The House Magazine - June 17 edition - Science

THE SCIENCE DEBATE - BRITAIN DESERVES BETTER

By Robert Key MP, Shadow Science Minister

Back in February, in a PQ, I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she would establish a unified science strategy for the UK. She said she had established a new committee to look into things.

Britain has developed an anti-science popular culture, which is fuelled by ignorance and indifference in journalism and the media. This has been recognised by The Royal Institution which has established a superb on-line Science Media Centre, offering an extensive database for journalists with deadlines to meet and contact details of relevant scientists for explanation and quotes.

The RI Director, Baroness Susan Greenfield, invited me to spend an evening with a dozen of the UK's biggest employers of science graduates. I had expected they would focus on graduate and post-graduate education and the tension between funding of universities and Research Councils. Not a bit of it. They were unanimous in identifying the state of school science education as the root of the problem and the key to change. Science must be taught much more seriously from the age of five upwards. Only then will we educate generations equipped to benefit from developing science and technology and only then will our citizens be empowered to make safe, rational and ethical choices about groundbreaking science.

The weaknesses in our science and maths education have been highlighted by Sir Gareth Roberts in his report, "Set for Success". He highlights the downward trend in undergraduates taking physics, mathematics, chemistry and engineering. Pupils taking 'A'-Level physics fell by 21% in the last decade, followed by a 9% fall in maths and a 3% fall in chemistry. Roberts pointed to teacher shortages, poor labs and equipment, an inability to attract pupils (especially girls) and negative careers advice.

Under their Royal Charters the UK Research Councils have a duty to broaden the public's knowledge and understanding of science. Really? In France, the Ministry of Research is required to "implement policies to spread scientific culture and information". In the USA the National Science Foundation allocates 20% of its huge resources to pump-priming the traditional federal, state and local budgets with initiatives focused on maths and sciences.

In the USA, The President asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to investigate the ethical and medical issues behind embryonic stem cell research. Then the National Institute of Health, the primary source of biomedical funding, published draft guidelines for public comment. Only then did the US Administration adopt a policy.

In contrast, when it came to GM crops Tony Blair followed his instinct and rushed ahead. He was miles in front of public opinion and came a cropper. That was bad judgment - because I believe his instincts are right. But the arguments were not explained and the public were neither consulted nor informed. Sadly for Britain that led to years of scare-stories and ill-informed protests. Consequently, consumers may now make unsound purchasing decisions. This may lead to misallocation of resources in research and missed opportunities for the agricultural economy.

More worrying for elected politicians is the new anti-democratic (albeit confused) agenda of protest groups who allege the absence any genuine public input into the directing of science and technology. They suggest that the election of a Government which then funds new technology is not enough to legitimise it. They also believe science and technology policy should 'reflect public values and not conflict with them'. Back, then, to men with red flags walking in front of trains? No. There is a way forward.

Interestingly, the voice of protest comes from old friends of New Labour. It confirms my belief that this Government's science policy has ground to a halt. Britain deserves better.

From reception classes in primary school through universities to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, politicians must connect with science and also get back in touch with the concerns of ordinary people. We must understand, too, that without engineering, science cannot be applied to the benefit of mankind.

Science policy should not be governed by pressure groups any more than it should be scuppered by ignorance, prejudice or fear. It is the duty of democratic politicians to facilitate well-informed debate and to ensure that scientists, decision-makers and regulators alike proceed on a sure-footed moral and ethical basis.

A future Conservative Government must initiate a step-change in science and engineering education and open up public information and debate to raise public confidence in science. For, tomorrow's world is science.