9348 sip spring 2011 - science in parliament...unlocking the potential of in vitro diagnostics in...

The Journal of theParliamentary andScientific Committee

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Annual Lunch

Global Water Security

Engineering Better Healthcare

Synthetic Biology Public Dialogue sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Sprin

g 20

11

Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Science Minister, launches theUN International Year of Chemistry at a unique event organised bythe Royal Society of Chemistry on the House of Commons Terrace

Log on to www.rsc.org for theedited webcast highlights

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:30

MAKING BRITAIN HEALTHY: UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF IN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS IN THE NHS

Seventy percent of clinical decisions are based on an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test. These have an increasing role to play to deliver cost effective healthcare and improve outcomes for patients.

However, to fully realise these patient benefits and cost efficiencies we need the Government to:

Encourage increased access to point of care diagnostics in the community - allowing more rapid treatment of patients in a setting convenient for their daily lives

Address the way money flows within the NHS to reduce perverse incentives which block the use of new tests or better use of existing tests

Ensure that the DH supports NHS organisations in embedding recommendations and guidance for diagnostics from NICE

•

•

•

BIVDA is the national trade association for the manufacturers and distributors of IVD products in the UK. We currently represent more than 95% of the industry and over a hundred organizations ranging from British start-up companies to UK subsidiaries of multinational corporations. BIVDA members employ over 8,000 people in this country including in manufacturing and R&D, with a total industry turnover of approximately £900 million of direct sales.

About BIVDA

British In Vitro Diagnostics Association · 1 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9BTTelephone: 020 7957 4633 · Fax: 020 7957 4644 · Email: [email protected] · Website: www.bivda.co.uk

Please don’t hesitate to contact the Director General, Doris-Ann Williams if you would like any further information about any of the aspects of this issue or about in vitro diagnostics in general. She is always more than willing to visit you in Westminster.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:30

Science in Parliament Vol 68 No 1 Spring 2011 1

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONCENTRES 2Opinion by Professor Richard Brook

CHALLENGE OF RESPONSIBLEINNOVATION 5Opinion by Professor Richard Owen

A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONTO CLIMATE CHANGE 7Michael Norton, Dr Richard Harpin andAlexander Lane

UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR ABETTER RAILWAY 8John Amoore

UN INTERNATIONAL YEAR OFCHEMISTRY 2011 10

SEMTA SUPPORTS SCIENCE SKILLS 12Philip Whiteman

IN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS IN THE NHS 14Doris-Ann Williams

ANNUAL LUNCHEON OF THEPARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE 16Guest of Honour Rt Hon David Willetts MP

HOW ENGINEERING PROVIDES BETTERHEALTHCARE 19Addresses to the P&SC by Professor Molly Stevens,Professor Lionel Tarassenko andProfessor John Fisher

THE CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMESKaren Smith 24

TESTING TIMES – NEW IDEAS 25Dr Steve Thompson

BUILDING BRIDGES 26Dr Michael W Elves

SOLAR ENERGY AND FUEL CELLS 27

MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY 28Dr Ralph Rayner

AUTISM: A DIFFERENCE OR ADISORDER? 30Dr Ellie Dommett

DEMAND FOR HUMAN BODILYMATERIAL 31Catherine Joynson

COLD WINTER IMPACT ON WILDLIFE 32Dr Andy Clements

IS GLOBAL WATER SECURITYACHIEVABLE? 34Addresses to the P&SC by Professor Roger Falconerand Michael Norton

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PUBLICDIALOGUE 40Addresses to the P&SC by Dr Brian Johnson,Professor Douglas Kell and Professor David Delpy

EFFECTIVE PUBLIC DIALOGUE 45Suzannah Lansdell

HERPES VIRUS’ TACTICAL MANOEUVRE46

EVOLUTION OF ANIMAL LIFE 47

HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECTCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY 48

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY 50

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT SECTION

52

HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE 54

SELECTED DEBATES 55

SCIENCE DIRECTORY 56

SCIENCE DIARY 65

Parliamentarians with a background in or dedication to Science andTechnology are at the forefront in the efforts to encourage and support allthose concerned with ensuring that the high quality R&D undertaken in theUK is put to the best possible use, be it fundamental research or appliedscience.

It is probably no surprise to UK and EU Parliamentarians with S&Tbackgrounds that the German economy has recently rebounded so rapidly,when compared with the UK, as so much effort is placed not just on “BlueSkies” research but also on those areas where the results of fundamentalresearch are applied directly to ensuring that the industrial base, andespecially manufacturing, are both fully supported to ensure global marketcompetitiveness.

Unfortunately, the UK currently generally recognises only one internationallyaccepted level of attainment in science, and not surprisingly that is wherethose with the ability to do so have for obvious reasons naturally tended todirect their full attention. Those with the ability to turn new discoveries intoeconomic benefits for the whole of society on the other hand, normally donot receive anything like the attention or recognition devoted to their purescience counterparts.

Martin Rees, the outgoing President of the Royal Society has however madean enormous contribution in advancing the cause for long term planning forR&D in the UK backed up by some of the best scientific brains the worldcan muster, many of them based at the UK’s world class Universities.

How can we begin to put this matter right before it is too late if oureconomy is to be prevented from sliding down a slippery slope? Who willbe primarily responsible for ensuring that the full integration of science,technology and engineering takes place throughout the UK’s educationaland industrial landscape?

History has shown us with painful results for every one of us that relianceon service industries alone, including high risk banking, will not, as previouslythought, provide the basis for a stable long term future for Western styleeconomies. The US and UK have both been vulnerable in this respect.

Much attention is currently being devoted to investigating the need for andfuture development of Technology Innovation Centres as a way to ensurethat the UK considers all the options before us. There is both an urgentneed and new opportunity to help supply the Developing World with theproducts they require from us and to help manage their increasingdemands for improved infrastructure and their burgeoning humanpopulations. This is one important area where a new generation ofTechnology Innovation Centres based in the UK could really make adifference if we get the funding and structures right.

