The new Committee was nominated on 19 July 2005. Members of the Committee are Adam Afriyie (Con, Windsor), Mr Robert Flello (Lab, Stokeon Trent South), Linda Gilroy (Lab Co-op, Plymouth Sutton), Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem, Oxford West and Abingdon), Dr Brian Iddon (Lab,Bolton South East), Chris Mole (Lab, Ipswich), Mr Brooks Newmark (Con, Braintree), Dr Bob Spink (Con, Castle Point), Graham Stringer

(Lab, Manchester, Blackley), Dr Desmond Turner (Lab, Brighton Kemptown), and Mr Phil Willis (Lib Dem, Harrogate and Knaresborough). MrPhil Willis was elected Chairman of the Committee at its first meeting on 20 July 2005.

Oral EvidenceThe corrected transcripts of these evidence sessions are available onthe Committee’s website.

Introductory Hearing with Mr Edmund Wallis,Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council On Wednesday 25 April 2007, the Committee held anintroductory hearing with Mr Edmund Wallis, Chairman ofthe Natural Environment Research Council.

Introductory Hearing with Sir John Chisholm,Chairman of the Medical Research CouncilOn Wednesday 20 June 2007, the Committee held anintroductory hearing with Sir John Chisholm, Chairman ofthe Medical Research Council. Written evidence has beeninvited from interested organisations and individuals on therole and responsibilities of the Chairman.

Current Inquiries

Space PolicyOn 19 July 2006, the Committee announced an inquiryinto space policy in the UK. The inquiry is focusing uponthe current levels of investment in the sector, the UK’srelationship with the European Space Agency, the deliveryof public benefits from the space-related activities ofdifferent Government departments, and the support forspace-related research.

The Committee has held seven oral evidence sessions andhas heard from the Minister for Science and Innovation, theBNSC, the European Space Agency, industrialists, andacademics. A Report is expected to be published in thesummer.

International Policies and Activities of the ResearchCouncilsOn 6 March 2007, the Committee launched a new inquiryas part of its thematic scrutiny of the Research Councils.The terms of reference include international collaborationthrough the EU Framework Programme, interactionbetween the Research Councils and GovernmentDepartments on international collaborations, and theinternational mobility of scientists and engineers.

The Committee has heard oral evidence from universityrepresentatives, the learned societies and the ResearchCouncils. A Report is expected in the summer.

Investigating the OceansThe Committee is undertaking an inquiry into marinescience. It will consider the organisation and funding ofmarine science, the role of the UK internationally in thisfield, support for marine science, the use of marine sites ofspecial scientific interest, and the state of the UK researchand skills base underpinning marine science.

The inquiry was launched with a public seminar at theNational Marine Aquarium in Plymouth on 17 April 2007.The Committee has subsequently held several oral evidencesessions hearing from The Inter-Agency Committee onMarine Science and Technology, the Research Councils,academics and industrialists. Oral evidence sessions willcontinue in the summer.

Funding of Science and Discovery CentresOn 2 May 2007, the Committee announced a new shortinquiry into the funding of science and discovery centres.The inquiry will examine the role of science centres inpublic engagement and attracting young people to sciencesubjects and scientific careers, the funding of such centres,and ways of supporting their long-term future. Thedeadline for written evidence was 11 June 2007 and oralevidence sessions will begin in the summer.

Renewable Energy-Generation TechnologiesOn 15 May 2007, the Committee announced a new inquiryinto renewable energy technologies. It has invited writtenevidence on several points: the current state of UK researchand development in this area; the feasibility, costs,timescales and progress in commercialising newtechnologies; the Government’s role in funding research anddevelopment in this field, and other possible technologiesfor renewable energy-generation. The deadline for writtenevidence was 2 July 2007. Oral evidence sessions will beginin the autumn.



Debate

On Thursday 14 June 2007, there was a debate inWestminster Hall on the Committee’s Fifth Report ofSession 2005-06, Drug classification: making a hash of it? (HC1031).

Government Responses

Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport On 23 April 2007, the Government published theGovernment Response to the Science and Technology SelectCommittee Report on Human Enhancement Technologies (Cm7088).

Further Information

Further information about the work of the Committee or itscurrent inquires can be obtained from the Clerk of the

Committee, Dr Lynn Gardner, the Second Clerk, Dr CeliaBlacklock, or from the Committee Assistant, Ana Ferreiraon 020 7219 2792/0859/2794; or by writing to: The Clerkof the Committee, Science and Technology Committee,House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London, SW1P 3JA.Inquiries can also be emailed to [email protected] wishing to be included on the Committee’s mailinglist should contact the staff of the Committee.

Anyone wishing to submit evidence to the Committee isstrongly recommended to obtain a copy of the guidancenote first. Guidance on the submission of evidence can befound athttp://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm.

The Committee has a new website address:www.parliament.uk/s&tcom. All recent publications (fromMay 1997 onwards), terms of reference for all inquiries andpress notices are available at this address.

House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee

The members of the Committee (appointed 21 November 2006) are Lord Broers (Chairman), Lord Colwyn, Lord Haskel, Lord Howie ofTroon, Lord May of Oxford, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, Lord Patel, Lord Paul, Baroness Perry of Southwark, Baroness Platt of Writtle,

the Earl of Selborne, Baroness Sharp of Guildford, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood and Lord Taverne. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff wasco-opted to the Committee on 12 December 2006.

Science and Heritage

The Committee’s report was published in November 2006,and set out a comprehensive vision for the future of whatthe Committee has termed “heritage science” – the diverserange of scientific research that underpins the conservationof our cultural heritage. The Government’s response waspublished in January 2007. While the Committee’srecommendations were embraced warmly by the ResearchCouncils, the response from DCMS was less positive. Thereport was then debated in Grand Committee on 12 June,with fourteen speakers taking part. Written comments onthe response have also been received from a number ofwitnesses, and these will be published, along with theCommittee’s commentary, in the summer. In the meantimekey players in the sector have begun to implement theCommittee’s recommendations independently, with EnglishHeritage scoping a strategy for heritage science, and theArts and Humanities Research Council appointing aProgramme Director in the field.

Science Teaching in Schools

The Committee’s report was published last November.Among other things, it called for dramatic action to recruit

and retain more specialist physics and chemistry teachers; awider baccalaureate-style examination system to replace A-levels; increased funding for school science laboratories;improved careers advice for students; and a proper careerstructure for school science technicians. The Governmentresponse was published in January 2007. The Committee’sreport was debated in the House on 3 May. The Committeewill in due course publish a short follow-up report,including the Government’s response along with writtencomments received from witnesses to the inquiry.

Personal Internet Security

Sub-Committee II’s inquiry into personal Internet securitywas launched in November 2006. The inquiry, chaired byLord Broers, has looked at a broad range of security issuesaffecting private individuals when using the Internet. InMarch the Committee visited the United States, talking tofederal government and the FBI, as well as to key industryplayers (including Apple, Microsoft and eBay), think-tanks,and researchers. The final public meeting took place on 25April, and the report is currently being considered by theCommittee. The report will be published either in July orwhen the House returns in early October.



Allergy

Sub-Committee I’s inquiry into Allergy, chaired by BaronessFinlay of Llandaff, was launched in October 2006. Theinquiry has looked at the incidence of allergic diseases inthe UK, the causes of recent trends in prevalence, and abroad range of policy issues which impact upon allergysufferers. During the course of the inquiry, the Committeetook evidence from clinicians and academics, as well asrepresentatives from public bodies, charities and the privatesector. The Committee also visited allergy clinics in the UK,Germany and Denmark, pharmaceutical companies, andthe Danish National Board of Health. The Committee heldits final public meeting on 18 April and is now drafting thereport. It is hoped that the report will be published in July.

Radioactive Waste Management

The Select Committee’s follow-up inquiry, chaired by LordBroers, focused on the final report of the Committee onRadioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), which waspublished last July, and the Government’s response to thereport published in October 2006. The Committee tookevidence from CoRWM, the Nuclear DecommissioningAuthority, the Government and others. The Committee’sreport ‘Radioactive Waste Management: an update’ waspublished on 4 June. The report raised serious concernsover the institutional framework for the next,implementation phase of the Managing Radioactive WasteSafely Programme, and over the unseemly haste at which

the programme now seems to be progressing. The SelectCommittee also recommended that the Governmentestablish an independent, statutory body, free of day-to-dayGovernment control and accountable to Parliament, withoverall accountability for implementing the geologicaldisposal programme. In its response to the CoRWM report,the Government had watered down CoRWM’srecommendation for an independent body to oversee theprogramme and announced its plan to set up anindependent advisory body instead.

New inquiry: Air Travel and Health

On 2 May, the Select Committee announced a short follow-up inquiry, chaired by Lord Broers, into air travel andhealth. The inquiry will focus on the Committee reportpublished in 2000 and what progress has been made on theCommittee’s recommendations. The Committee will takeevidence in June and July and the report is expected to bepublished in the Autumn.

Further information

The written and oral evidence to the Committee’s inquiriesmentioned above, as well as the Calls for Evidence on theCommittee’s new inquiries, can be found on theCommittee’s website www.parliament.uk/hlscience. Furtherinformation about the work of the Committee can beobtained from Cathleen Schulte, Committee Specialist([email protected] or 020 7219 2491). TheCommittee’s email address is [email protected].

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

RReecceenntt PPOOSSTT ppuubblliiccaattiioonnss

Energy and SewageApril 2007 POSTnote 282

Water and energy management are important andinterrelated issues. Sewage treatment, that is, the physical,chemical and biological processes used to clean industrialand domestic wastewater, has improved significantly overthe past 20 years, with approximately 75% of UK riversnow of good biological and chemical quality. However, theenergy required to treat sewage to this standard is high; thewater industry is the fourth most energy intensive sector inthe UK. Further tightening of water quality standardssuggests energy costs will increase. This POSTnoteevaluates options for sewage treatment in terms of energyconservation and renewable energy generation.

Health BehaviourMay 2007 POSTnote 283

Behaviours such as stopping smoking, moderation ofalcohol intake, healthy eating and physical activity canreduce the risks of developing serious illnesses such ascancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However,promoting the uptake of healthier behaviour presentschallenges, both at the individual and population levels.This POSTnote will describe the importance of healthbehaviour change and the challenges to such change.

Tackling Malaria in Developing CountriesMay 2007 POSTnote 284

Malaria is a parasitic disease responsible for the deaths of atleast a million people every year, 90% of whom live in sub-



Saharan Africa. The greatest death toll occurs in childrenunder five. Despite effective prevention and treatmentmethods, the burden of malaria remains high. The UK hasagreed to the UN Millennium Development Goal of haltingthe spread of malaria by 2015. This note examines progresstowards this target and considers the remaining UK andinternational priorities.

Better BrainsJune 2007 POSTnote 285

As part of the Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugsproject a state of science review was carried out into currentknowledge in the area of cognitive enhancers. These arefactors that improve functions such as memory, learningand attention. The review concluded there would besignificant improvements in understanding of this area inthe next twenty years, and that this would lead to anincrease in the development of cognitive enhancers. Itraised the possibility of otherwise healthy individuals usingenhancers to boost their cognitive abilities. This POSTnotereviews existing methods of cognitive enhancement alongwith likely future developments, and considers theregulatory and ethical questions that they pose.

