Science and Society 16 January 2008 

Good evening and thank you for inviting me to the RSA. 

The legacy of C. P. Snow 

My father introduced me to CP Snow as I was starting secondary school. For my father, the attraction lay in their shared experience of being the first members of families of modest backgrounds to go to university.  For me, it was Snow's descriptions of what he famously termed the "corridors of power" that captured my imagination, long before I'd ever dreamt I might walk them myself. As a budding scientist in those days, I was intrigued by how scientists worked – and their human ambitions and frailties. 

When the Prime Minister invited me to head up the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills – and asked me to place science and research at the centre of government policy – I began to think again about one part of Snow's career as novelist, physicist and public servant. I went back to the "Two Cultures" lecture that Snow delivered almost 50 years ago – 2009 will be the 50th anniversary – in which he lamented the breakdown of communication between the sciences and the humanities. In that speech, Snow described the parties he'd attended where the scientific knowledge among otherwise educated people was often non-existent. As he observed, "the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had." 

A half-century on, and this is an opportune moment to reflect on Snow's concerns. For though Snow himself later moderated his argument, and while the world has changed enormously since the late 1950s, the importance of scientific understanding, of engagement across society – and not just among the well-educated – has never been greater.  We live in a rapidly changing world. A global economy. Climate change. Extraordinary new technologies. People, money and knowledge ever more mobile. Huge emerging nations with justifiably great ambitions. Science is a key driver of this change.

As the pace of scientific development accelerates, so too does the pace of change in our society. Our challenge, as the Government, is to ensure that we make the most of the talents of all our people so that Britain can compete in this globalised world of the future.  Such a fast pace has the potential to have the harshest impact on those least well-equipped to respond. We must ensure that everyone is able to share in the increasing prosperity and the opportunities that scientific progress brings and that nobody gets left behind.  

Tonight I shall argue that our ability to meet these challenges depends on our ability to handle the science involved. If policy makers do not have access to world-class scientific evidence and advice, we will not be able to make the best decisions about the tough challenges facing the country.  If the public do not have the capacity to understand scientific evidence and risk, they face being unable to make the best decisions for themselves and their families, or, in a democracy, put the most appropriate pressure on politicians.  If scientists don’t have the capacity, or the incentive, to understand society’s needs, we will all be less able to use science to help society.  "Science and society" used to be an area which was seen as a niche part of science communication. Today, we have no choice but to see it as a necessary condition for British – and global – success. 

Our reliance on modern science The centrality of science to modern existence is so self-evident that it barely merits stating. But it is worth considering some of the ways in which science shapes our world.  The starkest example is climate change. Through scientific advances – especially through the generation and application of energy – we have contributed to possible damage to our planet.  Rapid progress in biology and medicine has massively increased our capacity to save, improve and prolong life. But the implications of genetics for insurance purposes, identity and future child selection present us with serious ethical dilemmas. And a feature of modern science is the cumulative impact of inter-related disciplines. The fuelling of obesity, for example, has been assisted by the development of food science, which has made convenience food possible. Its marketing (based on an understanding of human psychology) is pervasive.

That has also had consequences in turn for food production. The shape of rural economies, the communities they support and the shape of the countryside and its ecosystems. Yet it is scientific research that offers real hope for addressing some of the problems that are sometimes attributable to earlier stages of scientific discovery. Provided, of course, that it is used properly to inform the public policy choices – including other factors – which need to be made. While individuals are trying to reduce their carbon footprints, we're relying on scientists to develop the alternative energy sources that will reduce the damage to our ecosystem. The recent Foresight report gave us a scientific understanding of obesity, which drew on a wide range of disciplines. Nutritionists have ever more information about how food impacts on the body, and how we can prevent obesity. Medics have developed surgical procedures which can help people with clinical problems, and chemists are developing new kinds of food which can be used to substitute for others.  The challenges are profound, the issues complex. Even more so perhaps than that of nuclear annihilation, which was the issue at the centre of Snows, "The corridors of Power".  