Andrew Miller MPChairman, Parliamentaryand ScientificCommittee

CONTENTS

The Journal of the Parliamentary and ScientificCommittee.The Committee is an Associate ParliamentaryGroup of members of both Houses ofParliament and British members of theEuropean Parliament, representatives ofscientific and technical institutions, industrialorganisations and universities.

sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Science in Parliament has two main objectives:1. to inform the scientific and industrial

communities of activities within Parliamentof a scientific nature and of the progress ofrelevant legislation;

2. to keep Members of Parliament abreast ofscientific affairs.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31

Science in Parliament Vol 68 No 1 Spring 20112

Adding dedicated researchand enterprise resources touniversities achieves a measureof success, but struggles toaddress several importantaspects of the challenge,particularly where collaborationand partnership betweenmultiple parties is concerned.More extensive support isrequired, particularly to helpmatch demand side pull frombusiness and industry withscientific and technologicalexpertise; to co-ordinate accessfor industry to multiple sourcesof scientific and technologicaldevelopment; and to proactivelystimulate collaborativeenterprise, foster technologydevelopment and supportbusiness incubation.

Until very recently, this hadnot been recognised; but in late2009 Lord Mandelson wasintroduced to the Fraunhofersystem. Taking the messageseriously, he instigated theHauser Review. This has movedus a long way forward, helpedconsiderably by the increasingemphasis on high-growthcompanies to drive job creation

TECHNOLOGY ANDINNOVATION CENTRES

Professor Richard Brook OBE FREngPresident AIRTO

and wider economicdevelopment and by the needfor these companies to leveragenew technology.

This isn’t the first attempt toenhance the industrial uptake ofnew technology in the UK. Newcentres were brought into beingafter both world wars and,together with Public SectorResearch Establishments andprivately formed researchorganisations, these comprise aconsiderable network oftechnologically highly skilledresources across the UK.

SO WHAT IS THEPROBLEM?

Governments haverepeatedly tried to make thesecentres financially self-sufficient.This inevitably changed theirbusiness models, away fromgeneric research serving thenational interest and workingwith SMEs, towards services andless risky work for largerenterprises worldwide, therebymoving them away from thepurpose for which they wereestablished.

OPINION

A previous attempt toemulate Fraunhofer styleinstitutes gave rise to theFaraday Partnerships that cameinto being in the 1990s. I ranone of the first of these. Whydidn’t they last?

The Faraday Partnershipsstarted up very unevenly. First ofall, a number of Post-graduateTraining Partnerships wereestablished between individualRTOs and research intensiveuniversities. This was modelledon one element of theFraunhofer system. Those of usinvolved felt that they were verysuccessful. Later in the decadethe Faraday Partnerships properwere launched as the EPSRCprovided an initial tranche ofring-fenced research money foruniversity partners. TheDepartment of Trade andIndustry could not find thebudget at the time to providewhat would be the core fundingfor the partnershipinfrastructures; that eventuallycame somewhat later.

When the ring-fencedresearch money was exhausted,the Faraday Partnerships were

This article reflects the oralevidence from the author to theHouse of Commons Scienceand Technology SelectCommittee into Technology andInnovation Centres in December2010.

AIRTO has long argued for a UK equivalent of the technological supportinfrastructure represented by the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. Thiswould address a long standing problem with the UK’sunderperformance in converting world class research into economicgrowth. The problem stems from a perception at policy level thatinvesting in universities and encouraging closer working with businessand industry will of itself bring about significant economic growth. Thisfalls quite a long way short of what’s needed in relation to a) boostingresearch based innovation by facilitating industry to industry workingand b) making available a full spectrum of specialised skills and supportat every stage of the journey from research through innovation tosuccessful commercialisation.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


directed to apply through normalresearch grant applicationprocesses to be peer-reviewedcompetitively, along with themain body of universityresearchers. As industry beganto call for the initial ground-breaking work to be pursuedfurther, the rankings from thepeer review system declined, inmany instances because,although fundamental to thetechnological foundations ofindustry’s developmentprogrammes, it was no longerthe glamorous or break-throughresearch traditionally used tobenchmark academic researchproposals.

There was (deliberately) nospecific or well-definedgovernance model; somePartnerships were run byuniversities and some byintermediate organisations. Mostresulted from open calls forproposals, rather thandeveloping from a strategicperspective on the UK’sinnovation landscape. There waslittle support for branddevelopment in the way nowbeing proposed. Eventually, aspolicies and responsibilitieswithin government changed, thePartnerships evolved into theKnowledge Transfer Networkswhich, although extremelyuseful, do a very different job. Itwas a valiant effort, but toopiecemeal, not helped bydifficulties in co-ordinating publicfunding for them.

The proposals for TechnologyInnovation Centres have takenon board many of the lessonsfrom that era. Most importantly,the core funding must bemaintained in a consistentfashion to anchor each Centre ina strategic role serving thenational interest with an activityplan that is not deflected bydisproportionate pressures fromshort term financial imperatives;such pressures will otherwiseoverride other longer term

activities to the detriment of theCentre’s mission.

Any new Centres must fillgaps in what is currentlyavailable from the networks ofexisting organisations (RTOs,PSREs, universities), otherwisethere will duplication of theexpertise and support that isalready available to industry. TheTICs must utilise this existingexpertise and capability, bothup-stream to additional sourcesof innovation and research anddownstream to new businessand industrial constituencies in ahub and spoke model, to delivernew outcomes that cannotcurrently be achieved. TheTechnology Strategy Board mustavoid duplication and ensurethat the new outcomes aredelivered. The funding shouldnot be used just to continuewhat’s already being done.

The TSB will need to mapthe capabilities that already existand to identify, against the UKstrategic needs, what of thecurrent capabilities can form thestarting point for TICs and whatis missing. AIRTO’s membersalready do quite a lot of what isneeded. But they don’t currentlyhave the core funding tooperate in the mannerenvisaged for the TICs. Theymostly have to behave verycommercially, prioritising largecompany clients for researchand providing mainly routineservices for smaller companies.

There is merit in preparing abusiness plan for each TIC,much along the lines ofinvesting in a business. Thismeans identifying market needs;routes to market; strengths andweaknesses of existing players;resources that can be brought tobear; competitive edge; howmuch it will cost and return oninvestment, all with supportingevidence. Clearly, TICs, giventheir remits, are broaderenterprises than typicalcompanies, but the process of

defining the above parametersin a business-like way is entirelyapplicable. Such a plan shouldunderpin each TIC.

Industry wants TICs to beable to take apart theirproblems, source the scienceand technology from the bestavailable and put it all backtogether as a solution. Tofacilitate this there may well bestudents, professors andacademics on secondment froma number of differentuniversities. There is acompelling argument thereforefor TICs to be independent of aparticular university oruniversities, so that they can goto as many world leadingscientists as necessary. Centresshould look to stronginternational networking as wellas strong connections in the UK.This approach also permitsgreater choice of geographicallocation. Perhaps the mostsensible place to locate a TIChub is within a concentration ofthe industry that it will serve.