Current workBiological Sciences and Health – Alternatives to CustodialSentencing for Young Adult Offenders, AssistedReproduction, Prolonging Life in Newborns, EatingDisorders.

Environment and Energy – Carbon Footprint of Biofuels,Carbon Offsetting, Urban Flooding and Drainage, Deep SeaExploitation and Conservation, Siting of Nuclear PowerPlant.

Physical Sciences and IT – Electronic Waste, E-Science andThe Grid.

Science Policy – International Migration of Scientists andEngineers.

SeminarsOn April 18th POST co-operated with the NaturalEnvironment Research Council, the British Antarctic Survey,the Scott Polar Research Institute and the journal Science,to hold a parliamentary reception to mark InternationalPolar Year in the Commons Members’ Dining Room. Over200 persons were present, making it the best-attendedevent in POST’s history.

In May POST held seminars on Ecosystem Services,collaborating with the British Ecological Society, and onEnergy from Sewage and an industry round table on RadioSpectrum Management.

Fellows and Interns at POSTIn May Mary Matthews, from Imperial College London,joined POST as an Institute of Physics fellow to work onRadio Spectrum Management and Zillah Boraston, fromUniversity College London, joined as a British PsychologicalSociety fellow to work on Eating Disorders.

In June Mhairi Aitken, from Robert Gordon University,Aberdeen, joined POST as an ESRC fellow to work onPublic Perceptions of Energy Generation Options.

Lyndsey Dodds, NERC fellow from the Scottish Associationfor Marine Science, is extending her stay at POST to workwith the UK Branch of the Commonwealth ParliamentaryAssociation on planning a major Commonwealth seminaron climate change.

International ActivitiesThe Director represented POST at the annual Directors’Meeting of the European Parliamentary TechnologyAssessment network (EPTA) held under the presidency ofthe Greek Parliament’s Technology Assessment PermanentCommittee, in Hersonissos, Crete, in April.

The Director chaired a session, and POST Royal Society ofChemistry fellow Gangani Niyadurupola presented a paper,at a UK-Dutch workshop on Cognitive Enhancers organisedby the British Embassy in Den Haag, in May. The Directoralso visited Agriom BV, a specialist plant breeding enterprisewhich is promoting the development of jatropha as abiofuel oil source.

Also in May the Director participated in a workshop onSafety in Road and Rail Tunnels organised by the Scienceand Technology Options Assessment (STOA) unit of theEuropean Parliament in Brussels. This project is beingconducted for STOA by POST in collaboration with Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh.

The Director made two missions to Berlin in early June.One was to chair a session and participate in a panel debateat a conference on Nuclear’s Contribution to EU Energy,Environment and Security Needs, organised by the GermanInstitute for Economics, Berlin, the Department of EnergyEconomics at Dresden University of Technology, theTechnical University of Berlin and the Judge BusinessSchool at the University of Cambridge. The second missionwas to represent POST at the first conference of Chairs ofEU national parliamentary committees on education,science, research and technology assessment, called by theBundestag’s committee, under the German presidency ofthe EU.

POST Deputy Director Dr Peter Border attended a planningmeeting in Bonn in June for a new joint project onGenetically Modified Foods being run by several of theEuropean parliamentary science offices including POST,under the auspices of EPTA.



Parliamentary and ScientificCommittee and other NewsUniversities Federation for Animal Welfare3Rs Research Fellowship in honour of ProfessorWilliam Russell

In honour and memory of Professor William Russell, whodied on July 27th 2006, the Universities Federation forAnimal Welfare (UFAW) has established a special fund tosupport a Research Fellowship to advance the internationaldevelopment and application of the Three Rs (Replacement,Reduction and Refinement) and, resources permitting,other initiatives for animal welfare in the Three Rs field.

The concept of the Three Rs was established by WilliamRussell and his colleague Mr Rex Burch through their workat UFAW which resulted in the publication of The Principlesof Humane Experimental Technique in 1959. The Three Rshave had, and continue to have, an immense impact on thewelfare of animals used in biomedical, veterinary, and otherresearch all over the world. The Professor William RussellResearch Fellowship will support high quality research, inthe UK or elsewhere, aimed at further significantinternational advances in knowledge or application of oneor more of the Three Rs.

UFAW is planning also to publish a special edition of ThePrinciples of Humane Experimental Technique later this year tomark the 50th anniversary of the UFAW meeting atBirkbeck College at which William Russell first publiclydescribed the principles of the Three Rs. This new editionwill include a foreword written by Russell himself not longbefore he died. In addition to printed copies, it is intendedthat the book will also be made available on the UFAWwebsite. Major sponsors of the William Russell ResearchFellowship will have the opportunity to be acknowledged

in this special edition and also in UFAW’s quarterlyscientific journal Animal Welfare.

Science in the Service of Animal Welfare

For further information please contact UFAW atwww.ufaw.org.uk.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Parliamentary and Scientific CommitteeChanges on the Website

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

As announced in the Whitsun issue of Science in Parliament,the members’ discussion forum is now operational, givingmembers the opportunity to post further discussions onissues raised at the Committee’s meetings and, on the GeneralDiscussion board, on any other matter likely to be of interestto the Committee.

Digital copies of issues of Science in Parliament publishedsince 2004 which are more than one year old are availablefree to download from the website. Hard copies of theseissues and those from earlier years can be obtained from theSecretariat at a much reduced cost.

The Committee will be pleased to post on its website links tothe websites of member organisations on a reciprocal basis.

New Members

We are delighted to welcome as new industrial membersIndustrial Copolymers Ltd and AGC Chemicals EuropeLtd, represented by Dr Leonard J Daniels and Dr Leslie R JHoy respectively.

Royal Society of ChemistryVoice of the Future 2007

More than 200 young scientists and engineers from all overthe UK came to the House of Commons on 13th March forthe annual VVooiiccee ooff tthhee FFuuttuurree event organised by the RoyalSociety of Chemistry. Members of the UK Youth Parliamentand some A-Level students from schools were also amongthe audience which packed the Attlee Suite to capacity.

They heard from Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister for Scienceand Innovation, whose address covered a number ofimportant scientific issues including climate change, funding



for science, and the importance of improving healthcare. Hesaid “This is a tremendously exciting time to be involved inscientific disciplines.” He fielded questions on Governmentcuts to the research budget, the closure of ReadingUniversity’s physics department, and on renewable energyand energy security.

In the Science Question Time withMembers of the SelectCommittee on Science andTechnology MPs, the panelwere asked about creationismbeing taught in schools, cleancoal technology and making theschool science curriculum moreexciting.

Education

Science TeachingDebate in the House of Lords on Thursday 3 May

Lord Broers rose to call attention to science teaching andthe report of the Science and Technology Committee calledScience Teaching in Schools, published last November. Withrespect to the practical teaching of science, the Governmenthave fallen short. They failed to deliver the £200 millionpromised for school science laboratories before the 2005election, despite the fact that the lack of motivatingpractical science has been a key factor in the loss of interestby students, and they failed to take adequate advice in thedesign of practical laboratories. The difficulties in deliveringexciting and interesting practical classes were made worseby the lack of adequate career opportunities for laboratorytechnicians. We need to ensure the future of practicalscience in schools and overcome the reluctance of teachersto make practical science exciting and relevant.

The low quality of so many new and refurbishedlaboratories is regrettable and avoidable. The Governmentfailed to consult acknowledged authorities such as the

Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provisionof Science Services – CLEAPSS – and the Association ofScience Education which have first hand experience inlaboratory design. The Government’s obsession with testingwas criticised as current tests focus on too narrow a range ofskills and stop teachers using their own creativity to inspirestudents to study science. The committee recommendedthat schools should be encouraged to offer higher salaries toscience and mathematics teachers. We furtherrecommended that the Government provide schools withring-fenced funding to cover the cost of CPD and anyreplacement teaching. Wellcome trust is in discussion withGovernment and industry to provide long term support forCPD.

Returning to the narrowness of the secondary educationsystem, in many cases students are advised that to gainentry to science and engineering they should study onlyscience and mathematics at A-level. They are being forced atage 16 to take a decision that will affect the rest of theirlives. This process is completely contrary to the Bolognaprocess which envisages a first science degree of three yearscovering a broad educational science and humanities base

Debates and Selected Parliamentary Questions & Answers

Following is a selection of Debates and Parliamentary Questions and Answers from the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Full digests of all Debates, Questions and Answers on topics of scientific interest from 16th April to 24th May 2007from both Houses of Parliament can be found on the website:

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

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

Voice of the Future also provides the opportunity for youngscientists and engineers to meet their local constituencyMPs.



followed by a two year MSc designed to provide thenecessary focus for either a scientific career or otherprofessional activity with a sound scientific base, followedby a three year PhD in a scientific research topic, a total ofeight years, but leading to qualifications that are acceptedand recognised worldwide. The current trend in the UKhowever is out of step, with a narrowly science based butvery challenging entry specification required for sciencedegrees. These are increasingly extended to a four year firstdegree as many students lack the science foundation thathas to be put in place in year one. This is followed by a oneyear MSc in order to provide basic professional training,but with a research component added, possibly followed byan entirely research based PhD, if scarce funding isavailable. This process is not designed either to providebroadly educated scientists or provide science graduates atevery level that relate well to or enable integration withscience education elsewhere, resulting in lack of studentinterchange with universities in other countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): Asa non-scientist I was delighted that Bill Bryson’s A ShortHistory of Nearly Everything was mentioned as it was by farthe most instructive book that I have read in the last twoyears. The Government set out their objectives for schoolsin the Science and Innovation Investment Framework2004-14, reinforced in last year’s Next Steps document.Our goals include increasing the recruitment, retrainingand retention of specialist physics, chemistry andmathematics teachers; improving the number of pupilsachieving at least level 6 in the key stage 3 science tests atage 14 and good grades in at least two science GCSE’s; andencouraging more students to take physics, chemistry andmathematics at A-level. To support this we have embarkedupon a programme of teacher recruitment and training; anupdating of the science curriculum; investment in highquality laboratories and improved careers advice toencourage greater take-up of science beyond the age of 16,leading to science-based careers. The Government are notinclined however to write off some of the student debt ofnew science teachers. Our target is that by 2014, 25 percent of secondary science teachers will have a physicsspecialism and 31 per cent will have a chemistryspecialism. As it stands, only 19 per cent are physicists and25 per cent are chemists. A new accredited course beginsfrom October for those teachers without a physics orchemistry specialism to gain the subject knowledge andpedagogy that they need to teach those subjects effectively.Higher level teaching assistants will help to provide coverfor teachers away on CPD training.

Strong support will be given to the 21st century sciencesyllabus. The commitment to investing in sciencelaboratories has been incorporated into the wider

investment in school buildings programme which stands at£6.4 billion a year and there is independent evaluation ofhow that investment proceeds.

