Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Margaret Thatcher was not the only public figure who had to call in
the removals people last wwek. Lord Porter retired on Friday after five
years as president of the Royal Society. Like Thatcher, George Porter lived
above the shop, in a flat tucked away in the Georgian elegance of 6 Carlton
House Terrace.

Porter is not only a major figure in scientific public life (he was
director of the Royal Institution before going to the Royal Society), but
also has a formidable reputation as a researcher, having won two Nobel prizes
for chemistry. So it is not surprising that he raised the profile of the
Royal Society when he defended science as a cultural activity and ‘one of
the pillars of civilisation’.

During hs term of office, Porter often discussed science policy with
the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. He criticised the government’s
short-sighted commitment to funding only research that leads to commercial
products. The Prime Minister must have listened, eventually. According to
Porter: ‘In the last four or five years, she became convinced that basic
science is very important and that only government can fund it.’

Porter has equally strong advice for the new incumbent of Number 10.
But will John Major, who left school at 16, understand, or even be interested
in, the two main concerns of scientists: funding research and science education?
‘In some ways, ignorance is better than bias,’ says Porter., ‘I’d rather
have someone who is self-educated across the board than someone who has
been educated into not just a non-science but an anti-science philosophy.
That’s just what happens with people who take PPE (philosophy, politics,
and economics) at Oxford.’

It is exactly this attitude that bedevils industry, asserts Porter.
‘The leaders of industry have no sympathy or understanding of science. The
chairman of a company is responsible to the shareholders and they are not
interested in research that will affect what the company will do in 10 years
time.’ Porter wants to see ‘near-market’ research done by industry not universities.
The amount of money that goes into applied research as a percentage of industries’
profits in Britain is very low compared with Germany, France and Japan,
he points out.

So what advice does Porter offer? One approach that may appeal to Major’s
financial head is to give companies tax relief for research. Another idea
is to make hostile takeovers more difficult. Porter believes that such takeovers
damage a company’s research effort.

But it is about the funding of academic rather than applied research
that Porter has the most radical suggestions. ‘I’m getting very fed up with
many aspects of the funding system. In absolute terms funding has increased
by 5 per cent, yet all of us in basic science – physics, chemistry, mathematics
and biology – feel like paupers. It’s impossible to exaggerate how awful
it is.’

Porter blames this situation on the way the research councils distribute
money and on the recent strategy of directing research from the top downwards.
He is particularly cynical about the interdisciplinary research centres
(IRCs) set up to foster mainly strategic areas of research (in other words,
those thought to have economic importance). ‘The Science and Engineering
Research Council and the Medical Research Council are nearly bankrupt. Yet
they started 17 of these IRCs and are talking about have 43. They couldn’t
possibly contemplate funding any more until they fund the good people that
already exist. I think that the IRCs are the reason for there not being
enough money for basic research,’ says Porter.

A large part of the science budget is already sucked up by institutions
run by the research councils. Centres such as SERC’s Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory are seen by some as wasting money. Porter thinks that young researchers
suffer as a result. ‘Only a small percentage of funds go in what we call
responsive mode funding (researchers applying directly to a research council
for research grants). I don’t think that is enough.’

What Porter really wants is to see science run by scientists. ‘You might
think that the research councils are run by scientists, but they are not,
you know; there are a lot of civil servants involved. I would like to see
an alternative – a second funding body that people can apply to.’ Porter
suggests that the Royal Society would fit the bill because it consists of
a large group of distinguished scientists carefully chosen by their peers
from all the disciplines. ‘What I envisage is a kind of national science
foundation – a science council – of which the Royal Society is a trustee
and a general supervisory body.’

So Porter wants to see most research based back in the universities
and firmly married to teaching.

Education is the other subject on which Porter has strong views. He
would like to change A-level education so that all pupils take at least
five subjects, including at least one science and one language, similar
to the Scottish system. ‘The matter is urgent,’ says Porter, ‘we must now
take the decision to broaden the country’s educational system and extend
it to all.’ Porter thinks that a wider education would help to disperse
the anti-science attitudes found in government, the media and the civil
service.

Whether Major will take science seriously remains to be seen, but Porter
will try to put forward the scientist’s view: ‘I hope to have the opportunity
to speak to him in a very short time, about education and the role of the
Royal Society. I don’t know much about him but I’m told that he’s a listener.’

* * *

Major, empathy for science?

A Delegation of scientists will meet John Major to press for a new deal
for science. In a bid to win over Conservative MPs during the party leadership
contest, Major promised Sir Ian Lloyd, a Conservative MP and president of
the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, to meet the scientists.

According to Lloyd, Major promised to consider these steps:

Raising the level of government funding for science in real terms to
stop Britain falling behind its competitors;

Funding POST, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, from
the public purse for the first time;

Merging the science select committees of the two Houses of Parliament.

‘I generally got a favourable response,’ said Lloyd this Monday. He
said Major was sympathetic to raising the profile of science in parliament
and there could be an annual debate on the science budget. This could mean
the recommendations of the Advisory Board for the Research Council would
be made public again.

Under Thatcher, the government never accepted the argument that Britain
needed to match the public science spending of its competitors. This attitude
could now change, and Major’s readiness to give more support to science
could mean that last-minute cuts in projects – such as those announced by
the research councils last month – could become a thing of the past.