My attention was drawn to an item published by Times Online last week, which reported the Conservative party’s spokesman for science and innovation, Adam Afriyie’s plan to improve science literacy among his colleagues on the opposition benches. With headline-grabbing science and technology issues such as global warming, embryonic stem cell research, genetically modified crops and the like increasingly dominating the business of parliament, this would seem to be a wise step for any party, whether in power or seeking office.
But if the scientific community finds it difficult sometimes to understand even the rudiments of each others’ disciplines, it is hard to imagine a group of individuals dominated by law and humanities graduates either willing or able to spend time poring over science textbooks to gain even a modicum of knowledge.
Though he may be reacting to criticisms that scientific issues are not placed high enough on the Conservative Party’s agenda, Mr Afriyie has nevertheless made a serious point. According to the Times Online report, both the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet have just one full member each with a degree in science, medicine or engineering. As science policy takes up more of the parliamentary timetable, this might be a little concerning if were not for largely unpublicised bodies within our arcane parliamentary system that exist to provide informed guidance for elected members.
Forget the textbooks honourable members, the POST (Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology) is there to deliver, if you will only take advantage of it.
This in-house resource has informed individual members and committees on science and technology for nearly 20 years, and even acts as a conduit for external organisations and members of the public who wish to raise the profile of science and technology issues with their elected representatives.
The POST board roll-call includes prominent figures from science, engineering and technology, including fourteen parliamentarians from both Houses (Lord Winston, Baroness Greenfield and Lord Oxburgh among them) and at least two Fellows of the Royal Society making up the non-member contingent. POST conducts a range of seminars for MPs and issues short briefings in the form of ‘POSTnotes’, which are peer-reviewed prior to publication in print and online. I recommend a visit to the website
Whilst on the subject of high-profile science, it was disappointing to hear that CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will probably remain out of action until the summer of next year following a big helium leak into the LHC tunnel that closed operations on September 19 this year. Apparently, the cause was nothing more than a faulty electrical connection between two of the accelerator’s magnets, which caused an electric arc and subsequent pressure rise within the super-cooled magnet enclosure. Insufficient pressure relief led to mechanical damage and nearly thirty magnets will need to be replaced as a result. The cost of repairs is estimated at £14 million.
As CERN’s preliminary report on the incident suggests, the technical parameters of the LHC are “beyond precedent” and the energy stored in the superconducting magnets huge. Operation of this machine, it says, “will always comprise a certain technical risk.” One can only hope that after the £14 million is spent, that risk – like the temperature within the magnets – will be a bit closer to absolute zero.
Les Hunt
Editor
PS Since writing this, I received the following press notice from the IET, which is presented verbatim:
IET Deputy President gives evidence to engineering inquiry
Professor Christopher Snowden, Deputy President of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), has represented the Institution at the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee’s first evidence session on Engineering in Government, which was held this week (19 November)
Part of the “Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy” inquiry, Professor Snowden was quizzed on the engineering profession and the role of the institutions.
He said, "In response to the committee's questions we were able to clearly demonstrate the value that the institutions, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the profession, especially through Chartered Engineers, could add to the development of Government policies in addition to the the delivery of Government projects and programmes."
The IET also submitted written evidence to the inquiry, which said, “In general, the IET considers that the Government’s use of engineering advice and in particular its use of the engineering resource represented by the engineering institutions has been ad-hoc and uncoordinated in nature.
“Whilst the engineering profession might not fully appreciate the Government’s position or its requirements, we would argue that the Government does not formally acknowledge the role of engineering in policy making and perhaps does not realise the resources available.”
Specifically, on the role and career prospects of specialist engineers in the Civil Service, the evidence said, “In some departments there is a poor understanding of science and engineering within the non-specialist Civil Service. This leads not only to misunderstanding, but also to distrust as suspicions may arise that engineers and scientists are deliberately taking the debate outside of the non-specialist’s understanding for their own advantage.
“The Civil Service moves its senior staff regularly across departments; however in complex areas of policy such as energy, this does result in a damaging loss of understanding and continuity and ultimately adversely affects the credibility of the department.”
Robin McGill, IET Chief Executive and Secretary, acknowledged the issues and said that the institutions are working on better co-ordinating their policy advice. He said that the institutions and in particular the IET has, through the knowledge of its members “developed a strong base for providing authoritative, independent and objective information on technical matters to policy makers and the general public alike.”
The inquiry also heard evidence from Professor David Fisk from Imperial College, London, Professor Michael Kelly, Chief Scientific Advisor from the Department of Communities and Local Government and Lord Broers, former President of the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Professor Snowden’s attendance at the IUSS Committee follows on from the IET’s recent “Does policy-making need science and engineering?” round table event held at the House of Commons and sponsored by Doug Naysmith MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Science Group.