A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : First report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, and written Evidence

This mini ebook features a sample chapter from Mark Henderson’s brilliant new book THE GEEK MANIFESTO: why science matters. The geeks are coming. And our world needs them. We live in a country where: -A writer can be forced into court for telling the scientific truth. -The media would rather sell papers by scaremongering about the MMR vaccine or GM crops than reporting the facts. -A government advisor was sacked for a decision based on science rather than public opinion. -Only one of our 650 MPs has ever worked as a research scientist. It is time to entrench scientific thinking more deeply into politics and society. To fight for policy based on evidence. The full book is available from 12th May 2012.

In the UK we teach young people to become computer users and consumers rather than programmers and software engineers. This is creating a chronic skills gap in ICT. We need around 82,000 engineers and technicians just to deal with retirements up to 2016 and 830,000 SET professionals by 2020. On the plus side, the Government's proposal to include computer science as a fourth science option to count towards the EBac is welcomed. The Committee also welcomes the EBac's focus on attainment of mathematics and science GCSEs but is concerned that subjects such as Design and Technology (D&T) might be marginalised. A Technical Baccalaureate (TechBac) is being designed but if it is to be a success, schools should be incentivised to focus on the TechBac by making it equivalent to the EBac. Reforms to vocational education following the Wolf Review meant that Level 2 of the Engineering Diploma, a qualification highly regarded, would count as equivalent to one GCSE despite requiring curriculum time and effort equivalent to several GCSEs. The Engineering Diploma, however, is currently being redesigned as four separate qualifications. The Committee also expressed concerns over the Department for Education's (DfE) lack of clarity on its research budget, and use of evidence in decision-making. The DfE needs to place greater focus on gathering evidence before changes to qualifications are made, and must leave sufficient time for evidence to be gathered on the effectiveness of policies before introducing further change. The possibility of gathering evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be seriously considered

The Government decided to consider and issue, by the end of December 2009, a set of principles applying to the treatment of independent scientific advice provided to Government. This followed the Home Secretary's dismissal of Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government

In its report examining the work and performance of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), set up 18 months ago, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee finds that the department has not yet found its feet and it is too early to say if it will achieve the Prime Minister's ambitious targets. The DIUS annual report is 'impenetrable' and 'peppered with jargon', and the Committee fears that the jargon may be a substitute for having a clear idea about where DIUS is going and how it will achieve the Prime Minister's goals to make Britain one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. Examples of innovation in DIUS's own operations were disappointing, and the Committee also has doubts about the way DIUS presents figures and calls for the statistics in future annual reports to be reviewed independently. The Committee also expresses concern about the approach of the Government's new Chief Scientific Adviser to his role as a champion of evidence-based science, and draws attention to Professor Beddington's evidence on homeopathy in which he did not take the opportunity to restate the importance of scientific process and to emphasise the need for balance of scientific evidence. The customary, strong public voice from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser advocating policy based on evidence-based science must not become muted. The Committee also recommends that DIUS: develops a consistent method for ensuring policy is soundly based on evidence; faces up to and addresses the criticisms it received in the Capability Review; shows clearly how £1.5 billion in efficiency savings it has promised will be generated.

Engineering is a critical component of the national economy and of society in general. The Committee is convinced that the strength of the UK's engineering base means that the UK can play a major part in solving global problems such as climate change, food and water supply, energy security and economic instability. Engineering involves skills, higher education and innovation, and encompasses research and development, design, production, distribution and services. The Committee takes a case study approach in this report, exploring key themes through the lenses of nuclear engineering, plastic electronics engineering, geo-engineering and engineering in Government. It notes concerns about the UK's capacity to deliver a new generation of nuclear power stations, and there are significant skills shortages. The plastic electronics case study highlighted the potential opportunity afforded to the UK through the support of emerging, innovative industries, but we are likely to miss out on the economic return associated with translating the findings of research into commercialised technologies. The global nature of many engineering challenges was highlighted during the discussion of geo-engineering research, and it is essential that the views of the science, engineering and social science communities be seen as complementary sources of expertise in policy-making. Engineering in government demonstrated that engineering advice and scientific advice offer different things, and that this should be recognised in the policy process. Government does not have sufficient in-house engineering expertise and engineering advice is frequently not sought early enough during policy formulation (for example on eco-towns, renewable energy and large IT projects). There should be a greater level of engineering expertise in the generalist civil service as well as more engineering policy specialists.

Working practices between the UK and Welsh Assembly governments in relation to cross-border policies appear much improved since the Committee's earlier reports on this subject. But a number of outstanding issues remain in transport, health and further and higher education. On transport the Committee welcomes the planned electrification of the Great Western Main Line. However, the Department for Transport appears to have washed its hands of any strategic responsibility for cross-border roads. The A483 is the clearest example of a road vital for travel within Wales but which is not important to the English region in which it is located, and as a result loses out on funding. The Committee stresses the need for comparative data on which to build solid research comparing NHS performance in the devolved nations. More needs to be done to raise public awareness of the differences in services people can expect to receive on both sides of the border. Transparency of information is vital. Research proposals in the UK Government's Higher Ambitions strategy for higher education make no reference to nations other than England, despite the UK-wide research remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Committee calls for details about how research funding proposals apply to all four nations.

Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.