Universities: Research FundingDebate in the House of Lords on Monday 21 May

Baroness Sharp of Guildford rose to ask whether currentmethods of funding for research infrastructure are sufficientto allow all universities to engage in basic, innovative andapplied research. I believe that an anomaly has crept intothe current system which, while all the attention has beenfocused on the question of metrics in the researchassessment exercise, has been overlooked. If it were topersist, it would raise questions as to whether the basicaims of the dual funding system, endorsed by successiveGovernments and seen by many as the key elementunderlying Britain’s research excellence, are being met. Asthings stand there is an innate inconsistency in currentpolicy on funding research, that has got lost in the debateabout metrics: while preaching support for the dual-support system of funding research and defining thatsystem as providing, through quality related (QR) funding,resources to support “a base from which to undertakeresearch”, the distribution formula used to allocate QRprovides little or no QR funding for many universities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis):The Government’s short answer to the Question is: yes wedo believe that the current methods of funding for researchinfrastructure are sufficient, for the needs of all universities,when distributional factors are set against the substantialand sustained increases in total funding that have takenplace across the sector in the past 10 years. Some of thecontributions presupposed that there were cuts or threats tofunding. I stress that in all the main areas of funding wehave seen very substantial real terms increases in the past10 years. The QR funding has risen in the past ten yearsfrom £769 million to £1.4 billion. The Research Councilfunding has risen in the past 10 years from £1.28 billion to£2.63 billion.

Energy

Energy: Biofuels (EUC Report)Debate in the House of Lords on Thursday 19 April

Lord Sewel rose to move that this House takes note of thereport of the European Union Select Committee on The EUstrategy on Biofuels: from field to fuel presented on 20November last. Its purpose was to assess whether the EUbiofuels directive was proving effective as a means ofincreasing the biofuels content of road transport energy. Isuppose the short answer is that it has not. Our enquiryfound that the biofuels directive failed to enable the EU to



reach its 2005 target of a 2 per cent market share forbiofuels and there is a necessity therefore for additionalmethods to meet the target of 5.75 per cent of market shareby 2010. The UK’s road transport fuels obligation willrequire fuel suppliers to ensure that by 2010, 5 per cent byvolume of sales will be from renewable sources. TheCommission should therefore amend the directive andmember states should be allowed to select the percentage ofthe biofuel obligation on a country-by-country basis whileretaining indicative targets for market share. The evidencewe collected demonstrated that there are concerns overwhether biofuel production does in fact contribute to areduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is now commonground that the real breakthrough is likely to take placewith the second generation of biofuels. One consequence ofthe reduction in world poverty and the continued economicdevelopment of countries such as China and India will bean increase in the global demand for food. In thosecircumstances, energy crops will be in direct competitionwith food production. Unless there is rapid development ofsecond-generation biofuels, it is not clear how far moretraditional biofuel production can be expanded, especially inan environmentally sustainable way. It would be a cruelirony if we ended up with an industry which today is seenas something of an environmental saviour but which in timeinflicted its own environmental damage.

The Earl of Selborne: The board of trustees of the RoyalBotanical Gardens, Kew, which I chair, together with otherbotanic gardens around the world, tries to conserverainforests, but one of the great problems that we aredealing with is the massive investment in palm oilplantations and the loss of rainforest thereby. There is a realirony when you think that this loss of biodiversity isencouraged by people trying to demonstrate their greencredentials.

Lord Bassam of Brighton I put on record and make itplain that the Government are fully committed to theirpromotion of sustainable biofuels as they have an importantand strategic role to play in helping to meet the UK andKyoto climate change targets. Some member states, such asGermany, France and Sweden, have had domestic biofuelsmarkets which are encouraged by measures introduced tosupport their Government’s agricultural and fuel-supplypolicies. But many member states are in a similar positionto the United Kingdom in seeing biofuels only very recentlycoming to the fore. The agreement of European targets forrenewable energy of 20 per cent and for biofuels of 10 percent by 2020 was historic and extremely ambitious. Eachcountry will have to work out how it plans to meet itsobligations, given its individual circumstances. The 10 percent biofuels target is closer to a 13 per cent target for UKpurposes. That is because, whereas Europe refers to energycontent for biofuels, in the UK we use volume sales as our

benchmark as it fits better with our national fuel dutyarrangements. Although second-generation biofuels are notyet a commercial reality, there is considerable excitementabout their development and a great deal of research.However it is still unclear how rapidly those second-generation biofuels might become core to the biofuelsmarket.

Nuclear IndustryDebate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 19 April

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) The Trade and IndustryCommittee produced its fourth report of the 2005-06Session, “New nuclear? Examining the Issues” on 10 July2006, the day before the Government published theconclusions of their energy review consultation,“The EnergyChallenge”. The Trade and Industry Committee decided tolook at three major aspects of the Government’s review ofenergy policy: nuclear power; local energy; and the securityof gas and coal supplies. Although nuclear power is notzero-carbon it is every bit as good as renewable energy inrespect of carbon emissions and this often-heard argumentagainst nuclear power should therefore not be used.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) Thereport of the Parliamentary Office of Science andTechnology on the lifetime carbon footprint of all sources ofelectricity generation – using uranium – is the lowestlifetime carbon footprint of all the generators.

Peter Luff Current carbon pricing arrangements such as theclimate change levy and particularly the EU emissionstrading scheme do not provide a sufficiently long termstable carbon price. It is essential to provide a framework of15 to 20 years of certainty of a reasonably stable andforeseeable price for carbon if the private sector is to beencouraged to invest in nuclear power and help close theenergy gap we all fear in the next decade. Phase 2 of the EUemissions trading scheme (ETS) will run until 2012 andthere will be no clear progress on phase 3 until perhaps2010. Investment decisions are needed now, and that meansa UK initiative now, over and above the ETS.

New nuclear build would add only about 10 per cent to theexisting volume of nuclear waste. The other 90 per cent isthere already and has to be dealt with. However nothing isyet in place to dispose of the existing nuclear waste legacy,and the record of successive Governments in that respect hasbeen abysmal. The Committee on Radioactive WasteManagement (CoRWM) concluded last year that deepgeological repository was the best means of providing a longterm solution to the UK’s waste legacy. That was no surprise.Nirex’s estimate is that it could cost about £10 billion.

A review of planning and licensing is required to shortenthe regulatory process which optimistically is five years and



is considered too long by developers. Reform in this area isessential if we are to fast-track new build. For example, hasthe Nuclear Installations Inspectorate started work yet onpre-licensing generic reactor designs? What attitude areBritish Energy and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authoritytaking to the use of the sites of their current plants for newfacilities?

Most of the existing sites are coastal exposing them to riskfrom climate change and sea level rise. New build reactorsinclude only two frontrunners, the Westinghouse AP1000and Areva NP’s European pressurised water reactor which isbeing built in Finland. Both reactors consist of largelyuntested technology posing risks for the pre-licensingprocess. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd is also making astrong case for its advanced CANDU reactor to be licensedfor use in the UK.

Mr David Drew (Stroud) Some of us are still spittingfeathers over what I, for one, felt was a hurried decision todispose of Westinghouse, the British answer to new reactordesign.

Mr Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) Has consideration beengiven to what is happening in South Africa with pebble bedreactors which do not require seawater for cooling and canbe built anywhere? They are much smaller and are designedto be built in separate modules, with a maximum of four.

The Minister for Science and Innovation (MalcolmWicks) A majority of the conclusions in the Committee’sreport reflect the position and proposals advanced in theenergy review which set out how the Government plan tomeet the two major challenges facing us in the 21st century,namely, climate change and our energy security. TheGovernment have made progress on the issue of nuclearwaste. We are the first UK Government to take decisivesteps to resolve that issue. However we are realistic andknow that it will take concerted action to bring about alasting solution.

We are currently developing plans for a consultation ongeological disposal and how to take forward the CoRWMrecommendations. The Government will shortly publish aplanning White Paper, which will take forward proposalsfor the reform of major infrastructure planning, includingenergy. The choice of reactor type and design is broadly forthe private sector, subject to licensing, to make judgementsabout that. It is also for private sector technology vendorsto decide whether they want to have their technologies pre-licensed, and it is for the private sector generators to decidewhich licensing technologies to deploy, if licensing showsthey are safe. There are skills gaps in the decommissioningand waste management sector but the NuclearDecommissioning Authority, Cogent, which is the sectorskills council, the industry and the National Skills Academy

for nuclear are pulling together a strategy to deal with thosegaps.

Nuclear Power: ResearchQuestion and Written Answer on Thursday 17 May

Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of Statefor Trade and Industry what steps his Department is takingto support research into nuclear fusion.

Malcolm Wicks: The UK invests in fusion research throughthe Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council(EPSRC). Almost all UK fusion research currently takesplace at UKAEA Culham, which will receive grant supportfrom EPSRC of £95 million over the four years to 2007-08.This is in addition to the EU funding for the Joint EuropeanTorus and other activities at Culham, and the EUparticipation in the ITER project.

Nuclear Power: ManpowerQuestion and Written Answer on Friday 18 May

Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of Statefor Trade and Industry what steps his Department is takingto ensure that the UK has an adequate supply of peoplewith the skills needed to apply nuclear and radiologicaltechnology.

Malcolm Wicks: The Government have assisted in theestablishment of a sector skills council to represent theneeds of the nuclear industry. Cogent Sector Skills Council,working with employers, is taking a strategic view of thenuclear sector to ensure that the education and trainingbase can meet the nuclear employers' current and futureneeds. The nuclear industry, working with Cogent, hassuccessfully competed for a national skills academy throughthe Department for Education and Skills academyprogramme. The National Skills Academy – Nuclear is atthe business planning stage which is expected to befinalised shortly. The academy, which is employer led, isdesigned to deliver high-quality training provision anddrive up standards in the nuclear industry.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Councilhas a portfolio of new activities in support of nuclear skillsand research which include £6.1 million for a researchconsortium to address the challenge of “keeping open thenuclear option” and £1 million for a “Nuclear TechnologyEducation Consortium” to provide masters-level andcontinuing professional development training for thenuclear industries. Both lever additional funding fromindustry.



Environment

Marine EnvironmentDebate in the House of Commons on Thursday 19 April

The Minister for Local Environment, Marine andAnimal Welfare (Mr Ben Bradshaw) It is clear thattackling climate change and protecting our seas are closelylinked. The draft Climate Change Bill – the first of its kindin any country, will provide a legally binding framework toaddress climate change and put into statute theGovernment’s long-term goal to reduce carbon dioxideemissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Unsustainable fishing isthe other major threat to our marine environment asdemonstrated in my Department’s report “ChartingProgress”, the UK’s first integrated assessment of the state ofour seas. Within Europe the reform of the commonfisheries policy in 2002 put fishing on a more sustainablefooting. Much more work is needed to secure a genuinelysustainable future for the fisheries sector by tacklingdiscards and by-catch and thereby achieving a level playingfield across the EU. Globally 52 per cent of fish stocks arefully exploited and 25 per cent are depleted. The EU is nowmoving to propose a new regulation against illegal fishingbacked up by measures to block imports of illegal fish intoEU ports and certification schemes to help control fishimported into the EU. The UN has agreed to a regulatoryframework to stop destructive bottom trawling on the highseas by the end of 2008. “Protecting Whales – A globalresponsibility” has been published to help maintain supportfor the International Whaling Commission moratorium oncommercial whaling. Parliamentarians on both sides of theHouse are urged to use their contacts to persuade like-minded countries to join the International WhalingCommission and to influence those in the caucus of Japan.Comprehensive marine legislation is about to be introducedfor the first time in the country’s history, designed toimprove marine conservation and promote marinestewardship. The sustainable management of our marineenvironment is the second most important environmentalchallenge that the globe faces, after climate change. Becauseof the ocean’s role in helping to regulate our climate, thosetwo issues are intricately connected.