Demand pull and technologypush need to work together todeliver the TICs’ mission. SomeFaraday Partnerships successfullybrought industries together toarticulate their needs. That wasthe pull. Academics werebrought together, in the samemeeting, to describe where theirresearch was going. That wasthe push. Partnership staff thenfacilitated consortia to takeforward work of commoninterest. Without push,opportunities for innovation willbe missed; without pull,technology may be developed

for which there is no customer.SMEs were brought in byensuring that large enterprises(their potential customers) werepresent. The facilitation skills tojoin push and pull are key. It isimportant for TICs to be open toall sources of invention andinnovation; although universitiescontribute a lot, many moreinnovations come from industryitself. This too needs TICsupport, across the manyplayers in the supply chains,calling on university sciencewhere needed.

A TIC’s precise mode ofoperation and the push/pullbalance will depend on thematurity of the relevanttechnology and supply chains.Inserting innovation into existingsupply chains requires aparticular approach with muchemphasis on licensing. If themarket isn’t fully matured andsupply chains haven’t evolved, adifferent mode of operation isnecessary, with more emphasison start-up companies. Thelatter needs technology push,but also a lot ofentrepreneurialism. The key isfinding entrepreneurs whominvestors can back to buildbusinesses into spaces wheresupply chains don’t yet exist.

Intellectual property needscareful handling. Formalisedinvention disclosure proceduresare increasingly being used inuniversities and elsewhere,helping to determine when andwhat to patent (and what not topatent) and there is exchange ofbest practice between AIRTO’smembers and universities and

. . . The facilitation skills to join

push and pull are key. . .

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


between the universitiesthemselves. However, theResearch Assessment Exercise(now Framework) complicatesthe position for universitypartners. Academic researchersstrive to produce publicationsbecause that is the primarymeasure of universityperformance. Delayingpublication does not go downwell, but it is generally possibleto produce a respectablepublication while not disclosinginformation that may prejudicethe potential to patent. The morepartners involved, the morecomplicated the handling ofthese matters becomes. TICs canreach out across the culturalbridges, between universities andsmall businesses in particular.This is a good reason forpositioning and equipping theTICs to serve as brokers in suchmatters.

There are a number of otherimportant roles for TICs. One ishelping to incubate and attractinvestment to SMEs aiming forrapid growth. Another is helpingcompanies access Europeanfunding, through FrameworkProgrammes for instance. TheUK does well here on theacademic front, but industrydoes proportionately less well.The TICs can help correct thebalance by increasing the returnto industry. Applying forFramework projects is difficultand bureaucratically painful inmany respects and industry isfrequently deterred. SMEs find itparticularly hard to bear the risk

that they will invest considerableeffort in applying and then beunsuccessful in obtainingfunding. TICs can do a lot of thework, reducing risk forparticipants and championingthe effort to increase the UK’sindustrial return.

A clear, shared vision for whatthe TIC is trying to achieve iscrucial, and this must remainconsistent for a good period oftime and not ‘creep’ becausenew people with different visionsbecome involved. It will need astrong drive from the TSB to setup the appropriate terms ofreference and success criteria.TICs may come under pressureto address a variety of national,regional, technological, socio-economic and even global goals.It is very important to keep inmind that it is economic growth,wherever that takes place in theUK, that justifies the investment.Individual regions come into playwhen looking at where newenterprises associated with theTIC hubs and spokes becomeestablished. Schemes to supportearly-stage companies outsidethe South East are well funded tohelp attract such enterprises andpromote growth in these regions.

The TIC brand will needmanaging. If performanceamong the TICs is variable,industry may start to regardsome of them as failing. At thehighest level, the TSB needs tolook after the brand and makesure that the TICs’ image andtheir performance reinforces thebrand.

Governance could be basedon a number of alternativemodels. AIRTO membersembody several of them.However, particularly whentrying to bring something new,like the TICs, into existence, it’simportant to keep clear ofvested interest and to avoidsuspicion between potentiallycompeting stakeholders. Themodel that generally works bestin these circumstances is theCompany Limited by Guarantee(CLG). A CLG is not driven tosatisfy a particular group ofshareholders. It re-investssurpluses rather than distributingthem. Its assets cannot beacquired, except by anotherCLG; and it positions theorganisation in the ‘centreground’, albeit without the abilityto raise funds in the way that ashareholder-owned companywould. This is probably thestructure most appropriate forthe TICs.

The main measure ofsuccess has to be impact oneconomic development. Thethird/third/third funding mix andthe amount of private sectorfunding leveraged is aperformance target that TICshave to go for very hard. Thiswon’t be achieved overnight ifthey are starting from scratch,and this is a reason for utilisingexisting organisations as thestarting point for TICs, whereverpossible and appropriate. Theprivate funding provides thebenchmark that says that theTIC is fulfilling a real need. MostAIRTO members started outbeing publicly funded but havemoved progressively to aposition where they are privatelyfunded for the majority of theirwork. As noted earlier, this is atthe expense of providing someof the service characteristics thatcan only be sustained withconsistent public funding, ieengaging heavily in research anddedicating significant time toSMEs. The margins from other

work do not provide thenecessary headroom to reinvesta really substantial proportion ofrevenues (ie the 50% thatwould be required for a purelyprivate sector TIC) on suchactivities.

TICs, over time, will probablyalso move towards majorityprivate funding as they grow, butthrough continuing core fundingwill be able to maintain theresources to keep up the publicservice element of their work, atleast until the market failure isno longer so pressing. If corefunding is removed prematurely,TICs will move towards morecommercial models, abandoningthe behaviour that supports thenational interest and SMEs, andan enduring engagement withresearch. If this happens, all wewill have done is set up anotherSME.

TICs should also bemeasured against the additionalfunding they recover fromEuropean programmes; againstnumbers of patents andsuccessful spin-outs; anddevelopment of skills and careerpaths – TICs are potentiallyroutes for a valuableapprenticeship from which tomove on, either to set up abusiness or to take up a role inan industrial supply chain.

The TIC concept hasenormous potential andlongevity, but each individualCentre needs to perform at thehighest level. The consequencesof non-performance should be achange of management, mergerwith another TIC or evendissolution.

It is critical that this newinitiative is well managed andmaintained over time, because itwill take several years for thetrue economic benefit toemerge.

But this is a great start.

. . . A clear, shared vision for

what the TIC is trying to

achieve is crucial . . .

