Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

William Waldegrave’s attempts to build a new partnership between academic
scientists, industry and government ‘could do more harm than good’, the
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology warned this week.
Britain’s traditional scientific strength could be undermined by the science
minister’s predilection for research that might help to make Britain wealthier.

The Lords’ attack is published this week in a review* of last year’s
White Paper on science. It hits at the heart of the policies put forward
by Waldegrave and his Office of Science and Technology. Last May, Waldegrave
said research that could help to make money for Britain would be given top
priority. But the Lords say the relationship between academic scientists
and industry is already one-sided. While universities and research councils
are keen to exploit new ideas, many companies fail to make the most of scientific
opportunities.

The Lords warn that Waldegrave’s emphasis on wealth creation may force
universities and research councils to spend more of their scarce funds on
research for industry. ‘In the short term this might be presented by the
OST as a success,’ say the Lords. ‘But in the long term it would be bad
for science, and bad for industry too.’

More important is academia’s traditional role of training talented scientists
and providing a pool of bright ideas and advanced knowledge. Lord Flowers,
chairman of the select committee, says: ‘It is rather odd that we are having
to defend that now.’

The Lords urge Waldegrave to reconsider his plans to reduce the number
of PhDs, and his insistence that all postgraduate students first take a
master’s degree. They also condemn recent moves that will allow research
councils to fund work in private companies, where the money would not help
to train PhD students.

Basic research in mathematics, physics and chemistry is also being put
at risk, partly by the shift towards wealth creation and partly by the abolition
of the Science and Engineering Research Council. One of the SERC’s functions
is to fund research that falls between the remits of the other councils.
That responsibility will disappear when the SERC ceases to exist in April,
and some researchers could find that none of the councils will fund them.
‘If I were still an active physicist, I would be concerned,’ says Flowers.

One of Waldegrave’s methods for pushing scientists into work that will
make Britain wealthier is the Technology Foresight Programme, which is designed
to identify commercially promising areas of research. But the Lords say
they are disturbed by the disagreement between the OST and the Department
of Trade and Industry about the programme’s objectives.

Flowers says the OST sees foresight as a long-term affair, looking 10
to 15 years ahead, with only a loose connection to current spending plans.
But the DTI wants it to be used to direct funding for research in the near
future. ‘These different conceptions in different parts of government as
to what this is all about bode ill for any partnership between departments,’
says Flowers.

* Priorities for the Science Base, second report from the House of Lords
Select Committee on Science and Technology. Available from HMSO.