Bill Wiggin (Leominster) sought information on plans tointroduce the Marine Bill which had been delayed bydifferences between Government Departments anddevolved Administrations and emphasised the need toenact it before the next general election for two reasons.First, such a Bill is needed and secondly the lack ofconfidence in current policies designed to protect themarine environment.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown) congratulatedthe Minister, his predecessor and the Bill team, who were

responsible for producing the White Paper on one of theclearest, most comprehensive and well-drafted WhitePapers he had ever seen. If the legislation that follows itreflects that clarity, we shall have one of the better Bills thatGovernments of either colour have produced in recentyears.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) drew attention to theRoyal Society report published in 2005 concerning theprogressive acidification of the sea, and indicated that this isessential reading for the Minister and all his team. There hasbeen a 30 per cent increase in hydrogen ions, since thebeginning of the industrial revolution. This will be trebledby the end of the century if current practices are allowed tocontinue. Burning fossil fuels will therefore ruin the seawithin a century if we do not cease this practice.

Mr Bradshaw indicated that the proposed marinemanagement organisation would have a DEFRA ministeriallead, but the organisation would be a non-departmentalpublic body.

Plant Science and Climate ChangeDebate in the House of Commons on Tuesday 24 April

Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) There are no quick fixeswhen it comes to climate change, but we have to adopt anddevelop the policy of planting trees, whether they are in thetropics or elsewhere. This also applies to biofuels as therush to make way for biofuel plantations is having a moresevere effect on the planet than many of us imagined. It isargued that the carbon emitted by burning the trees and thepeat to make way for biofuel crops far exceeds any savingsthat one could hope to make from burning renewable fuelinstead of petrol. A further side effect is the destruction ofmany natural habitats and ecosystems as developingcountries struggle to get into the new market, effectivelythrowing environmental concerns to the wind.

In the UK we should be concentrating our efforts on asecond generation of bioenergy crops that use biomass.Miscanthus, switch grasses, willow and poplar trees can allbe grown in the UK to contribute to the biomass initiative.Their growth requires less land than existing biofuel crops.They are renewable and carbon-neutral. They do notrequire the volume of chemicals and pesticides that haveled to the criticism of crops such as rapeseed. We face asituation in which many countries and companies areplanting vast areas of biofuels before the research has beendone, which will damage the environment.

Bioscience offers us the possible solutions that we need. Adescription of many of the bioscience research initiativesdesigned to manage the impacts of climate change was thenpresented in detail. However lack of funding is an issue inthe UK, where those involved in plant science include the



Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Counciland only one charity, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation,which was set up by the former Minister for Science andInnovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville. On the other handin California, BP is setting up a $500 million biofuelsresearch centre with help from Schwarzenegger himself,while the UK research council could only offer £20 million.It is therefore important now to establish the industry inthis country. For example, the Government must start tothink about plant sciences and practical solutions to climatechange that they can develop to provide energy and diseaseresistant crops

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Barry Gardiner)welcomed the opportunity to respond to Dr Gibsonbecause of his unparalleled knowledge of science in theHouse, having chaired the Select Committee on Scienceand Technology. Agriculture contributes 7 per cent of allUK greenhouse gas emissions and 14 per cent globally.About 36 per cent of the UK’s total methane emissions and67 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions come fromagriculture – for example, from artificial fertilizer, manureand livestock. Although agriculture is only directlyresponsible for around 1 per cent of UK carbon dioxideemissions, the sector can help to mitigate CO2 emissionsfrom other sources through carbon sequestration in soils,timber, and by producing energy crops to replace fossilfuels.

DEFRA’s agriculture and climate change research anddevelopment programme, which is worth about £5.6million in this financial year, helps build understanding andevidence about the threats and opportunities that climatechange presents and about what farmers can do to reduceemissions. This is within the 2007-08 DEFRA budget of£70 million for sustainable farming and food science,including animal health and welfare. We need to work withfarmers and land managers, and with organisations such asthe Rural Climate Change Forum, to ensure that farmershave the information and advice they need to turn theresults from climate change research into practical action toreduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to adapt tothese impacts and make the most of new opportunities.

Basic plant science in the UK is funded by BBSRC ratherthan DEFRA, and represents a large proportion of the £30million per annum spent at its research institutes –Rothamstead, the John Innes Centre in Norwich and theInstitute of Grassland and Environmental Research and manyprojects funded in universities related to plant science. Inaddition the UK spends about £5 million annually onresearch and development connected with the geneticimprovement of UK grown crops. A detailed listing ofresearch initiatives on various topics concluded the response.

Dr Gibson: Among all this activity that has gone on, doesmy hon. Friend think that the agricultural industry knowsabout it, or does it go on without its knowledge, or eveninterest?

Barry Gardiner I have been pleasantly surprised byfarmers’ willingness to see themselves increasingly as landmanagers, landscape managers and environmentalmanagers who are prepared to get their remuneration notfrom the subsidies for production but as a result of thepublic goods they are creating. They are increasingly aheadof those in many places in the rest of Europe inappreciating their role to that effect.

Health

Stem Cell ResearchDebate in the House of Lords on Thursday 3 May

Lord Patel rose to call attention to the potential benefits ofstem cell research. Stem cell research is undoubtedly themost exciting area of biomedical research. What makes it soexciting? Stem cell science has the potential to deliver curesfor diseases that were hitherto untreatable, by harvestingthe growth of cells and tissues in the laboratory and usingthem to replace diseased tissues with healthy cells.Recognising the importance of stem cell science to theeconomy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown,commissioned a report from Sir John Pattison, UK StemCell Initiative, to set out a 10-year vision on stem cellresearch to consolidate the UK’s current position andbecome a global leader in stem cell therapy and technology.The Government accepted the report in full, including allthe recommendations, even those related to finance; theChancellor said so in his Budget speech.

Two areas of regulation need urgent attention. The firstrelates to good manufacturing practice – GMP – facilitiesfor developing stem cell lines as there is confusion as towho is responsible for accreditation as no regulatoryauthority is prepared to take it on. I have yet to beconvinced that the new amalgamated HFEA and HumanTissues Authority (HTA) – the Regulatory Authority forTissues and Embryos (RATE) – will be up to such tasks,and regulations are urgently needed for stem cell work.

There is much debate and some concern about whether invitro stem cell research should be allowed on hybrid andchimera embryos. The House of Commons Science andTechnology Select Committee, having taken evidence,recommended that such research should be allowed. Onthe other hand, in the White Paper reviewing the HumanFertilisation and Embryology Act, the Governmentproposed that the creation of hybrid and chimera embryosin vitro should not be allowed. The HFEA is engaged in



public consultation. The evidence given by researchcouncils and charities to the Science and TechnologyCommittee supported the need for such research.

Lord Winston: Despite what is widely thought, at least 33countries worldwide have relatively permissive legislationalong the lines of that in the UK. It is not clear howeffective the regulations for that research in Britain are.Undoubtedly, the current system under the HFEA results inextremely long delays to research licences being granted.The peer review process is deeply flawed. For example, it isunthinkable that the backbone of British Science, the PhDstudent, will have to wait for a year or year and a half forethical and funding approval of a project. There is a seriousneed to re-evaluate the legislation, not because it is wrong,but because the way in which it is implemented is deeplyflawed.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: In the 17 years betweenthe isolation of embryo cells in mice and humans, therewas a realisation about the enormous potential that stemcell technology offered in the treatment of some of the mostdevastating and distressing diseases of man. Stem celltechnology, the regulatory framework for its use, and theethical issues that surround it are complex and bewildering.During this period much work has been done to isolatethose cells from other species such as rats, hamsters, cows,sheep and pigs. The embryonic stem (ES) cells of the rat,mouse and hamster have been used to generate transgenicanimals, which serve as models for human disease and thecreation of chimeras – embryos containing a mixture ofcells from distinct cell lines – have proved to be anincredibly useful approach in biochemical and biomedicalresearch to understand the effects of specific mutations andtheir role in human disease. An important outcome hasbeen the production of much more specific targets forpharmaceutical research and the reduction in the numberof animals required for such work.

Lord Rees of Ludlow The cytoplasmic hybrid embryo or“cybrid” issue exemplifies how the demands made on theHFEA are becoming ever more arduous as the scienceadvances. The Royal Society have anxieties that are sharedby the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Wellcome Trustabout some aspects of the Government’s White Paper,especially the proposal to set up RATE. A single body cannotfeasibly cover its huge remit, as envisaged in the WhitePaper, without either diluting its expertise or delegatingmost key judgements to an infrastructure of expert panels.On a more positive note we should sustain our researchgroups so that they remain a magnet for mobile talent in theface of growing international competition for that talent. Todo so is surely good for UK science. More than that, itwould be good for a field that, sensitively handled, promisesgreat hope for human welfare.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Huntof Kings Heath) provided a brief series of summaryresponses to some of the items raised by the twenty-onecontributors in what was described as a remarkable debatethat has been extremely helpful to the Government intaking the important decisions that must be made on theway forward. The projected investment this year is around£45 million, which takes total funding since 2003 toapproximately £109 million. No special future fundingcommitments were made or guaranteed. Enormous tributewas also paid to the work and support of the Association ofMedical Research Charities and their member charities.

Medical Treatments: TestingQuestion and Written Answer on Monday 14 May

Dr Gibson (Norwich N): To ask the Secretary of State forHealth which academic referral centres are contracted toassess (a) drugs for the National Institute of Health andClinical Excellence and (b) other medical technologies; andwhat plans she has to standardise the clinical models indifferent centres assessing new technologies.

Caroline Flint: The Department has contracts with seventechnology assessment review teams to undertake reviewsincluding reviews for National Institute of Health andClinical Excellence (NICE). The teams are based at thefollowing universities:

Aberdeen; York; Liverpool; Sheffield; Birmingham;Southampton; and Peninsula.

Each has a set of core methodological skills that mean anyone team could be allocated any one topic (drugs or othermedical technologies), although teams are encouraged tospecialise. All teams follow the NICE methods guide interms of methodological approach to ensurestandardisation. The guide is available on the NICE websiteat: guidance.nice.org.uk

Drugs: Counterfeit ManufacturingQuestion and Written Answer on Monday 21 May

Mr Laws (Yeovil): To ask the Secretary of State for Healthhow many people have (a) been admitted to hospital and(b) died as a result of taking counterfeit medicines in eachof the last 10 years.

Caroline Flint: The Department holds no statistics whichrecord hospital admissions or deaths from takingcounterfeit medicines. However, the Medicines andHealthcare products Regulatory Agency, which hasresponsibility for investigating reports of counterfeitmedicines, has found no evidence of any deaths in theUnited Kingdom caused by counterfeit medicines.



Happy Birthday Euratom!