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


Our capacity for creativity andinnovation is limited only by ourimagination. The society inwhich we live is the cumulativeproduct of thousands of years ofhuman innovation. This hascontinuously shaped societysince the dawn of Civilization,from the first flint tools to theplough, from the printing pressto the internet. I rememberwhen I was studying for my PhDin the early nineties a newtechnology called ‘email’: it wasslow, with dial up connectionand no ability to sendattachments. But we academicsloved it: it was cheap and greatif you needed to communicatealmost instantaneously withanother isotope chemist in theUS or Japan (I’m sure many ofyou reading this have had thisneed). Now I can pick up andrespond to a work email whileshopping in Sainsbury’s. There’sno going back, it’s here to stay,at least until something bettercomes along. This is what wecall ‘technological lock in’, whennew innovations becomeindispensible to our modernlives.

But here’s a question: whileyou are working how often doyou quickly check your email?Will you take a quick peek atyour Inbox before you finish thisarticle? Some are concernedthat by continuously stopping tocheck our email we aredamaging our ability to think in

a deep and meaningful way.What has been described as‘divided attention disorder’ ledone broadsheet to suggest emailis making us become ’lab ratscraving pellets of socialinteraction’. Now whether or notthis is the case, it serves toillustrate two important thingsabout innovation, particularlythat which we call ‘disruptive’:the future wider impacts ofscience and technology arealways uncertain, and they areusually unpredictable. Whowould have guessed that emailmight result in divided attentiondisorder, or that coal fired powerstations and cars would havesignificant impacts on globalclimate? Or that CFCs in ourrefrigerators would cause a largehole in the ozone layer? Or thata neat little piece of financialinnovation called securitisationwould cause global chaos in thebanking sector. ‘We didn’t see itcoming’ a former PM remarked.

The uncertainty andunpredictability of the widerimpacts of innovation present aproblem for Governments,particularly if they placeinnovation as a central pillar intheir economic growth policy.Back in the 1980’s DavidCollingridge called it the‘dilemma of control’. In essencethe dilemma is this: at the earlystages of innovation there issufficient opportunity for controlbut insufficient evidence of

wider impacts to justify this, forexample through newregulation. Later on however,once the technology is morefully developed, there may beenough evidence of widerimpacts to make the case forregulatory control. But now it istoo late: the technology islocked in to society, it hasbecome indispensible and theinvestment losses would be toogreat. A ban on mobile phonesmay have been possible back inthe days when they were thesize of a brick. But now? Theyare as locked into society as theinternet.

Reflecting this, over the yearsregulation has attempted to’move upstream’. We now have‘data before market’ legislationfor things like industrialchemicals and pharmaceuticals.Regulation is quite good forcontrolling the type of thing italready knows about eg theregistration of a newpharmaceutical active. But itstruggles with things it hasn’tencountered before, forexample a carbon nanotube, ora synthetic organism. Thesetypes of innovation increasinglyoccur at the convergence ofestablished scientific disciplinessuch as chemistry, biology andengineering and at the marginsof current regulation. They donot intentionally set out totransgress the law. It’s more thatsuch innovations happenprecisely where the law is notwell established, where it isincomplete or unclear, wherethere is a ‘regulatory gap’. Theresult is that innovation leapsahead, and evidence basedregulation follows, years andeven decades later.

RISING TO THE CHALLENGE OFRESPONSIBLE INNOVATION

Professor Richard OwenChair Innovation, Environmentand HealthUniversity of Exeter BusinessSchool

OPINION

. . . People get concerned about the sanctity of life,

when the boundaries of what is natural and what is

synthetic become blurred. . .

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


I can remember the firstdiscussions about regulation ofnanotechnology in 2004 after amajor report by the RoyalSociety and Royal Academy ofEngineering. Here the concernswere (and arguably still are)whether, if materials radicallychange their properties whenmanufactured at the ‘nanoscale’,(a billionth of a meter) they alsopresent radically different risks.Carbon as graphite we think ofas being rather benign, but whatabout a carbon nanotube,described by some as ‘thehottest thing in physics’ andothers as having ‘asbestos-likeproperties’? Questions wereasked: is this technology safe? Isit properly regulated? These areyet to be fully answered.

So it was with a great senseof déjà vu that I heard thesequestions come up again at arecent Parliamentary andScientific Committee meetingconcerning another radical newtechnology, synthetic biology.Synthetic biology usesdevelopments in engineeringand biology to synthesisegenetic material that can beused to create new organisms,or useful parts of them, or toredesign existing organisms. Ourability to synthesise andmanipulate DNA, the buildingblocks of life, moves us from (asCraig Venter described it)‘reading the genetic code towriting it’. From the creation ofartificial chromosomes to‘viruses from scratch’, the abilityto engineer life has hugepotential benefits, from biofuelsto antimalarial drugs. A recentpublic dialogue highlighted that,like nanotechnology, whilepeople could see these potentialbenefits, they also have somebig questions: Is it safe? Is itproperly regulated? And someothers that come up time andtime again when newtechnologies emerge in thepublic consciousness. Shouldthey be doing it? Could it be

misused? What is its purpose?Who benefits? What will thewider impacts be in the future?Are these acceptable? Is itethical, are they playing God?’Sometimes, as in the case ofnanotechnology, these questionstake the form a low backgroundhum, but sometimes, as in thecase of nuclear power, they canbe far more audible. This seemsto be particularly the case whenscientists delve into the geneticmachinery that is the basis oflife on this Planet, as we sawwith GM. People get concernedabout the sanctity of life, whenthe boundaries of what isnatural and what is syntheticbecome blurred.

These questions are centralto people’s hopes and fears fornew technologies. Wondermentat the potential for innovation toimprove our lives is temperedby anxiousness about whether itis safe and ethical, aboutwhether we will actually benefitor simply be burdened with therisks. These questions need tobe addressed early on, at a timewhen there is an opportunity toshape and influence thetrajectory of science andinnovation. As Jeff Goldblumfamously said in the film JurassicPark: ‘scientists were sopreoccupied with whether or notthey could, they didn’t stop tothink if they should’.

This is not, I stress,synonymous with stifling highadventure science and creativity.This is a very important point.It’s about constructivelysupporting it in a way thatdemonstrates a genuine andvisible commitment toresponsible innovation, openingit up in a way that promotestrust and ultimately means thatinnovation is sustainable. This isexactly what the public want: aclear message from thesynthetic biology dialogue wasthat the public want scientists tothink about the wider impacts of

their research, to think about thequestions that always crop up,and for those that fund them,particularly with public money, toplay an active role. Responsibilitycannot be outsourced tosomeone else at some futurepoint.