The DIUS vision  

When DIUS was founded, I decided to rejuvenate our science and society strategy.  My colleague Ian Pearson, the Minister for Science, launched the formal process of refreshing our science and society strategy last November, in the first Gareth Roberts memorial lecture. There have already been several useful workshops and seminars in which many of you have participated. I hope more of you will do so in the coming months. Ian's vision – and it’s one I share – is to reach the point where the UK is "excited about science, values its importance to our economic and social well-being, feels confident in its use, and supports a representative, well-qualified scientific workforce." This evening, I am going to focus on two elements of that vision. If we are to exploit the benefits of scientific research and innovation to enable us to respond to the difficult challenges of the next century, how can we: First, meet that vision of a public truly engaged with science in the modern world; and Second, bring scientific evidence and advice to bear more strongly on public policy?  

Scientific engagement among the public 

The dangers of poor scientific understanding and engagement with the public, media and government decision making are clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, yet it is only recently that the public, media and decision makers have begun to treat the issues with the seriousness they deserve. If the world was different, and was actually heating up quicker than it is, we may have been too late. Of course we have made progress – the IPCC won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. But perhaps if the scientific case was better understood and conveyed earlier, we would averted some of the damage caused by climate change. As it is, we have undoubtedly wasted precious years in tackling the most significant long-term challenge facing Britain and the world. On an almost daily basis, people need to assess risks and make significant decisions where a good grasp of science and the scientific method is of value.  

The MMR story illustrated the complexity of these issues. Unfounded concerns led many parents to reject the vaccine, so increasing the risk to their and other people's children. But the problem was deeper than a failure to trust the scientists. Poor understanding of scientific method led parts of the media to present the majority and minority views as simple and equally valid. At the same time, it was often not clear that the preference for a single vaccine was based on good behavioural scientific advice. It is possible to imagine how things might have been better – if more editors had understood how science works, if parents had the knowledge to view some stories more sceptically, and if the quality of government engagement had been better.   

Having a scientifically engaged public and media doesn’t involve them knowing the periodic table by heart. It means recognising that science is not just a body of facts, but a discipline with established methods of inquiry, peer review, and responsible governance. Understanding that science is essentially about risk and uncertainty. It means ordinary people distinguishing between the research informing treatments for cancer versus the quackery that's often used to sell products on the high street.  Our ambition should be to go further than scientific literacy – to a more mature relationship between the public, the media, and scientists, where everyone understands each other. In particular, it means the public and the media maintaining the same healthy scepticism that they do towards other media they consume. Not taking the scientists conclusions for granted, but questioning what the real implications of the evidence should be.   

Last, society is increasingly user-driven. We depend on technology and other science to support our daily lives. Those who have the confidence to use devices and engage with new developments are able to drive consumer innovation. Those who are unable to utilise technological advances for their own needs will be left behind. Therefore, it is essential that technologists understand people’s needs and wants better, so they can be more successful in designing and producing products and services. So what can we do to improve public engagement with science? 

Education 

A good place to start involves ensuring that every child receives a solid grounding in scientific concepts during their compulsory education. Here, we have made great progress, especially by improving the number and quality of teachers. Recent figures from the Training and Development Agency for schools show that the number of new physics trainees has increased by 31% in the last year, and by 32% in chemistry.  From September last year there is an entitlement for all students to study science courses leading to at least two GCSEs.  

But involvement in science is not limited to formal education. Our strategy will look for innovative ways to provide people with access to scientific resources and information, in the ways they want to access it. Yesterday I launched our ambitious consultation on the future of informal adult learning, which will build a system of learning using the tools at our disposal in a modern context – including technology, the voluntary and cultural sectors.  Cultural institutions such as the Science Museum play an incredibly important role in making science exciting and accessible to the general public. I’m disappointed that Professor Rapley isn’t here tonight, as the launch pad is perhaps one of the pioneers in engaging the public with science. But of course I am delighted to share a stage with another pioneer of science communication, Lord Winston. 

