News & Views item - July 2007

 

 

In the UK Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills Under John Denham Ian Pearson Has Responsibility for Science and Innovation. (July 31, 2007)

Mr Pearson's overall responsibilities are listed as:

* Business and Science
* The Research Base
* The Research Councils
* Innovation
* The Technology Strategy Board
* British National Space Centre
* National Weights and Measures Laboratory
* The Design Council
* The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, liaising with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
* Liaison with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
* Energy Technologies Institute
* Commission for Environmental Markets and Economic Performance

In an interview given to The Guardian's Natasha Gilbert he emphasised that whereas his processor David Sainsbury was seen as the scientists' science minister, Mr Pearson aims to be more in touch with the public: "What David

Ian Pearson, MP

Guardian Photo: Linda Nylind

 Sainsbury achieved during his eight years as science minister [from 1998 to 2006] is remarkable. We have seen the science budget double since 1997 and the rebuilding of university infrastructure has been tremendous. Everyone in the science community has praise for him, but the people don't know about it. It's a great shame.
    "There are a lot of people who talk about science. But I don't get the impression that the average person on the street really understands the importance of science to our economic future and to our wellbeing. There is more we can do to communicate that. This will help us to pull through more kids to do science and technology subjects at A-level, and go on to university."

 

However, when it came to discussing specifics of policy, Mr Pearson was non-committal. For example Ms Gilbert writes: "One of Pearson's first jobs will be to respond to the recommendations of a review of the government's science policies being carried out by Sainsbury for the Treasury. The Sainsbury review, which is due to report in September or October, will examine the ability of UK science and innovation to meet the challenges of globalisation. Its remit includes industry investment in research and development and in innovation, publicly funded R&D, and international science and technology collaboration.
    "'I have had two conversations with David [Sainsbury] and I am convinced his review will take us forward, and I will want to implement the recommendations as quickly as possible,' Pearson says. He rejects a suggestion that he is treading water until the review is published. 'David Sainsbury has an unparalleled knowledge of the science and innovation agenda, and is producing a thorough piece of work. But science and innovation do not stand still. You always have to be thinking about what comes next. So I am already thinking about what we will do beyond the Sainsbury review.'"

 

Mr Pearson also said: "Without revealing what is in the Sainsbury review, I think there is more we can do on the innovation agenda. That includes innovation in universities, but also right across business. The linear innovation model of blue-skies research to R&D to products works very well in the pharmaceutical sector. But innovation in construction is very different to the pharmaceutical sector, and different again to innovation in banking.
    "If you look at the vision of what the UK has to be in the future, it has to be about knowledge," he adds. "In global terms, we are a small island. We won't compete with India and China when it comes to wages. Our future has to be about being good at building relationships and networks, as well as being good at science, having bright, highly skilled people and being an attractive place for people to come and work."

 

Signs are, however, that Mr Pearson isn't going to have an easy time. Labour has already agreed that meeting its target of increasing spending on R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2010 - most of which is supposed to be met by industry will be a "challenge".

 

One of the many challenges the minister will face and soon is determining  how the seven research councils - the bodies responsible for allocating public funds for research - intend to spend their share of the £6.3bn (A$14.9bn) given to science in an early comprehensive spending review settlement. He is currently working on how the kitty is to be divided up and says Ms Gilbert says "he is prepared to take some tough decisions. 'Both John Denham [the universities secretary] and I will be closely involved in looking at the research councils' budgets and the priorities that are set.' It is too early to give details, he says; the decisions will be taken in October. 'At the strategic level, we will make decisions on what we think is in the best interests of UK society,' he adds, 'and that means taking decisions that will help economic performance, but also on research that improves the quality of people's lives.'"

 

It's difficult not to draw the conclusion that fundamental research will have a fight on its hands if it wants to hold on the relative funding share of the £6.3bn it currently holds.