But what in practice does thismean? In 2009 I began toexplore this with the Engineeringand Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil (EPSRC), the largestpublic funder of innovationresearch in the UK. I had beeninvited to scope a majorresearch funding call at theconvergence of two major fieldsof disruptive innovation:nanoscience andgeoengineering. It was a call forproposals to investigate thepotential for nanoscience tofacilitate carbon capture fromthe atmosphere, an idealopportunity to trial somethingrather different1. For the firsttime we asked scientistsapplying for funding to submit a‘risk register’ in which theydocumented what they saw asbeing the potential widerimpacts and risks of theirproposed research, how thesewould be managed and by who.This began to get them to thinkabout the questions ‘is it safe,are there any wider risks?’ Someof them thought very carefullyabout these, and when Iinterviewed them all theapplicants said it was somethingthey should be doing. They justneeded the mandate andguidance to do it properly.

To my surprise (because theyhad not been explicitly asked todo so) some of them began tothink about the other questionstoo, proposing public dialogueexercises around the innovationresearch core, building inmechanisms to identify widerimpacts as these emerged andfeed these back into thedirection of their research. Therewere grant proposals with not

only synthetic combinatorialchemists but social scientistsand environmental scientistsworking as a team, beginning tothink these issues through at theoutset of their planned research.

Building on this theEconomic and Social ResearchCouncil and EPSRC arebeginning to think about howwe could develop a ResponsibleInnovation Framework, whichcould eventually be used byResearch Councils and thosewho apply to their funding calls.Some very progressive thinkingis being done about this. Myhope is that this could providethe guidance and tools toensure we are in a betterposition to ensure thatinnovation is, and is seen to be,responsible, acceptable andultimately sustainable. Not onlythat, but if we are clever andensure there is goodcommunication between thisprocess within the ResearchCouncils and those developingpolicy we stand the best chanceof developing regulation that isproportionate and shaped bydebate in an inclusive, open andtimely way.

A new model of responsibleinnovation needs to includeregulation, but it needs toacknowledge the issues thatradical innovation poses for it. Itchallenges us as scientists, asfunders of science, as Membersof Parliament, as citizens, to facethe questions that come uptime and time again and thinkabout what our roles andresponsibilities are in answeringthese. Rising to this challenge isnot easy but is critical forshaping future society and theWorld we will live in. It is achallenge well worth rising to.

1 Owen R and Goldberg N (2010)Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Studywith the UK Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council. RiskAnalysis, Vol 30, No 11, 2010 DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


Public health and well-being,food production, energy supply,industry and the environment allrequire a reliable supply of waterand whilst total available waterin England and Wales issufficient to meet total demand,geographic and temporalvariations in availability meanthat significant regional waterstresses exist, especially in theSouth East. Added to thisproblem is the need to plan foran uncertain future. Projectionsof UK climate predict reductionsin summer river flows andincreases in winter flows, whichis a similar effect to quickerpassage of water across the

landscape. Assessments offuture climate projections by theEnvironment Agency (2008)have shown that by 2050,annual average river flows mayreduce by up to 15%. Localreductions in summer andautumn flows could reach 80%whilst flows in winter couldincrease by 15%. In addition,depending on Governmentaction, social mindset andlifestyle choice, water demand in2050 could be between 15%less and 35% greater than thatexperienced today. Clearly theseextremes need to be built intofuture planning.

The growing appreciation ofUK water stresses coupled tothe fact that domesticconsumption dominatesabstracted water has led to afocus on reducing this demand.The proliferation of meteringand efficiency initiatives is nowwidespread and growing;however do such measuresrepresent a suitably holisticsolution? Whilst the EnvironmentAgency Water ResourcesStrategy (2009) advocates a‘twin-track’ approach, it is madeclear that demand suppressionmeasures should be consideredas a priority. UK citizens currentlyuse an average of 148 litres ofwater per day (l/p/d) comparedto 493 l/p/d Australia, and 575l/p/d in the USA. Defra’saspiration is to reduce thisfurther, to 120 l/p/d.

Water storage represents anoften overlooked option. Bycapturing the predictedincreases in excess winter riverflows, schemes that store morewater take advantage of futureclimate change. By slowingdown water transfer across thelandscape, they also act againstthe trends of climate change,

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATECHANGE: A WATERINFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTION?Michael Norton MBEManaging Director, Water & Power BusinessGroup, Halcrow

Dr Richard HarpinGlobal Business Leader – Water Security, Halcrow

Alexander LaneEngineer, Water & Engineering Management,Halcrow

Water is our most basic need, essential forlife and intrinsically linked with many of ourcritical national interests. Future climatechange and population pressures presentsignificant challenges for those tasked withensuring security of supply. However is thecurrent preoccupation with demandsuppression inhibiting a fully holisticapproach? Should greater consideration bedirected towards supply enhancementschemes that both take advantage ofclimate change, and help increase resilienceto its effects?

Farm storage - Mullens irrigationlagoon, Wiltshire (Source: Halcrow)

Large scale storage - Graig Gochreservoir, Mid-Wales(Source: Halcrow)

storing excess winter water foruse in summer, and alsoincreasing the resilience of thebuilt environment to otherpotential future impacts such asflooding.

• Reservoir construction enablesthe storage of excess waterand therefore permitsmaintenance of supply duringperiods of relative waterscarcity. Whilst large dams andreservoirs have traditionallybeen opposed by largeproportions of society, theirconstruction can have multiplebenefits, not just for waterresource security, but also forthe environment andeconomy. Many watercompanies identify reservoirconstruction as essential tomeet future water demandsand corroborate theireconomic viability against avariety of alternative measures.

• Smaller scale water storagecan also provide broadbenefits, especially within theagricultural sector. Whilstgenerally constituting only asmall proportion of total wateruse, on hot summer days

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:31


agricultural use can dominate.Small reservoirs permit thecapture of excess winter flowsand therefore ensure summersupply without environmentalconflict. The farmer can thenplan cropping and productsupply with far greatercertainty.

• Sustainable drainage systems(SUDS) comprise a variety oflocalised interventions thatmimic natural catchmentresponses. In order to slowwater passage over seasonaltime frames to provide benefitfor water resources, SUDS thatdirect runoff into the groundsuch as permeable paving,should be prioritised.

• Aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) describes the process of

pumping excess surface waterflows below ground to beutilised in the future, often inresponse to droughts. Severalschemes exist, contributingsmall additions to the supplyresource, although largerschemes are present in theLee Valley and at Enfield-Harringey in London.