While the more famous of the treaties established theEuropean Economic Community (EEC), later to becomethe European Community (EC) and then the EU, a secondcreated the European Atomic Energy Community, morecommonly known then and now as Euratom. It is nowonder that the EEC treaty will be at the the forefront ofthe celebrations – it was the beginning of the mostambitious project ever to create a supranationalcommunity of sovereign states. Members were willing tohand over at least some of their national competencies toa set of institutions based predominantly in Brussels. Butthe creation of Euratom, and its 50-year existence, are alsono mean feat. European research was conceived for thefirst time in the Euratom Treaty, and it put in place theprovisions for the EC Research Programmes that were tofollow later. It was very innovative at the time and wehave to thank the founders of the Treaty for their vision.Though comprising the same Member States, Euratom isjuridically distinct from the rest of the EC. It uses thesame institutions, but the major difference is that whilethe European Parliament (EP) is consulted, the EUCouncil alone acts as the legislature. When it comes to theadoption of the Euratom research programmes, theMember States need to agree unanimously. This was notso much a problem when there were only six MemberStates, but it can be a different story now that there are27.

Euratom has eight tasks, or areas of competence, as setout in the Treaty. These include establishing uniformsafety standards to protect workers and members of thepublic, facilitating investment in and ensuring theestablishment of the basic installations necessary fordeveloping nuclear energy, ensuring that all users receive aregular and equitable supply of ores and nuclear fuels,and making sure that civil nuclear materials are not usedfor military purposes.

Another task is research. Euratom is charged withpromoting research and ensuring the dissemination oftechnical information. Under the Seventh EuratomFramework Programme for nuclear research and training,which runs from 2007 until 2011, a funding envelope of€2.751 billion is available, of which €1.947 billion is forfusion research (including ITER, the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Reactor), €517 million forthe nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC),which was set up under the Treaty, and €287 million forindirect actions in nuclear fission and radiation protection,for which the Commission publishes calls for proposals atregular intervals.

Euro-NewsCommentary on science and technology within the European Parliament and the Commission

Unlike funding for the larger EC framework programmewhere funding for ITER has increased substantially,Euratom’s budgetary increases in the area of nuclearfission and radiation protection have merely stayed levelwith inflation which will impact on our effectiveness andthe ability of Europe as a whole to keep pace with thenuclear renaissance worldwide. In addition, because of thedifferent legal bases, the Euratom programme does nothave access to some of the additional funding mechanismsavailable under the EC Framework programmes.

The fusion community has also managed to come togethermore than the fission community. In fact fusion is the onlyarea, including those in the non-nuclear field, where thereis a true European research area. This is mainly becausethere are no national interests at stake in fusion. In fissionwe can have the same problems as any other area –fragmentation and duplication. Another importantdifference is that while Euratom provides between 30%and 40% of funding for fusion research in Europe, thefigure is more like 5% for fission.

Over the last 50 years the joint execution of research intothe management of radioactive waste and geologicaldisposal programmes was cited as an achievement. Thesafe management and disposal of radioactive waste is aproblem faced by all EU Member States, as hospitals andnuclear power stations produce it. The shared challengehas therefore made research very amenable to EU funding.

Galileo

EU transport ministers called upon the consortium ofeight of Europe’s leading aerospace andtelecommunications companies, AENA, Alcatel-Lucent,EADS, Finmeccanica, Hispasat, Inmarsat, TeleOP andThales SA, who are bidding to run the EU’s satellitenavigation programme Galileo, to resume negotiations.The ministers said they expected to see substantialprogress in the negotiations, and a credible road map bythe time the EU Council of Ministers meets again in June2007. Ministers also called upon the EuropeanCommission to draw up alternative scenarios fordelivering Galileo, for the June meeting.

European Union – Digest

Monthly digests of European legislation, taken from theOfficial Journal of the European Communities can befound on the website: www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Please log in using the members’ and subscribers’password (available from the Committee Secretariat) andgo to Publications: Digests



Science DirectoryAerospace and AviationSEMTA

AgricultureBBSRCCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationInstitute of BiologyLGCNewcastle UniversityPHARMAQ LtdSCISociety for General MicrobiologyUFAW

Animal Health and Welfare,Veterinary ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBritish Veterinary AssociationCefasThe Nutrition SocietyPHARMAQ LtdUFAW

Astronomy and Space ScienceNatural History MuseumSTFC

Atmospheric Sciences, Climateand WeatherNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNewcastle UniversitySTFC

BiotechnologyBBSRCBiochemical SocietyBiosciences Federation Campden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationEli Lilly & CompanyInstitute of BiologyLGCNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle UniversityRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

Brain ResearchABPIEli Lilly & CompanyMerck Sharp & DohmeNewcastle University

Cancer ResearchABPIEli Lilly & CompanyNewcastle University

CatalysisInstitution of Chemical EngineersRoyal Society of Chemistry

ChemistryCCLRCInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNewcastle UniversityRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySCI

Colloid ScienceLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreRoyal Society of Chemistry

Construction and BuildingInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNewcastle UniversitySCI

Cosmetic ScienceSociety of Cosmetic Scientists

Earth SciencesNatural EnglandNatural History Museum

Ecology, Environment andBiodiversityAMSIBiosciences Federation British Ecological SocietyCABICefasEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilFreshwater Biological AssociationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCNatural EnglandNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityRoyal Botanic Gardens KewRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

Economic and Social ResearchEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilNewcastle University

Education, Training and SkillsABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiosciences FederationBritish Association for theAdvancement of Science

British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationClifton Scientific TrustEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilInstitute of Biology Institute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNESTANatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Statistical SocietySEMTA

EnergyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNewcastle UniversitySCISTFC

EngineeringEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreRoyal Academy of EngineeringSCISEMTASTFC

Fisheries ResearchAMSICefasFreshwater Biological Association

Food and Food TechnologyBiosciences Federation British Nutrition FoundationCABI

Campden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCNewcastle UniversityThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

ForensicsLGCRoyal Society of Chemistry

GeneticsABPIBBSRCHFEALGCNatural History MuseumNewcastle University

Geology and GeoscienceAMSIInstitution of Civil EngineersNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNatural History Museum

Hazard and Risk MitigationHealth Protection AgencyInstitution of Chemical Engineers

HealthABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBiosciences Federation British Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEli Lilly & CompanyHealth Protection AgencyHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of Physics and Engineeringin MedicineLGCMedical Research CouncilNewcastle UniversityThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General Microbiology

Heart ResearchABPI

DIRECTORY INDEX



Hydrocarbons and PetroleumNatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityRoyal Society of Chemistry

Industrial Policy and ResearchAIRTOEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilInstitution of Civil EngineersRoyal Academy of EngineeringSCISTFC

Information ServicesAIRTOCABI

IT, Internet, Telecommunications,Computing and ElectronicsCABIEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNewcastle UniversitySTFC

Intellectual PropertyABPIThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysNESTANewcastle University

Large-Scale Research FacilitiesCampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNatural History MuseumSTFC

LasersSTFC

ManufacturingABPIAMSIEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreSCI

MaterialsLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Medical and Biomedical ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBiosciences Federation British Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEli Lilly & CompanyHFEAMedical Research Council

Newcastle UniversityUFAW

Motor VehiclesLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreSEMTA

OceanographyAMSICefasNatural Environment ResearchCouncil

OilInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGC

Particle PhysicsSTFC

PatentsThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysNESTA

PharmaceuticalsABPIBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEli Lilly & CompanyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCMerck Sharp & DohmePHARMAQ LtdRoyal Society of ChemistrySCI

Physical SciencesCavendish LaboratoryEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical Laboratory

PhysicsCavendish LaboratoryInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical Laboratory

Pollution and WasteABPIAMSICABICefasInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNewcastle University

PsychologyBritish Psychological Society

Public PolicyBiosciences FederationBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Society for Antimicrobial

ChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilHFEANESTAProspect

Public Understanding of ScienceAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Association for theAdvancement of ScienceBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyClifton Scientific TrustEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyMedical Research CouncilNatural History MuseumNESTAProspectRoyal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of Chemistry

Quality ManagementCampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationLGC

Radiation HazardsCefasHealth Protection Agency

RetailMarks and Spencer

Science PolicyABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBiosciences FederationBritish Association for theAdvancement of ScienceBritish Pharmacological SocietyCefasClifton Scientific TrustEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEngineering and Physical SciencesResearch CouncilHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCMedical Research CouncilNESTAProspectRoyal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistryThe Science CouncilUFAW

Seed ProtectionCABI

Sensors and TransducersAMSISTFC

SSSIsNatural EnglandRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew

StatisticsRoyal Statistical Society

Surface ScienceSTFC

SustainabilityBiosciences Federation British Ecological SocietyCABICefasInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNatural EnglandNewcastle UniversitySCI

Technology TransferCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNESTANational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Tropical MedicineHealth Protection AgencySociety for General Microbiology

VirusesABPIHealth Protection AgencySociety for General Microbiology

WaterAMSICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationCefasFreshwater Biological AssociationInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

WildlifeBiosciences Federation British Ecological SocietyInstitute of BiologyNatural EnglandNatural History MuseumUFAW



Association of Marine Scientific Industries Contact: Karen Gray, SecretaryAssociation of Marine Scientific Industries4th Floor, 30 Great Guildford StreetLondon SE1 0HSTel: 020 7928 9199 Fax: 020 7928 6599 E-mail: [email protected]: www.maritimeindustries.org The Association of Marine Scientific Industries(AMSI) is a constituent association of the Societyof Maritime Industries (SMI) representingcompanies in the marine science and technologysector, 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,security and defence, resource exploitation, andleisure. AMSI represents manufacturers,researchers, and system suppliers providing a co-ordinated voice and enabling members to projecttheir views and capabilities to a wide audience.

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

AIRTO represents the UK’s independentresearch and technology sector - memberorganisations employ a combined staff of over10,000 scientists and engineers with aturnover in the region of £1.5 billion. Workcarried out by members includes research, consultancy, training and global informationmonitoring. AIRTO promotes their work bybuilding closer links between members andindustry, academia, UK government agenciesand the European Union.

Biochemical SocietyContact: Dr Chris Kirk

Chief Executive,

16 Procter Street, London WC1V 6NX

Tel: 020 7280 4133 Fax: 020 7280 4170

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.biochemistry.org

The Biochemical Society exists to promote and supportthe Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. We have nearly6000 members in the UK and abroad, mostly researchbioscientists in Universities or in Industry. The Societyis also a major scientific publisher. In addition, wepromote Science Policy debate and provide resources,for teachers and pupils, to support the biosciencecurriculum in schools. Our membership supports ourmission by organizing scientific meetings, sustainingour publications through authorship and peer reviewand by supporting our educational and policyinitiatives.

British Associationfor the Advancementof Science - the BAContact: Sir Roland Jackson Bt, Chief Executive The BA, Wellcome Wolfson Building,165 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5HD.E-mail: [email protected]: www.the-BA.netThe BA (British Association for the Advancement ofScience) is a charity which exists to advance the publicunderstanding, accessibility and accountability of thesciences and engineering. The BA aims to promoteopenness about science in society and to engage andinspire people directly with science and technology andtheir implications.Established in 1831, the BA organises major initiativesacross the UK, including the annual BA Festival ofScience, National Science Week, programmes ofregional and local events, and an extensive programmefor young people in schools and colleges.

