Lords debate (Haskel) on contribution of SET to the UK - really about the SET contribution?
Gillian Pepper
Monday, 08 June 2009 09:57 UTC
It was interesting to note in the recent House of Lords debate about the contribution of science, technology and engineering to the UK on 4 June, that much of the debate was not about the contribution of SET to the UK per se, but about the organisations that are highlighting and facilitating this contribution e.g. NESTA, the Technology Strategy Board, and the British Science Association. (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-06-04a.342.0)
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this is really about what SET can bring to the health and wealth of the UK? I wonder whether it would be more interesting to discuss specific emerging disciplines/technologies and what they might contribute and how this can be supported.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Very good question! Look forward to reading any answers. A Peerage to the best one?
-
There are so many discussions of how to package and present things, and so few about that which is packaged/presented.
Oh brave new world.
Okay I’m being a little facetious. Obviously shops without windows cannot display their wares effectively, but so often it seems to me that the scrutiny is of expected outcomes and how they might play, and that somehow that is supposed to back-propagate.
-
It is interesting that all contributors were people with a “hard science” and mostly engineering background/interests. It certainly says what are the current expectations for SET and make me think these people are dreaming of a new industrial revolution to reboost the economy.
There is also the related question of progress and scientific innovation, what does it actually mean? Isn’t it a bit full of assumptions? (see “industrial revolution” again) Is it clear for everyone?
These are all important questions, how much money and effort does the government want to put on SET and how to use this effort and there are crucial choices to be made. Maybe we should be a little bit more ambitious/adventurous/what-not than hope for the good-old-industrial-revolution-trick to tick every boxes? (Haven’t these boxes changed shape slightly since the 19th century?)
Obviously i don’t have answers myself, these are only thoughts in order to stir the discussion!
-
Okay so I ploughed through some of the debate and there was some more useful stuff about fundamentals (for example, for those for whom time is short, Susan Greenfield covers some of what I’d consider to be important — i.e., not so much about the plumbing as where the water comes from).
So I may have been a little bit too from-the-hip above…
-
Its true that there might be too much of a focus on the hope for an industrial revolution type replication. I know that the new focus on the UK in space science is about Lord Drayson’s hopes to repeat the glory of the technical spin-offs seen in silicon valley as a result of NASA space endeavours (http://www.herts.ac.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/Lord-Draysons-visit-to-the-University.cfm)… but my worry is that you can predict what wonderful applications might come out of basic research, and that a shift in focus could great losses we can’t predict.
In addition, there is a new debate around the need to reinstate a SET Committee in the commons: http://news.parliament.uk/2009/06/scrutiny-of-science-and-technology-policy/
-
Thanks for highlighting the Lords debate here, Gillian. It feels very important to keep SET in the political limelight right now, not just because of its role in the economy and for the social good but because in a time of political change there is a risk of other issues with more obvious immediate daily impact taking precedence (and budget share etc).
For us (UKRC), the infrastructure surrounding SET is important. SET research and enterprise take place in an unequal society. Unless SET employers and organisations are encouraged and enabled to redress these inequities, we risk having science that is either held back (eg through not using the full range of talent available) or is inappropriate (eg through failing to understand the needs of potential beneficiaries).
From a personal viewpoint, I am not sure the Industrial Revolution analogy works here. The Industrial Revolution delivered both prosperity and pollution… I think we are in an IT revolution right now that is transforming our society. Some are prospering from this – but IT is also the mechanism that enhanced the speed and power of financial speculation and built up the bubble, and so is an ingredient in the crash as well as its solution. Again, we need policy and infrastructure to deal with the applications and impact of SET and provide steerage when the technology becomes part of the problem.
-
I like what Ruth and others have said. I would like to add a little to Ruth’s comment. In the sixties, there was a saying, ‘if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’. It was absurd then, and is absurd now. However, it does serve to bring into relief Ruth’s suggestion concerning the intertwined character of problems and their solutions – in particular, that science and technology will comprise part of the problem as well as part of that problem’s solution. There seems to be no way to avoid this interlock.
The importance of many spin-offs is that they would never have been predicted in advance. So, if you were looking to fund medical breakthroughs, you wouldn’t fund NASA, although it has provided such breakthroughs. As Ruth suggests, not only can science and technology bring about undoubted benefits, unpredictable in advance, they also contain within them the seeds of our own ruination.
-
I think Gillian’s question about the specific emerging SET disciplines/technologies is an interesting one.
I just scanned ‘New Indsutry, New Jobs’, published by the government in April 2009, which looks at the reinvigoration of the UK industrial base as a route out of the recession. The summary of key next steps names the following areas (but says the list is not exhaustive): low carbon technologies for industry; ultra low carbon vehicles; digital technology; life sciences and pharmaceuticals (I think bio sciences/genetics is seen as important here). Also advanced manufacturing: aeropseace; composite materials; plastics electronics technology and chemical manufacture based on renewable and biological substances. Also mentioned: SET development that addresses issues of ageing/elderly population.
This is a list generated from the perspective of industrial development and job creation. I’d be interested to know what others think, and what other areas are key (for economic and/or other reasons).
-
I think that is a good list tbh. If I was given a day to try to draw up such a list I think it might look a lot like that. Those areas are indeed the likely ‘money makers’ and so when the question is asked what UK research is doing for UK PLC, those are the areas to point at.
BUT I just want to hear again and again from the higher-ups (or at least get some kind of a wink and a nod) that we also understand that (as has been said) the next-next big thing is almost impossible to foresee, and that beyond that, there is a genuine value in research for its own sake (as long as it is properly constituted).
Game theory, for example, started as an intellectual diversion almost, but now (and with no real tech spin off) is hugely important in many areas. And on totally blue sky stuff, how about thinking of it with an Arts Council hat on? :) The poem ‘If’ has probably done a lot for people, but it’s no money maker, per se. Can’t team UK stand one or two ‘flair’ players..?
-
To answer Ruth about other key areas, i would quote Lord Hansard’s text from the consultation:
“These elements are not just science, technology and engineering taken in isolation; there are social and cultural factors, too.”
He also made use of the still to be defined term “balanced economy”. To me a balanced economy would also make sure the well being of primary actors of the said economy, that is the population at large (= shareholders of UK PLC ;) ) is considered and guaranteed.
I think an effort on social sciences is required to understand, for example, what makes a thriving and happy community. I am living in a London borough that is currently on going a dramatic transition from “quasi-slum” (although with very lively and pleasant pockets, don’t get me wrong) to a play ground for property developers catering for city people (you would have guessed, at the expense of the previous/current population). Surely something has been missed here, isn’t there anything between these two extremes, surely there is plenty of space to explore.
Clearly, as Ruth said we need to make sure that other areas that do not generate measurable profits are considered in the same time as SET. It is crucial that arts and humanities get more attention from policy makers. Long gone is the time when engineers (supposedly) had solutions from every problem.
So, my 2p worth, i would add to the list an area that probably already has a well used name and which i of course don’t know, so let’s call it “integrative urban planning” ;)
Results
-