A primary constraint upon theapplication of supplyenhancement measures is thecommon requirement for highupfront investments that mayinitially outweigh financial gain.Securing funding is therefore ofkey importance, and in thisrespect consideration should begiven to the price we assign towater. When compared againstthe cost of other household

outgoings, notably those forenergy, water comprises such asmall proportion that for all butthe poorest, any incentive toreduce usage is small or absent.An increase in annual householdbills of £100, whilst pricing waterstill a long way short of its trueeconomic value, would provideadditional potential annualinvestments to the waterindustry of £2.4 billion, anamount not inconsistent withinfrastructure investments inother sectors. Clearly, the valueof safeguarding our future watersecurity is incalculable. However,as an indicator it is estimatedthat the Environment Agency’sregulation of abstraction protectsresources worth some £72billion.

John AmooreR&D Specialist, Network Rail

RESEARCH AND TRAINING: UNIVERSITYPARTNERSHIPS FOR A BETTER RAILWAY

DEVELOPING A LONGTERM RESEARCHSTRATEGY

The railway is an industrywhere long term forwardplanning is essential. Short-term,incremental work only gets theindustry so far; by investing inlonger term research we candeliver a much improved railwayin the future.

All Network Rail’s researchand development andinnovation activities address atleast one of the majorchallenges facing the industry,known as the ‘four Cs’:

• CAPACITY: increasing thecapacity of the railway;

• CUSTOMERS: delivering aservice to meet the risingexpectations of passengers;

• CARBON: improving rail’senvironmental performance;

• COST: improving the overallcost effectiveness of therailway.

The railway is already muchimproved on where it was, butkeeping up with growingdemand for travel and deliveringvalue for money needs us tokeep pushing ahead. Rail iscarrying record numbers ofpassengers and freight on anetwork that is safer and morereliable than ever.

Passenger demand hasgrown by 40% and freight by60% over the last decade. Of1.3 billion annual passengerjourneys, 1 billion are bycommuters and businesstravellers, almost all on the keynetworks vital for the economyand into or between the urbancentres in which many of themost productive parts of theeconomy are located. The railfreight industry supports

economic output of £5.9 billion,six times its direct turnover.Commuter demand is expectedto increase by at least 22% by2014 and passenger growth of39-54% is expected in majornorthern cities over the nextdecade. Rail demand isprojected to grow by 30% overthe next decade and up to140% over 30 years.

Research helps Network Railtake costs out of the industry bydelivering efficiency savings. Inthe last 5 year regulatory period(2004-9), Network Rail reducedcosts by 27%. In the next 5years up to 2014 we arerequired to build on this bymeeting a 22% efficiency target,which amounts to a saving of £4billion. Network Rail iscommitted to driving costs downfurther, in line with the currentValue for Money inquiry by SirRoy McNulty. Research and

Britain’s railway is aworld leader inresearch andinnovation. Thecompany is advancingresearch anddevelopingengineering talent atall levels – all in thecause of delivering therailway Britain needs.

The above discussiondemonstrates how considerationof water storage measuresprovides a viable means ofincreasing water resourcesecurity and resilience to futureclimate change. Furthermore, bycombining interventionmeasures that act at differentgeographic scales, alignment canbe achieved both with thegeneral concept of slowingdown water throughout thecatchment, and with the widelyprophesised aim of a ‘bigsociety’ in which integratedcommunities consider theirwider environment. In view ofthe long time that storageprojects take to promote weshould be considering optionsnow.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF),essentially wear and tear causedby vehicles going over rails. Thisled to a contract with the RailTechnology Unit at ManchesterMetropolitan University toproduce software capable ofreplicating the design and trackquality of any track route. Whenused with a detailed computersimulation of train design, it willpredict suitability of a train for aspecified route. This is used toevaluate all new train designsand determine where vehiclesmay need to be modified. Weare currently funding testing ofan innovative suspension springwhich is able to provide ‘soft’and ‘hard’ characteristics to bothreduce forces on the track andgive passengers a comfortableride at speed.

We have also used our RCFresearch to develop analysistools to predict where and whenrail failures will occur, reducetheir severity and extend trackasset lives. Reduced raildegradation means a safer,more reliable and lower costrailway.

We have also supported PhDprojects, with some veryinteresting outputs. One recentthesis on the effects of climatechange on the rail network wasdone at Birmingham. It hasinformed a lot of our adaptationplans, as well as developing newrelationships on this subject witha range of universities. We arecurrently supporting one ofNetwork Rail’s staff in his PhDwork on sustainable stationbuilding, in the Department forthe Built Environment atNottingham University.

Perhaps more important thandirectly providing funding,Network Rail is able to use itsunique position and expertise towork with universities toleverage large amounts ofresearch funding for rail. The UKis now the largest recipient ofEU funding for rail research, in

addition to funding from theEngineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council.

Future projects include workto increase the resistance oftrack to loads from vehicleswhich would reducemaintenance needs, andautomating maintenanceprocesses, with significant costand safety benefits. These twoprojects have received over €9million EU funding. We are alsohoping to take forward ‘On-time’,which will explore real-timerescheduling of trains whendelays occur. This will start inlate 2011 if funding is approvedby the European Commission.

TRAINING THE NEXTGENERATION OFENGINEERS

In addition to our high-levelresearch, Network Rail is one ofthe country’s biggest investors invocational training anddevelopment. This is becausewe have a continuing need foryoung rail technicians andengineers to help deliver theschemes and develop thetechnological advances neededto deliver a high-performingrailway safely and efficiently tomeet strongly growing demandfrom passengers and freight.

Our further and highereducation programmes rangefrom apprenticeships through topost-graduate qualifications totrain the technicians,incorporated and charteredengineers that Network Rail andthe broader industry will need infuture.

Network Rail’s award winningadvanced apprenticeshipscheme is one of the largest inthe country. It is based at aresidential facility at HMS Sultanin Gosport, Europe’s largestengineering training facility, andcombines high quality technicaltraining with personaldevelopment. The apprenticesspecialise in one of track;

signalling and telecoms; orelectrification and plant.

Network Rail has trained1,250 skilled maintenanceengineering technicians since itlaunched in 2005. Our schemewill train a further 1,200apprentices in the next five yearsand this year’s intake of 201apprentices have just beguntheir three year programme.

Over the past three yearsNetwork Rail has also recruited469 graduates, 28% in anengineering discipline. Ourgraduate engineeringdevelopment programme, withan intake of around 50 perannum, is accredited by leadingengineering institutions, IMechE,IET, and ICE.