BritishEcologicalSocietyContact: Nick Dusic, Science Policy ManagerBritish Ecological Society 26 Blades Court, Deodar Road, Putney,London, SW15 2NUTel: 020 8871 9797 Fax : 020 8871 9779E-mail: [email protected]: www.BritishEcologicalSociety.org

The British Ecological Society promotes thescience of ecology worldwide. The Society has4,000 members who are active in advancing thescience and application of ecology.The BES publishes four internationally renownedscientific journals and organises the largestscientific meeting for ecologists in Europe. TheBES also supports ecologists in developingcountries and fieldwork in schoolsthrough its grants.The BES informs and advises Parliament andGovernment on ecological issues and welcomesrequests for assistance from parliamentarians.

Contact: Mrs Mary Manning, 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 healthcarebenefits for society. The Academy’s Fellows arethe United Kingdom’s leading medical scientistsand scholars from hospitals, academia, industryand the public service. The Academy providesindependent, authoritative advice on publicpolicy issues in medical science and healthcare.

Association of the BritishPharmaceuticalIndustry Contact: Dr Philip WrightDirector of Science & Technology 12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DYTel: 020 7747 1408Fax: 020 7747 1417E-mail: [email protected]: www.abpi.org.uk

The ABPI is the voice of the innovativepharmaceutical industry, working with Government,regulators and other stakeholders to promote areceptive environment for a strong and progressiveindustry in the UK, one capable of providing the bestmedicines 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

Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research CouncilContact: Dr Monica Winstanley Head of External RelationsBBSRC, Polaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1UH. Tel: 01793 413204E-mail: [email protected]: www.bbsrc.ac.ukThe BBSRC is the UK’s leading funding agency foracademic research in the non-medical life sciences andis funded principally through the Science Budget of theOffice of Science and Innovation. It supports staff inuniversities and research institutes throughout the UK,and funds basic and strategic science in: agri-food,animal sciences, biomolecular sciences, biochemistryand cell biology, engineering and biological systems,genes and developmental biology, and plant andmicrobial sciences.

Contact: Dr Richard Dyer, Chief Executive

Biosciences Federation

PO Box 502, Cambridge, CB1 0AL

Tel: 01223 400181

Fax: 01223 246858

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.bsf.ac.uk

The Biosciences Federation is a singleauthority representing the UK’s biologicalexpertise. The BSF directly represents 45bioscience organisations, and contributesto the development of policy and strategyin biology-based research – includingfunding and the interface with otherdisciplines – and in school and universityteaching by providing independentopinion to government.



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

CABI brings together and applies scientificinformation and expertise to improve people’slives. Founded in 1910, CABI is owned by over40 member countries. Today CABI publishesbooks, journals and scientific outputs, carriesout scientific research and consultancies to findsustainable solutions to agricultural andenvironmental issues and develops innovativeways to communicate science to many differentaudiences. Activities range from assistingnational policy makers, informing worldwideresearch, to supporting farmers in the field.

Campden &ChorleywoodFood ResearchAssociationContact: Prof Colin Dennis, Director-General CCFRA, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire GL55 6LD.Tel: 01386 842000 Fax: 01386 842100E-mail: [email protected]: www.campden.co.ukAn independent, membership-based industrial researchassociation providing substantial R&D, processing,analytical, hygiene, best practice, training, auditing andHACCP services for the food chain worldwide.Members include growers, processors, retailers,caterers, distributors, machinery manufacturers,government departments and enforcement authorities.Employs over 300; serves over 2,000 member sites;and has a subsidiary company in Hungary. Activitiesfocus on safety, quality, efficiency and innovation.Participates in DTI’s Faraday Partnerships andcollaborates with universities on LINK projects andstudentships, transferring practical knowledgebetween industry and academia.

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

The Cavendish Laboratory houses the Department of Physics ofthe University of Cambridge.

Its world-class research is focused in a number of experimentaland theoretical diverse fields.

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

High Energy Physics: LEP, SPS & future LHC experiments.Detector development. Particle physics theory.

Condensed Matter Physics: Semiconductor physics, quantumeffect devices, nanolithography. Superconductivity, magneticthin films. Optoelectronics, conducting polymers. BiologicalSoft Systems. Polymers and Colloids. Surface physics, fracture,wear & erosion. Amorphous solids. Electron microscopy.Electronic structure theory & computation. Structural phasetransitions, fractals, quantum Monte Carlo calculationsBiological Physics.

British VeterinaryAssociationContact:Chrissie Nicholls7 Mansfield Street, London W1G 9NQTel: 020 7636 6541Fax: 020 7637 4769E-mail:[email protected]

BVA’s chief interests are:* Standards of animal health* Veterinary surgeons’ working practices* Professional standards and quality of service* Relationships with external bodies, particulary

governmentBVA carries out three main functions which are:* Policy development in areas affecting the

profession* Protecting and promoting the profession in

matters propounded by government and otherexternal bodies

* Provision of services to members

British Societyfor AntimicrobialChemotherapyContact: Tracey Guest, Executive OfficerBritish Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy11 The Wharf, 16 Bridge Street,Birmingham B1 2JS.Tel: 0121 633 0410Fax: 0121 643 9497E-mail: [email protected]: www.bsac.org.uk

Founded in 1971, and with 800 membersworldwide, the Society exists to facilitate theacquisition and dissemination of knowledge inthe field of antimicrobial chemotherapy. TheBSAC publishes 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.

Centre for Environment,Fisheries & Aquaculture ScienceContact: Anne McClarnon, CommunicationsManagerPakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HTTel: 01502 56 2244Fax: 01502 51 3865E-mail: [email protected]: www.cefas.co.uk

Cefas offers multidisciplinary scientific researchand consultancy for fisheries management andaquaculture, plus environmental monitoring andassessments. Government at all levels,international institutions (EU, UN, World Bank)and clients worldwide have used Cefas servicesfor over 100 years. Three laboratories with thelatest facilities, plus Cefas’ own ocean-goingresearch vessel, underpin the delivery of high-quality science and advice to policy-makers.

The BritishPsychological SocietyContact: 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 anorganisation of over 45,000 members governedby Royal Charter. It maintains the Register ofChartered Psychologists, publishes books, 10primary science Journals and organisesconferences. Requests for information aboutpsychology and psychologists fromparliamentarians are welcome.

Contact: Kevin J KearnsBritish Pharmacological Society16 Angel Gate, City RoadLondon EC1V 2SGTel: 020 7417 0113Fax: 020 7417 0114Email: [email protected]: www.bps.ac.uk

The British Pharmacological Society has now beensupporting pharmacology and pharmacologistsfor over 75 years. Our 2,000+ members, fromacademia, industry and clinical practice, aretrained to study drug action from the laboratorybench to the patient’s bedside. Our aim is toimprove the quality of life by developing newmedicines to treat and prevent the diseases andconditions that affect millions of people andanimals. Inquiries about drugs and how theywork are welcome.

British NutritionFoundationContact: Professor Robert Pickard, Director-General52-54 High Holborn, London WC1V 6RQTel: 020 7404 6504Fax: 020 7404 6747Email: [email protected]: www.nutrition.org.uk

2007 is the 40th Anniversary of the BritishNutrition Foundation. This scientific andeducational charity promotes the well-beingof society through the impartialinterpretation and effective dissemination ofscientifically based knowledge and adviceon the relationship between diet, physicalactivity and health.



Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilContact: Jenny Whitehouse, Public Affairs Mamager, EPSRC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1ETTel: 01793 442892 Fax: 01793 444005E-mail: [email protected]:www.epsrc.ac.ukEPSRC invests more than £500 million a year inresearch and postgraduate training in the physicalsciences and engineering, to help the nation handlethe next generation of technological change. Theareas covered range from mathematics to materialsscience, and information technology to structuralengineering.We also actively promote public engagement withscience and engineering, and we collaborate with awide range of organisations in this area.

FreshwaterBiologicalAssociationContact: Dr Michael Dobson, Director.Freshwater Biological Association, The Ferry Landing, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 0LP, UK.Tel: 01539 442468 Fax: 01539 446914www.fba.org.uk [email protected] Charity Number : 214440

The FBA welcomes collaboration with Governmentand Agencies. Founded in 1929 the Associationpromotes freshwater science through; innovativeresearch, serviced facilities, a programme ofmeetings, scientific publications, and soundindependent advice. The FBA houses one of theworld’s finest freshwater information resourcesand is the custodian of long term data sets fromsites of scientific significance. Membership isoffered on an individual or corporate basis.

Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority

Contact: Tim Whitaker21 Bloomsbury StLondon WC1B 3HFTel: 020 7291 8200Fax: 020 7291 8201Email: [email protected]: www.hfea.gov.uk

The HFEA is a non-departmental Governmentbody that regulates and inspects all UK clinicsproviding IVF, donor insemination or thestorage of eggs, sperm or embryos. The HFEAalso licenses and monitors all human embryoresearch being conducted in the UK.

Economic andSocial ResearchCouncilContact: Lesley Lilley, Senior PolicyManager, Knowledge Transfer,Economic and Social Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue,Swindon SN2 1UJTel: 01793 413033 Fax 01793 [email protected]://www.esrc.ac.uk

The ESRC is the UK’s leading research and trainingagency addressing economic and social concerns. Wepursue excellence in social science research; work toincrease the impact of our research policy andpractice; and provide trained social scientists whomeet the needs of users and beneficiaries, therebycontributing to the economic competitiveness of theUnited Kingdom, the effectiveness of public servicesand policy, and quality of life. The ESRC isindependent, established by Royal Charter in 1965,and funded mainly by government.

Health ProtectionAgencyContact: Professor Pat Troop, 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 independentorganisation dedicated to protecting people’s health inthe United Kingdom. We do this by providing impartialadvice and authoritative information on healthprotection uses to the public, to professionals and togovernment.

We combine public health and scientific expertise,research and emergency planning within oneorganisation. We work at international, national andregional and local levels and have many links with manyother organisations around the world. This means we canrespond quickly and effectively to new and existingnational and global threats to health including infections,environmental hazards and emergencies.

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 orindustrial companies. CIPA maintains the statutory Register. It advises government andinternational circles on policy issues and provides information services, promoting thebenefits to UK industry of obtaining IP protection, and to overseas industry of usingBritish agents 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 betweenschool and the wider world of professionalscience and its applications• for young people of all ages and abilities • experiencing science as a creative,

questioning, human activity • bringing school science added meaning and

notivation, from primary to post-16• locally, nationally, internationally (currently

between Britain and Japan)Clifton Scientific Trust Ltd is registered charity 1086933

Eli Lilly and Company LimitedContact: Paul Johnson PhD, Managing Director Eli Lilly & Company, Erl Wood Manor,Windlesham, Surrey, GU20 6PH Tel: 01256 315000 Fax: 01276 483307 E-mail:[email protected] Website:www.lilly.com or www.lilly.co.uk

Eli Lilly and Company Limited is the UK affiliate ofmajor American pharmaceutical manufacturer, EliLilly and Company of Indianapolis. This affiliate isone of the UK's top pharmaceutical companies withsignificant investment in science and technologyincluding a neuroscience research and developmentcentre and bulk biotechnology manufacturingoperations.

