‘The best way of getting kids into science are space and dinosaurs. So that’s what I intend to focus on.’
The words of David Willets (pictured above), newbee conservative Minister for Universities and Science during his major speech on science policy yesterday at the Royal Institution.
Well, Mr Willets, your first speech has worried me. Can this really be what a government minister is saying?!
As an observation, Mr. Willets is perhaps not far wrong. When I was a lad in the 90s the Jurrassic Park franchise was in full swing, and I could not get enough of dinosaurs. I even used to run around the playground pretending to be a velociraptor. But that wasn’t because I was intrigued by science, it was because I enjoyed seeing cool monsters trying to eat Jeff Goldblum.
But what Mr Willets is talking about here cannot be a serious approach togenerating a lasting fascination with science and investigation of interesting problems. Rather, it is exploiting a childish thrill and passing it off as 'engaging young people in science'.
I suppose Mr Willets' comment might have been half meant in jest – I wasn’t at the press conference and the statement doesn’t appear in the speech transcript. It was probably fairly off the cuff and in answer to a question. At least that's what I hope.
The problem is though, the speech gets worse.
In the main body of his speech Mr Willets starts to talk about his vision or UK science in the face of the serious cuts that are inevitably about hit the science budget. He favours an approach which the Guardian has dubbed the ‘science sponge’. The predicted fall in new breakthroughs in UK science (as a result of his governments spending cuts), Willets says, actually won’t matter that much, because we can just soak up (like a sponge – get it?!) the discoveries of other countries and turn them into profit. He reckons as long as we have a semi-decent science industry left this should be pretty easy.
'What exactly is the economic problem if the next scientific discoveries originate overseas, rather than here?'
He cites a couple of examples where amazing initial discoveries where made elsewhere in the world but then British people took hold of the ideas and developed them. One he uses is the hole in the ozone layer; the hole was discovered by British scientists, but the discovery of the layer in the first place was a French one. It’s probably not a particularly good example for his argument, as the ozone hole didn’t really make us any money..
This vision of the UK as a science parasite will leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many scientists. Willets is aware of that, and defends the cuts in science in the way that all politicians defend everything right now; telling us that there’s no choice; he doesn’t like it either, but the economy is in such a state that we just have to make cuts.
The problem is even if David Willets can’t see it, there is an economic problem with not investing in blue sky research. The way I see it, science in the UK is a pretty complex ecosystem – complete with negative and positive feedback loops. Not investing in some parts of it will harm the whole thing. For example, Willets wants to get young people into science via public engagement work – but that is done best by the very people working at the front line of cutting edge research. And these are the people who we will have less of soon.
Maybe Mr Willets is making the best of a bad situation – I suppose funding cuts do have to happen somewhere - but having a science minister who just doesn’t really mind if we stop being a nation at the top of scientific progress is a less than optimistic position for any country to be in.
You can read the rest of his speech here.
Josh is studying for a PhD in Chemistry at Bristol University.
The Government's own report credits blue sky research with a very approximate 25% return on any investments in it.
The exact number is very hard to pin down because of the complexity of the issue, but the report says there is no doubt it is "substantial".
Cutting blue-sky science funding is a false economy that will do more harm than good in the long term.
David Willets is an idiot who apparently doesn't understand science. I don't see much evidence of his supposed two brains, they must both have been educated in the arts*.
*to clarify: I don't think arts majors are stupid, just that they are perhaps not qualified to run the country's science. Oh look; philosophy, politics and economics. 'nuff said. Will we ever get a science minister with actual experience in science? Is that too much to ask?!
He's assuming that no other country will be thinking the same thing.
If he was a smoker, he'd know there are only so many fags you can ponce off others before you get a rep and they refuse you. There are many life lessons in smoking...
I think Willetts' view is more sophisticated than you give him credit for. I attended the RI speech and he was not arguing that the UK could simply become a parasite of other people's research. The bit following on from the one line that you cite reads (with my emphases in bold):
"I think that the answer is that we need enough good science so we have the capacity to tackle a new problem, to react effectively to scientific breakthroughs however or wherever they may arise, and to capitalise on those breakthroughs via research programmes and business initiatives of our own. Some 95 per cent of scientific research is conducted outside the UK. We need to be able to apply it here – and, in advanced scientific fields, it is often necessary to conduct leading-edge research in order to understand, assimilate and exploit the leading-edge research of others. It is this absorptive capacity which is crucial. Indeed, Griffiths, Redding and Van Reenen have shown that higher domestic business R&D spend also leads to greater productivity being generated at home from foreign R&D spend as well. And there are powerful feedback mechanisms on top of this – foreign companies cite the quality of the public research base as one of the main reasons for locating their own internationally mobile R&D here....
Government backing for research does make economic sense. I was particularly interested to read the recent Imperial College Discussion Paper by Jonathan Haskel and Gavin Wallis, “Public support for Innovation, Intangible investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector”. It shows particularly strong spillover benefits from R&D spend on research councils. It shows a positive return from other forms of R&D too, but the spillover benefits seem to be greatest from the research councils. This is interesting evidence that research council spend is doing the job it should be doing – generating wider benefits across the economy as a whole."
These statements also (along with other remarks in the speech) demonstrate, I think, that Willetts' has a better appreciation of the value of blue-skies research than his predecessor, Lord Drayson.
My take, for what it's worth, is here.
Thanks for your comment Stephen - interesting to hear from someone who was actuially at the speech. Clearly you'll have a much better understanding than me of Willets' jist. I read your take with interest.
I think you're right about him having a greater understanding of the value of blue sky than Drayson. I would maintain though, that he doesn't see a problem in the medium term with this basically slowing down a lot or even stopping (economically). I think that is bad news. Will we have any science industry/academia left by the time the government decide to begin investing again?
Josh is studying for a PhD in Chemistry at Bristol University.