Network Rail has developeda Foundation Degree and BEngdegree in rail engineering inpartnership with SheffieldHallam University and launchedan MSc in project managementin partnership with UniversityCollege London and theUniversity of Warwick.

Network Rail also assistsuniversities in running seminarsand international conferences onrailway engineering. Some alsohave laboratory facilitiesspecifically for railwayengineering. These activitiesincrease student awareness ofthe challenges and opportunitiesoffered by rail engineering.

Network Rail’s research,innovation and educationprogrammes are vital to drivingup the safety, performance,efficiency and economiccontribution of the railway in thiscountry and abroad. For thewider economy andfurther/higher education sectors,these schemes are crucial inequipping a new generation ofyoung people with STEM skillsand providing and leveragingmuch needed research fundingand expertise for some ofBritain’s leading universities.

technology will be a key part ofthis.

RESEARCHPARTNERSHIPS WITHUNIVERSITIES

Network Rail’s commitmentto research has led us todevelop strong links with Britishuniversities. This includesfunding Professorial chairs atthree universities, funding PhDstudents and leading bids forfunding from the ResearchCouncils and the EU. In fact,Britain now receives more EUresearch funding for rail thanany other country, in no smallpart due to the strength ofcollaboration between NetworkRail and British universities.

Network Rail has establishedthree strategic research chairs atthe Universities of Nottingham,Sheffield and Imperial CollegeLondon, recognising theadvantages of longer termrelationships and allowing theuniversities to build a centre ofexcellence in railwayengineering. Each University hasa specific theme ofspecialisation although they maypropose a research project onany subject where they have acapability.

From the start of its researchprogramme, Network Rail hascollaborated with the Universityof Birmingham to developremote monitoring systems forrailway track-side assets, such aspoint machines, level crossingbarriers and track circuits. Failureof track circuits and pointmachines are two of the largestcauses of train delay. Inpartnership with Japan’s CentralRailways and Deutsche Bahn,Birmingham is also furtherdeveloping expertise inadvanced algorithms fordetecting incipient failure as partof Network Rail’s IntelligentInfrastructure project.

One of the early themes ofour research programme was

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


IYC 2011 is a worldwidecelebration of the considerableachievements of chemistry andits contributions to the wellbeingof humankind.

But it wasn’t the usual kind ofreception or the usual kind oflaunch. It was somethingcompletely different.

The Commons TerraceMarquee was packed to the hiltand there was a palpable senseof occasion and anticipation –because everyone knew thattwo little pieces of Parliamentaryhistory were about to be made.

For the first time ever, aseries of live chemistryexperiments were performed onthe Terrace of the House ofCommons in a pioneering

display in Parliament of thewonders of chemistry.

For the first time ever, a livewebcast was made from theTerrace of the House ofCommons enabling peoplethroughout the UK and aroundthe world to see the launch inParliament, the speeches andthe experiments via the RSCwebsite.

The launch was co-sponsored on an All-Party basisby Mark Lancaster TD MP, DrJulian Huppert MP and AndrewMiller MP, Chair of theCommons Select Committee onScience and Technology. Theyalso jointly sponsored EDM1324 on the Commons OrderPaper.

IYC 2011

IYC 2011 aims to increasethe public’s appreciation ofchemistry in meeting worldneeds, to engage young peoplein chemistry and to generateenthusiasm for chemistry’screative future.

Chemistry – the science ofmatter, its properties andreactions – lies at the heart ofthe most promising multi-disciplinary research. Whether itis in nanotechnology, catalysis ortissue engineering, chemistry isinvolved in new excitingdiscoveries with the greatestpotential to benefit our society.The need for these discoverieshas never been greater.

Throughout the year a wide

range of interactive, entertainingand educational activities for allages will take place, allowingchildren and adults alike toexplore the critical role ofchemistry in our lives. Forexample, on 22 June teachersand pupils from constituenciesall across the UK will be takingpart in a global chemistryexperiment into the propertiesand quality of water. It will bethe largest chemistry experimentever conducted.

PARLIAMENTARYLAUNCH

Andrew Miller chaired theproceedings and introduced thePresident of the Royal Society ofChemistry, Professor DavidPhillips OBE CChem FRSC, who

LIGHTS! CHEMISTRY! ACTION!

The Royal Society of Chemistry launched the United Nations International Year ofChemistry 2011 [IYC 2011] at the House of Commons on Monday 24 January with thehelp of the Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


referred to the centenaries ofthe Nobel Prize in Chemistry toMarie Curie for her discoveryand work on Radium and thediscovery of Polonium, and ofErnest Rutherford’s revolutionarytheory of the atom.

Professor Phillips explainedthat the ground-breakingdiscoveries made by Curie,Rutherford and many of theother great minds at the turn ofthe last century had sparkedhuge advances in humandevelopment: in terms of lifeexpectancy and quality of life,personal mobility, the ability tofeed humanity, and, morerecently, in the number of waysto communicate. But what manypeople didn’t realise was howthe pace of change isaccelerating. He drew attentionto the fact that the discoveries ofthe past enabled us to find waysof producing more whileconsuming ever increasingamounts of materials andenergy. The challenge now wasto build on this knowledge andto produce more of the thingswe need while consuming lessof our scarce natural resources.This required a whole new wayof doing things and a wholenew way of thinking.

It would also require a newgeneration of scientists and

engineers to make this changepossible. Inspiring them with alifelong interest in science was atop priority and hence IYC 2011will explore how people canwork together to demonstratethe vital role of chemistry.

There was also a contributionfrom Ethiopia given by ProfessorTemechegn Engida, President ofthe Federation of AfricanSocieties of Chemistry, a bodywhich was instrumental insecuring the UN resolutionwhich declared that 2011 wouldbe the International Year ofChemistry.

In his address the Ministerpaid tribute to the role andimportance of chemistry whichhe described as “sofundamental to everything thatenables us to lead civilised lives”and made such a vitalcontribution to the UK economy.He then declared himself readyto help launch IYC by

transforming himself, along withhis Parliamentary colleagues,into high-powered laboratoryassistants.

THE CHEMISTRYEXPERIMENTS

The experiments were allconducted by Professor HalSosabowski and his team fromthe University of Brighton. All theexperiments had beenexhaustively approved andauthorised well in advance bythe House authorities under thehelpful guidance of the Serjeant-at-Arms who was present at theevent to see them conducted.

David Willetts inaugurated thefirst experiment which involvedChemical Luminescencedesigned to illustrate a reactionthat gives out light rather thanheat (which some peopleoccasionally argue is the reverseof Parliamentary debate!). Theeffect, which was instant andspectacular, was created bypouring a liquid from one testtube into another.