Lilly medicines treat schizophrenia, diabetes, cancer,osteoporosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,erectile dysfunction, severe sepsis, depression,bipolar disorder and many other diseases.

InstituteofBiologyContact: Prof Alan Malcolm, Chief Executive9 Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EFTel: 020 7936 5900Fax: 020 7936 5901E-mail: [email protected]: www.iob.org

The biological sciences have truly come ofage, and the Institute of Biology is theprofessional body to represent biology andbiologists to all. A source of independentadvice to Government, a supporter ofeducation, a measure of excellence and adisseminator of information - the Instituteof Biology is the Voice of British Biology.



Marks &Spencer PlcContact:David GregoryWaterside House 35 North Wharf RoadLondon W2 1NW.

Tel: 020 8718 8247E-mail: [email protected]

Main Business ActivitiesRetailer – Clothing, Food, FinancialServices and Home

We have around 750 stores in 33territories worldwide, employing65,000 people.

We offer our customers quality, value,service and trust in our brand byapplying science and technology todevelop innovative products andservices.

Institute ofPhysics andEngineeringin MedicineContact: 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 membership register,organises training and CPD for them, and providesopportunities for the dissemination of knowledgethrough publications and scientific meetings. IPEM islicensed by the Science Council to award CSci and bythe Engineering Council (UK) to award CEng, IEngand EngTech.

Institution of Civil EngineersContact: Nicola Bates, Senior Public Affairs ExecutiveOne 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 leader in shaping theengineering profession. With over 75,000members, ICE acts as a knowledge exchangefor all aspects of civil engineering. As aLearned Society, the Institution providesexpertise, in the form of reports and comment,on a wide range of subjects from energygeneration and supply, to sustainability and theenvironment.

London MetropolitanPolymer CentreContact: Alison Green, London Metropolitan University166-220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DBTel: 020 7133 2189Fax: 020 7133 2184E-mail: [email protected]: www.polymers.org.uk

The London Metropolitan Polymer Centre providestraining, consultancy and applied research to the UKpolymer (plastics & rubber) industry. A programmeof industrial short courses and customised courses,together with distance learning and other flexibledelivery methods, lead to qualifications ranging fromtechnician to Masters level, alongside the full-timecourses for Polymer Engineering and ProductDesign. Recent successes include a WRAP sponsoredprogramme to develop new commercial applicationsfor recycled PET and several technology transferprojects with companies.

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, a science service company, is Europe’s leadingindependent provider of analytical and diagnostic servicesand reference standards. LGC’s market-led divisions -LGC Forensics, Life and Food Sciences, Pharmaceuticaland Chemical Services and LGC Promochem (forReference Materials) - operate in a diverse range of sectorsfor both public and private sector customers.

Under arrangements for the office and function ofGovernment Chemist, LGC fulfils specific statutory dutiesand provides advice for Government and the wideranalytical community on the implications of analyticalchemistry for matters of policy, standards and regulation.

LGC is based in Teddington, Middlesex, with other UKoperations in Runcorn, Edinburgh, Culham, Risley andTamworth and facilities in France, Germany, Italy, Poland,Spain, Sweden and India.

Contact: Public Relations Department76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NTTel: 020 7470 4800E-mail: [email protected]: www.iop.org

The Institute of Physics supports the physicscommunity and promotes physics togovernment, legislators and policy makers.

It is an international learned society andprofessional body with over 35,000 membersworldwide, working in all branches of physicsand a wide variety of jobs and professions –including fundamental resarch, technology-based industries, medicine, finance – andnewer jobs such as computer games design. The Institute is active in school and highereducation and awards professionalqualifications. It provides policy advice andopportunities for public debate on areas ofphysics such as energy and climate changethat affect us all.

MedicalResearchCouncilContact: Simon Wilde 20 Park Crescent, London W1B 1AL.

Tel: 020 7636 5422 Fax: 020 7436 2665E-mail: [email protected]: www.mrc.ac.uk

The Medical Research Council (MRC) isfunded by the UK taxpayer. We areindependent of Government, but work closelywith the Health Departments, the NationalHealth Service and industry to ensure that theresearch we support takes account of thepublic’s needs as well as being of excellentscientific quality. As a result, MRC-fundedresearch has led to some of the mostsignificant discoveries in medical science andbenefited millions of people, both in the UKand worldwide.

Institution ofEngineering and TechnologyContact: Tony HendersonInstitution of Engineering and TechnologySavoy Place, London WC2R 0BLTel: 020 7344 8403E-mail: [email protected]: www.theiet.org

The Institution of Engineering and Technologywas formed in 2006 by the Institution ofElectrical Engineers and the Institution ofIncorporated Engineers. The IET has more than150,000 members worldwide who work in arange of industries. The Institution aims to leadin the advancement of engineering andtechnology by facilitating the exchange ofknowledge and ideas at a local and global leveland promoting best practice.



NaturalHistoryMuseumContact: Joe BakerExternal Relations ManagerNatural 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 themto promote the discovery, understanding,responsible use and enjoyment of the worldaround us.

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 advancethe scientific 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 scientificlearned journals2. Promoting the education and training of nutritionists3. Promoting the highest standards of professionalcompetence and practice in nutrition4. Disseminating scientific information through itspublications and programme of scientific meetings

NewcastleUniversityContact: Dr Douglas RobertsonNewcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RUTel: 0191 222 5347 Fax: 0191 222 5219E-mail: [email protected]: www.ncl.ac.uk

Newcastle University has a well-balancedportfolio of research funding with one of thehighest levels of research projects funded byUK Government Departments, as well as a verysignificant portfolio of FP6 EU activity of morethan 140 projects involving some 1,800partners. A member of the Russell Group,Newcastle University is committed to'excellence with a purpose' - a commitment it istaking further through the development ofNewcastle Science City and as a partner in theN8 group of Northern research-intensiveuniversities.

TheNationalEndowment forScience, Technologyand the ArtsContact: Nicola KaneMedia and Public Affairs Assistant1 Plough PlaceLondon EC4A 1DETel: 020 7438 2500Fax: 020 7438 2501Email: [email protected]: www.nesta.org.ukNESTA’s aim is to transform the UK’s capacity forinnovation. We work across the human, financial and thepolicy dimensions of innovation. We invest in early stagecompanies, inform innovation policy and encourage aculture that helps innovation to flourish. The uniquenature of our endowed funds means that we can take alonger term view, and develop ambitious models tostimulate and support innovation that others canreplicate or adapt. NESTA works across disciplines,bringing together people and ideas from science,technology and the creative industries.

National Physical LaboratoryNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex TW11 0LWTel: 020 8943 6880 Fax: 020 8943 6458E-mail: [email protected]: www.npl.co.uk

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is theUnited Kingdom’s national standards laboratory,an internationally respected and independentcentre of excellence in research, developmentand knowledge transfer in measurement andmaterials science. For more than a century, NPLhas developed and maintained the nation’sprimary measurement standards - the heart ofan infrastructure designed to ensure accuracy,consistency and innovation in physicalmeasurement.

NaturalEnvironmentResearch CouncilContact: Sheila AndersonHead 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 researchin the sciences of the environment. NERC trainsthe next generation of independent environmentalscientists.

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

British Antarctic Survey, British Geological Survey,Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, NationalOceanography Centre and Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories

Contact: Professor Ray Hill, FMedSciLicensing & External Research, EuropeHertford RoadHoddesdonHerts EN11 9BUTel: 01992 452836Fax: 01992 441907e-mail: [email protected]

Merck Sharp & Dohme is a UK subsidiary ofMerck & Co Inc a global research-drivenpharmaceutical company dedicated toputting patients first. Merck discovers,develops, manufactures and marketsvaccines and medicines in over 20therapeutic categories directly and throughits joint ventures. Our mission is to providesociety with superior products and servicesby developing innovations and solutionsthat improve the quality of life.

Natural EnglandContact: Dr Tom TewDirector Science and EvidenceNatural EnglandNorthminster HousePeterboroughPE1 1UA Tel: 01733 455056Fax: 01733 568834Email: [email protected] Website: www.naturalengland.org.uk

Natural England is the Government'sconservation agency working throughoutEngland; we conserve, enhance and managethe natural environment for the benefit ofcurrent and future generations. Wecommission research and publish paperswhich underpin the development of ourpolicies and programmes.

PHARMAQ LtdContact: Dr Lydia A BrownPHARMAQ Ltd Unit 15 Sandleheath IndustrialEstate, Fordingbridge Hants SP6 1PA.Tel: 01425 656081Fax: 01425 655309E-mail: [email protected]: www.pharmaq.no

Veterinary pharmaceuticals specia-lising in aquatic veterinary products.Fish vaccines, anaesthetics, antibioticsand other products.



Contact: Philip Greenish CBE, Chief Executive29 Great Peter Street,London SW1P 3LWTel: 020 7227 0500 Fax: 020 7233 0054E-mail: [email protected]: www.raeng.org.ukAs Britain’s national academy forengineering, we bring together the country’smost eminent engineers from all disciplinesto promote excellence in the science, art andpractice of engineering. Our strategicpriorities are to enhance the UK’sengineering capabilities; to celebrateexcellence and inspire the next generation;and to lead debate by guiding informedthinking and influencing public policy.

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 Royal Institution has a reputation establishedover 200 years for its high calibre events thatbreak down the barriers between science andsociety. It acts as a unique forum for informingpeople about how science affects their daily lives,and prides itself on its reputation of engaging thepublic in scientific debate. During 2007 the Ri isclosed for the refurbishment of its Grade 1 listedbuilding. The public and schools’ eventsprogramme will continue throughout this time.For more details on this and our refurbishmentplans, please see our website.

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]: 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“to serve the public interest”. It is active in theareas of education and qualifications, sciencepolicy, publishing, Europe, information andinternet services, media relations, publicunderstanding of science, advice and assistanceto Parliament and Government.

The Science CouncilContact: Diana Garnham, Chief Executive OfficerThe Science Council210 Euston Road, London NW1 2BETel 020 7611 8754 Fax 020 7611 8743E-mail: [email protected]: www.sciencecouncil.org

The Science Council has a membership of over27 professional institutions and learnedsocieties covering the breadth of science andmathematics. Its purpose is to provide anindependent collective voice for science andscientists and to maintain standards across allscientific disciplines. We are active in sciencepolicy issues including science in education,health, society and sustainability. In 2003 theScience Council was granted its Royal Charterand in 2004 it launched the Chartered Scientist(CSci) designation as a measure of highstandards in the practice, application,advancement and teaching of science. We nowhave over 10,000 Chartered Scientists.

Contact: Dr David J WinstanleySpecial Advisor for ScienceSEMTA, Wynyard Park House, Wynyard Park, Billingham, TS22 5TBTel: 01740 627021 Mobile: 07973 679 338E-mail: [email protected]: www.semta.org.uk

SEMTA (Science, Engineering and ManufacturingTechnologies Alliance) is the Sector Skills Council for thescience, engineering and manufacturing technology sectors.