Science in the media 

Meanwhile, evidence from MORI suggests that the main source of information about science for the public is the media, whether through news programmes or documentaries, on TV, radio or in print.  In its role as a public service broadcaster, the BBC is obliged "To stimulate our interest in and knowledge of arts, science, history and other topics through content that is accessible and can encourage informal learning." In recent years, it has produced some wonderful programmes, such as "Child of Our Time" and "Planet Earth". Other public service broadcasters have also made significant contributions.  What is so special about these programmes is that they are not seen as "science" programmes, but as "entertainment": they are popular because they are so enjoyable.  I am aware that OfCom and the DCMS are beginning a review of public service broadcasting and I am of course keen to see ways to ensure that science needs to be well-served by public service broadcasting in the future.  I’m working closely with my colleague James Purnell at DCMS to discuss these issues and to ensure more widely the cultural and media sectors support science. Though the media's performance on MMR was perhaps not its finest hour, I do believe that we have high-quality science journalists in this country.

I'm encouraged by the work of the Science Media Centre and others to improve mutual understanding between journalists and scientists, and to increase the flow of good scientific knowledge into the media.  Research Councils and others are also helping scientists to receive high-quality media training so they can explain their research to a lay audience. Any attempt to encourage scientists to engage with the public relies on trust.

Evidence shows that a clear majority (70%) of people do trust scientists to tell the truth, and this has increased over the five years to 2005. But the public clearly trusts scientists who work for universities and charities more than they do those who work for government or industry. This is a real problem. Given the close links that should exist between business, government and scientists, we cannot conceivably maintain a pool of supposedly independent scientists sufficiently large to reassure the public about the activities of their supposedly untrustworthy colleagues.  This gives further weight to the aim of increasing the general understanding of how science works rather than simply encouraging people to trust scientists. It also gives added importance to the efforts started by Sir David King in developing the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists. 

We should recognise that scientists are not immune to having a particular point of view on the social or ethical implications of their research, or anything else for that matter. The more they engage with real people, the better they will understand the public’s concerns and hopes for the application of their research. Improved scientific engagement will enable those involved at every level – the public, the media, and scientists – to distinguish between the science itself – the methods and facts – and the application of them.

Dialogue on science 

Encouraging two-way communication with the public in the development of science policy must be a priority. This government is committed to a new kind of politics, which harnesses the talents and experiences of ordinary people. That is why the Prime Minister is encouraging the use of citizens’ juries and ways of engaging with people. Talking, but more importantly, listening to what people say, is the only to way to ensure policies truly take account of the people they will affect. Our aim must be to have that mature relationship between the media, the public, scientists and government, so that each understands the others’ ways of working and concerns.  

The House of Lord’s Science and Technology Select Committee Report on Science and Society in 2000 did away with the notion that public understanding of science is enough. It simply isn’t the case that if the public understands the science they will support its practical application in the world.  It is too easy for scientists and, in many cases, private companies, to get so excited by new discoveries as to what is possible, and see this as a watertight argument for doing it.  

In essence, that was the problem with the debate on GM foods. To the public, there seemed too few convincing arguments that our UK food security, our pockets or our gastronomy would be improved by GM foods. While the sense of risk to public health – by so-called "Frankenstein food" – had little justification, there are real issues about biodiversity, so it was not unreasonable for many to conclude that there wasn’t a case for running any risk when weighed against unclear or no benefits. And the fact that the benefits to private sector interests were far greater than the public benefits certainly did not help. 

More recently, debate about GM foods has been posed in different terms. In terms of global food supply (with perhaps an element of long-term self-interest for European consumers as population growth and climate change bite); and in terms of the advantages to our own economy of participating in an activity of growing importance. It remains to be seen whether this changes the terms of debate. It won't resolve it; as someone with a background in development, I know there is more to food security and poverty reduction than any technology. Nothing I say tonight is intended to take government policy beyond is current position. The lesson that must be learned is that the co-option of scientific possibility by commercial self-interest will never be the best way to conduct a public debate on scientific necessity.  

In the meantime, we have committed almost £2m to dialogue projects since 2004 through the Sciencewise programme, which my department funds, to 12 projects ranging from brain science, stem cell research, nanotechnology. The Government Office for Science’s Horizon Scanning Centre has recently identified a range of new and emerging technologies. Sciencewise was set up to provide opportunities for the public to have their views heard by ministers and senior civil servants on emerging areas of science and technology. The next phase of Sciencewise includes an Expert Resource Centre for Public Dialogue on Science and Innovation.  The Council for Science and Technology recommended in 2005 that we needed to build a corporate memory of the various dialogue projects being conducted to ensure future best practice is carried out and improve the capability of government policy makers to conduct dialogue where appropriate.  Sciencewise is designed to bring public views to bear on policy making nationally.