Our mission is to ensure that our industry partners have theknowledge and skills required to meet the challenges facedby the workforce of the future.

Our sectors account for a significant proportion of the UKeconomy. There are about 2 million people employed inabout 76,000 establishments in the core Science,Engineering and Technology sectors, currently contributesover £74 billion per annum – about ten per cent – of totalUK GDP.

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.ukThe RSS is much more than just a learned society.We lead the way as an independent source of adviceon statistical issues and play a crucial role in raisingthe profile of statistics, through our links withgovernment, academia and the corporate andvoluntary sectors. We have a powerful voice atRoyal Commissions, Parliamentary SelectCommittees and at public consultations, offeringour own unique view on just about anything, fromfreedom of information to sustainable development.

The Royal SocietyContact: Dr David Stewart Boak, Director CommunicationsThe Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace,London, SW1Y 5AG.Tel: 020 7451 2510 Fax: 020 7451 2615Email: [email protected]: www.royalsoc.ac.uk

The Royal Society is the UK academy ofscience comprising 1400 outstandingindividuals representing the sciences,engineering and medicine.As we prepare for our 350th anniversary in2010, our strategic priorities for our work atnational and international levels are to:• ·Invest in scientific excellence to create

tomorrow’s leaders of science• ·Influence policymaking with the best scientific

advice• ·Invigorate science and mathematics education • ·Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and

fulfillment of scientific discovery

ProspectContact: Sue Ferns, Prospect Head of Research and SpecialistServices, Prospect House75 – 79 York Rd, London SE1 7AQTel: 020 7902 6639 Fax: 020 7902 6637E-mail: [email protected]

Prospect is an independent, thriving andforward-looking trade union with 102,000members. We represent scientists,technologists and other professions in thecivil service, research councils and privatesector.

Prospect’s collective voice champions theinterests of the engineering and scientificcommunity to key opinion-formers andpolicy makers and, with negotiating rightswith over 300 employers, we seek to secure abetter life at work by putting members’ pay,conditions and careers first.



Contact: Public Affairs AdministratorMarlborough House, Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood, Reading RG7 1AG.Tel: 0118 988 1843 Fax: 0118 988 5656E-mail: [email protected]: http//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,food safety, biotechnology and the environmentis available on request.

Society ofChemicalIndustryContact: Andrew Ladds, Chief ExecutiveSCI International Headquarters14-15 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8PSTel: 020 7598 1500 Fax: 020 7598 1545E-mail: [email protected]: www.soci.org

SCI is an interdisciplinary network for science,commerce and industry. SCI attracts forward-looking people in process and materialstechnologies and in the biotechnology, energy,water, agriculture, food, pharmaceuticals,construction, and environmental protection sectorsworldwide. Members exchange ideas and gainnew perspectives on markets, technologies,strategies and people, through electronic andphysical specialist conferences and debates, andpublish journals, books and the respectedmagazine Chemistry & Industry.

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 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 welfare

issues in the UK and overseas.• producing the leading journal Animal Welfare and

other high-quality publications on animal care and welfare.

• providing expert advice to governmentdepartments and other concerned bodies.

Society of Cosmetic Scientists Contact: Lorna Weston,Secretary GeneralSociety of Cosmetic ScientistsG T House, 24-26 Rothesay Road, Luton,Beds LU1 1QXTel: 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.

Science &TechnologyFacilities CouncilContact: Nigel CalvinSTFCPolaris HouseNorth Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1SZTel: 01793 44 2176 Fax: 01793 44 2125E-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. It also manages internationalresearch projects in support of a broad cross-section ofthe UK research community. The Council also directs,co-ordinates and funds research, education andtraining.



ScienceDiaryThe Parliamentary and Scientific CommitteeContact: Annabel Lloyd020 7222 7085: [email protected] 26 November 17.30Evening discussion meetingSubject and speakers to be confirmed

Members will be informed of other events as soon aspossible.

In 2008 the Committee will meet on Tuesday instead ofMonday. Provisional dates for meetings until July 2008 are:Tuesday 22 JanuaryTuesday 26 FebruaryTuesday 22 AprilTuesday 20 MayTuesday 17 JuneTuesday 15 JulyFull details will be available as soon as possible atwww.scienceinparliament.org.uk

________________________________________________The Royal InstitutionThe Royal Institution will be reopening for evening eventsfrom late autumn 2007.See rigb.org or telephone 020 7409 2992 for full detailsand to book tickets.

Tuesday 23 October 19.00Debate on creativity and the InternetCory Doctorow and Baroness Susan Greenfield

________________________________________________The Royal Society6-9 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AGThe Royal Society runs a series of events, both eveninglectures and two day discussion meetings, on topicscovering the whole breadth of science, engineering andtechnology. All the events are free to attend and open to all. Highlights in the next few months include:

Thursday 13 & Friday 14 September (all day)Origin and differentiation of the Earth: past to present

Thursday 27 September 18.30Mind-reading machines: technologies with People Sense

Please see www.royalsoc.ac.uk/events for the full eventsprogramme, more details about the above highlights andweb casts of past events.

________________________________________________

The Royal Academy of Engineering29 Great Peter StreetLondon SW1P 3LW.www.raeng.org.uk/events or [email protected] further details contact Jacqueline Cox:[email protected]

Thursday 13 September 16.00 for 16.30Lecture Series in Mobile Telecommunications &Networks: Technological Steps to Future Mobile CommunicationsNetworksProfessor Gerhard FettweisChair: Professor Michael Walker FREngSponsored by Vodafoneat 29 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 3LW

Wednesday 3 OctoberInternational LectureDr P K Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change

Wednesday 10 October 18.00Hinton LectureDavid Waboso FREng, Engineering Director, LondonUnderground Ltdat 7 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AG________________________________________________The Royal Society of Edinburgh22-26 George StreetEdinburgh EH2 2PQ.Tel: 0131 240 5000Fax: 0131 240 [email protected]

All events require registration and, unless otherwiseindicated, take place at the RSE.

Wednesday 5 September 17.30Tall Tales about the Mind and BrainProfessor Michael Corbalis, Department of Psychology,University of AucklandProfessor James E Alcock, University of York, Toronto

Thursday 6 & Friday 7 SeptemberTall Tales about the Mind and Brain Conferenceat Our Dynamic Earth

Wednesday 19 September 18.00Inspiring People Changing Landscapes: ChangingPlanetEdinburgh Lectures 2007/2008at Sheraton Grand Hotel________________________________________________



The BA (British Association for theAdvancement of Science)Wellcome Wolfson Building165 Queen’s GateLondon SW7 5HDSunday 9 – Saturday 15 SeptemberThe BA Festival of ScienceHundreds of events will be happening across the city ofYork.Organised in partnership with the University of York,Science City York and the City of York Council andsupported by the Department of Trade & Industry, BP andYorkshire Forward.For more information, including an online programme,visit www.the-ba.net/festivalofscience or [email protected].________________________________________________Royal Pharmaceutical Society of GreatBritainContact: [email protected]

Monday 10 – Wednesday 12 SeptemberBritish Pharmaceutical ConferenceManchester CentralDetails: www.bpc2007.org

Monday 1 – Wednesday 3 OctoberInternational Analytical Validation and RegulatoryIssues for the Pharmaceutical Industry Hilton Hotel, York

________________________________________________The Geological SocietyBurlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BGTel: 020 7434 9944Fax: 020 7 439 8975Email: [email protected] Web: www.geolsoc.org.uk/bicentenaryLondon Lecture SeriesEntry to all lectures is free to all, but by ticket only.They take place at the Society’s refurbished offices atBurlington House, starting at 17.30 for 18.00; finish 19.00

Wednesday 17 OctoberVolcanoesProfessor Steve Sparks FRS, University of BristolTuesday 20 NovemberWater ResourcesProfessor Paul Younger, Newcastle UniversityThursday 13 DecemberMan’s History: Out of Africa and BeyondStephen Oppenheimer, University of Oxford

Officers of the Parliamentary& Scientific Committee

President: The Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

Chairman: Dr Douglas Naysmith MP

Deputy Chairmen: Dr Desmond Turner MP

Mr Robert Key MP

Hon Treasurer: Dr Ian Gibson MP

Hon Secretaries: Dr Evan Harris MP

Mr James Paice MP

Vice-Presidents: Professor Jane Plant CBE

Dr Brian Iddon MP

Dr David Dent

Professor Peter Saunders

Mr Andrew Miller MP

Mr Robert Goodwill MP

Mr Philip Greenish CBE

Mr Robert Freer

Advisory Panel: Professor Julia KingCBE FREng

Professor Alan Malcolm

Mr Paul Ridout

Secretariat: Professor Peter Simpson

Mrs Annabel Lloyd

Science in Parliament

3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ

Tel: 020 7222 7085 Fax: 020 7222 7189

Editor: Professor Peter Simpson

Editorial Assistant: Mrs Annabel Lloyd

Editorial/Management Board:

Dr Brian Iddon MP (Chairman)

Mr Robert Freer

Dr Ashok Kumar MP

Professor Alan Malcolm

Mr Andrew Miller MP

Dr Douglas Naysmith MP

The Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, 3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ.Published four times a year. The 2007 subscription rate is £65.00. Single numbers £16.25ISSN 0263-6271All enquiries, including those from members wishing to take the front or back covers, advertise in the journal or appear in the directory to Mrs AnnabelLloyd, Tel 020 7222 7085Copyright ©2007 by Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. All rights reserved. None of the articles in this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise without the prior writtenpermission of the copyright owner.Typeset and printed by The Bridge Press.


1807

20072 0 YE

AR

S

serving science & profession

1807 - 2007

The Geological Society of London

Bicentennial Conference

Bicentennial year platinum sponsors:

This international conference reviews the current state of the Earth sciences, and demonstrates their

relevance to important issues facing society today. Days one and two will feature invited speakers -

all international leaders in their fields - in four parallel sessions: Earth and Planetary Interiors –

geochemistry, geophysics, active tectonics: Environment – engineering geology of London, groundwater,

waste and contamination, geophysics: Earth and Planetary Interiors – geochemistry, geophysics, active

tectonics, volcanology: The Earth System – evolution of Earth environments, Quaternary change.

Day three will be devoted to a plenary session on Earth’s Future. Distinguished speakers will

present new results and ideas relevant to our understanding of the planet and how these affect

key environmental issues, present and future, including: natural hazards, climate change,

energy and water resources.

Speakers: Richard Fortey FRS, Lord Rees of Ludlow PRS, Barry Parsons, Alan Boss,

James Jackson FRS, Brian Tucker, Rick Battarbee FRS, Brian Hoskins FRS, Tony Hayward,

Murray Hitzman, John Ludden, Gabriella Schneider.

Contact Alys Johnson at The Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BG

• T: 020 7434 9944 •F: 020 7439 8975 • E: [email protected] now if you would like to join us

at the conference, or for further information, please visit www.geolsoc.org.uk/bicentenaryconference

Earth Sciences in the Service of Society• 10-12 September 2007 • Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London


ScienceinParl MAG Summer 07 › wp-content › ... · The debate on embryology is hotting up as we...

Documents

Transcript of ScienceinParl MAG Summer 07 › wp-content › ... · The debate on embryology is hotting up as we...