The Beacons for Public Engagement, which Ian Pearson is launching at the end of this month, do complementary work within the higher education sector. Beacons are university-based centres at the forefront of efforts to change the culture in universities, assisting staff and students to engage with the public so that this becomes an integral part of being a researcher at a university.  Our hope is that bringing scientists and the public together is beneficial in three ways.

First, it helps ensure scientific work takes account of public views and is relevant to society. Second, it improves the public trust in science. And third, it develops the skill-sets of researchers for the future.  Beacons is the biggest initiative ever launched on public engagement in the HE and research sectors and is being funded to the tune of £10 million over four years by the higher education funding councils in England, Scotland and Wales and the seven Research Councils, in association with the Wellcome Trust.  As we undertake more public engagement, we need to ascertain whether it works. The support of our social scientists here is essential. 

Scientific evidence and policy making 

It is impossible to think of a policy area, or a Government Department, where science cannot make an important contribution. Some are obvious: climate change, or the science and technology needed to ensure our national defence is ready. Others are not so obvious, such as the science of demography and ageing needed to inform the funding of future pensions and benefits. Or we need to find better ways of balancing people’s legitimate need for privacy and security of personal data with the increasing technological opportunities for improving services to the public through data sharing. We need to ensure that we have the most environmentally and socially sustainable, as well as secure, Olympic Games.  

In Government too there are issues of trust and confidence that I want to acknowledge up front.  First, there's a fear that scientists could come to dictate government policy – constraining decision-making rather than setting it on surer foundations. This is not true. The best way to illustrate this is by considering the Government's recent decision on nuclear energy.  Here, top scientific experts were on hand to advise on a whole range of issues – from environmental impacts to safety risks.

What they could not do – and were not asked to do – was to determine a single "right" answer for Britain’s emerging policies. Any conclusion was bound to be a balanced judgement and one on which serious scientists can arrive at different views. Scientific evidence illuminated the decisions. The science helped us conclude that in order to respond to the challenges of climate change, energy security, and affordability of energy for the public, that it is in the clear interests of the public interest to allow energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations and that we should therefore take the active steps necessary to facilitate this.

But crucially, the scientists did not take the decision for us.  Nonetheless, the fear can persist that inviting evidence may undermine what we want to do. Second, civil servants and politicians – much like the public at large – are sometimes worried about interpreting and acting upon scientific evidence. Only about one tenth of MPs have a science background. Ministers who keep their fingers crossed and hope the world will work as they would like it to work are likely to come unstuck. And third, when there is an appetite for academic input, it can be hard to source relevant advice.

When I was pensions minister, drafting the 1998 Pensions Green Paper it was remarkably hard to base our strategy on academic advice.  Many researchers could tell me how to construct a system from first principles. Many were enormously helpful on issues of demographics and financial and regulatory policy.  But my challenge was to construct a decent pension system from the extraordinarily complex one we already had. On this, little relevant advice was forthcoming. It seems to me that to move forward we need to improve the quality of all scientific advice available to ministers and decision makers. Only, in this way, will we be able to reassure politicians and the Civil Service that scientific advice will enhance and not hinder the quality of their decisions. We have, of course, made much progress in using scientific advice better in Government, led by Sir David King and his predecessors. I am delighted that Professor John Beddington, a distinguished population biologist and environmental scientist, has taken up his post this month.  

Our aim is to embed scientific evidence and advice in all policy making. The outgoing chief scientific adviser captured my views precisely when he was before the select committee recently. He spoke about success of the civil service "judge over your shoulder" training programme, which promoted the importance of legal advice. These days, civil servants do not often make decisions without legal advice. Economists are fast establishing a similar position. I want to see every civil servant having that scientist over their shoulder. 

The office of the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser has had a huge impact. Important recent developments include: the appointment of Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers to the large majority of policy departments; progressively conducting in-depth science reviews of departments to help them improve their management and use of science, and to spread best practice; relaunching the Foresight Programme so that it brings cutting-edge science to bear on some of the big long-term cross-Government challenges; and establishing a new centre of excellence for horizon scanning in Government.  There has also been progressive improvement to the culture of using science in Government.

Led by their CSAs, an increasing number of departments now invite and welcome challenge by external scientists, often through external advisory groups. The best departments ensure that their senior analyst – often the CSA – is on the Departmental Board, so that evidence-based challenge is an integral part of developing strategy at the highest levels.  The National School of Government now includes the use of scientific advice in its training courses aimed at all civil servants as part of the Professional Skills for Government initiative. In a modern civil service we can no longer accept the idea of C. P. Snow’s "Two Cultures".  Lord Sainsbury’s recent science and innovation review included a chapter on the use of science in Government, and the Government has accepted all his recommendations.  

My ambition is that Professor Beddington and his office will play an essential part in my department’s cross government role as the champion of science. We will seek his advice on how well government departments are using advice. In particular, he will examine and advise on the use of Departmental Science Advisory Councils across Government, with a view to spreading best practice and increasing yet further engagement with, and challenge by, outside scientists and experts. He will also take steps to promote and support the science and engineering profession in Government. Scientists and engineers in Government need better help to develop and apply their skills effectively, and to feel part of a professional community, just as economists and lawyers in Government do.  And given the importance of our role in promoting the use of science across government, our new department must lead by example.

As DIUS fills its vacancies, we will need to ensure that new appointments will cover the roles of the CSA and the director of research. We will develop our research capacity in collaboration with academics to ensure that the support for our policies – in skills, HE, science, and innovation – is properly founded. My department spends almost £6 billion on some of the best research in the world, but it can still be quite difficult for decision makers to access valuable scientific evidence and advice or to obtain advice that is based on the best research but which is tailored to address the choices facing decision-makers.  My concern is there may be disincentives in the system that emphasise published and peer-reviewed work over public policy advice. The work that some scientists and academic departments do to support policy makers can be undervalued.  The Research Assessment Exercise is currently being reviewed by HEFCE and as part of this I feel we need to have a discussion on whether there is more we can do to ensure that this essential work is not undervalued.

To my mind a scientist who produces fewer papers but produces excellent evidence and advice in the national interest on behalf of Government should not feel that they may disadvantage themselves, their research colleagues or their institution  when research funds are distributed.  Indeed, some institutions have already recognised the social value of such work. At both Aston and Manchester universities, for example, public engagement – whether outreach work, media appearances or advising government – is a key performance indicator. I hope the sector more broadly will get better at nurturing and rewarding scientists who play such important roles.  

I also look forward to hearing views on the work of research councils to develop a single public engagement grant framework and a programme of public engagement training for researchers.  People transfer is also important. The ESRC’s placement scheme has enabled university researchers to work on projects such as the Stern Review on climate change and on the development of a White Paper on poverty in Northern Ireland. I have asked the Council for Science and Technology for advice on how to achieve better and more productive engagement between universities and Government to support policy making. This is a two-sided challenge. Many academics – for example those on the CST itself – give generously of their time and wisdom to help Government. But for others, particularly those at earlier stages in their careers, there may be a lack of awareness of the opportunities to apply research to policy, and to engage with Government. On the Government side, we need to ensure that those opportunities exist, and are suitably valued.  We must also look at whether we can improve the framework through which we seek inputs from universities. I am confident that the CST will come up with more innovative, open and productive ways of engaging which will benefit both sides.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, C. P. Snow observed how the fruitful development of science can transform a nation. In today’s world, the imperative is stronger. Unless we develop the ability of the public and policy makers to understand and utilise scientific advice, Britain will not be able to tackle the challenges of this century. Would Snow have thought we’ve made much progress? I would hope so. Perhaps more on this than on one of his other aspirations. He said in the Rede Lecture: "The disparity between the rich and the poor has been noticed… whatever else in the world we know survives to the year 2000, that won’t."  This Government is investing more in science than ever before.

And part of my role is to continue making the case for investment in all kinds of science.  We will keep promoting the application of science to support society: to ensure that people appreciate both its potential and its risks; and that the business of government itself proceeds on the basis of an innovative and informed approach. Finally, having spoken about the importance of public dialogue and expert advice, I now welcome your questions and contributions to the discussions. Thank you.