The second experiment wasa Pulsing Reaction – for whichAndrew Miller was the laboratoryassistant – and featured a largetest tube whose liquid contentmagically changed from clear tocoloured and back againrepeatedly.

The third experiment was theso-called Floating Boat where alightweight tinfoil craft –launched by Dr Julian Huppert –floated magically in thin air onthe top of an apparently emptyfish tank.

All three MPs thenparticipated in the nextexperiment which featured themanufacture of clouds with theuse of solid carbon dioxide inhot water. The film cameracaught the drama of thisexperiment.

The final experiment wasperformed outside on theTerrace solely by ProfessorSosabowski (to the dramaticaccompaniment of the musicused in 2001: A SpaceOdyssey) while the crowd insidepressed their faces to the glassdoors. Called The Barking Dog itfeatured a series of perfectlytimed controlled explosions in anumber of different tubes – andit brought the official openingformalities to a spectacular end.

IYC 2011 was well and trulylaunched.

To watch the edited webcasthighlights (speeches andexperiments) please log on towww.rsc.org and follow thedirections.

Professor Hal Sosabowski is flanked by RSC President David Phillips, Andrew Miller and the Science Minister

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


DEMONSTRATING THE NEEDS OF SCIENCEEMPLOYERS

As we look to the UK’s economic recovery, much emphasis hasbeen placed on the importance of training investment and thevalue of transferable skills that are needed to secure the future ofUK companies. According to the UK Science Industries (Bioscience)Report published by Sector Skills Council, Semta, the UK’s 191,000science employees produce an average of £76,500 Gross ValueAdded (GVA) – a figure vastly higher than the UK average of just£35,500 per employee. The data reiterates the importantcontribution the sector is making – and can make in the future – inrebalancing the UK economy.

The report reveals that science employers need to recruit50,000 people between now and 2016. That is the estimatednumber required to cater for the sector’s projected growth and toreplace those retiring. The largest demand will be for peoplequalified to National Qualification Framework Level 4 and formanagers.

Semta’s research indicates a 14 per cent increase inemployment over the last 12 months, with 48 per cent ofemployers recruiting during that period. The report also reveals that31 per cent of graduates, postgraduates and doctorates taken overthe last 12 months were recruited from outside the UK.

According to the Semta report, the introduction of new productsand services, along with new technologies, are key drivers. Over thenext few years they will call for new working practices which willincrease the need for highly skilled employees. In addition, newlegislative or regulatory requirements will require good managementand leadership skills and flexibility within the workforce.

THE IMPACT OF THE POLITICAL AGENDA

Bearing in mind Semta’s insight data, the new governmentstrategy for skills and skills investment is vitally important to thesector and the 6,500 science employers we represent. Wewelcome many elements of the plans. In particular, the review

announced funds for 75,000 adult apprenticeship places per year,reiterating measures outlined in the last Comprehensive SpendingReview. This is good news for the science sector, where newtechnical skills are crucial for growth and for filling skills gaps causedby retirements.

Ultimately, more places will assist in the provision of theadditional skilled people that will be needed in the future to ensurethe sector remains strong and continues to grow and compete onthe global trade stage.

Other changes in the skills landscape, such as the rising cost ofuniversity courses, will serve to increase the key role ofapprenticeships in ensuring businesses have the skills they need tosucceed. This is particularly important given the high proportion ofprofessionals (25 per cent) and managerial roles (23 per cent)working in the sector.

APPRENTICESHIPS IN ACTION

Our role is to stimulate businesses to invest in skills that makethem more competitive. So part of our success comes fromdeveloping solutions that employers value because they give a realbottom line return.

Apprenticeships not only develop higher level skills, they alsoprovide a healthy return on investment so Semta is helping drivegrowth in apprenticeship numbers by developing frameworks thatmeet the needs of employers. These frameworks set out all theelements individual apprenticeships should contain under theGovernment’s new Specifications for Apprenticeship Standards forEngland and Wales (SASE/W), ensuring the quality and integrity ofqualifications is upheld.

With employers and science sector stakeholders, Semtadeveloped a Life Sciences Modern Apprenticeship in Scotland.Designed with career progression in mind, the Life SciencesModern Apprenticeship Framework allows candidates to progressfrom Technician to Assistant Scientist through higher levels ofworking responsibility and educational achievement, up to aScience degree.

Introduced in Scotland last year, employers have already spokenout in praise of the new apprenticeship and the support theyreceived from Semta. HR Director at BioReliance, Louise Ricecommented:

“BioReliance are excited about the exceptional efforts andcontribution made by Semta. We’ve seen significant progress andincreased confidence addressing the life science educational gapsbetween academia, government and the commercial industry. Thisdrive and support is so important for life science businesses andwill allow us to continue to address skill gaps and the importance ofscience across the country.”

SEMTA SUPPORTSSCIENCE SKILLS

Philip WhitemanChief Executive, Semta

With an annualturnover of over £32billion, the scienceindustry is hugelyimportant to the UKeconomy but its futuregrowth may be limitedby skills gaps.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


The Life Sciences Modern Apprenticeship has the full supportand endorsement of the Scottish Government. To date over 70candidates have been registered and 26 organisations haveemployed apprentices, ranging from small to global companies andNHS to universities.

The success of the Life Sciences Modern Apprenticeship inScotland has already led to the launch of an apprenticeshipframework for Laboratory Technicians in England in partnership withCogent, the Sector Skills Council for chemicals, nuclear, oil and gas,petroleum and polymers. In addition, Semta is working on abroader Science Apprenticeship to be launched in England this year.

SIMPLIFYING THE SKILLS LANDSCAPE

To simplify the skills landscape for its employers, Semta isleading a science cluster of Sector Skills Councils. What this meansis that key organisations are brought together to plan and reviewactivity across sectors using science, technology, engineering andmathematics skills. The science cluster is advised by a highpowered STEM skills forum which includes representatives fromindustry, academia and government who agree and prioritise actionproposals.

Carolyn Mason, Semta UK Policy Implementation Manager, said:“Semta is taking the lead in driving common working betweenstakeholders and partners to ensure that science employers getthe most effective and efficient support. Our apprenticeshipframeworks are a great example and cover the specific skillsemployers are asking for as well as building transferablecompetence.”

The Science Cluster has four key goals and areas of focus foractivity:

1. Research/Labour Market Intelligence (LMI),

2. 14-19 STEM Education,

3. Higher Education,

4. Workforce Development.

Understanding the sector’s need for higher level skills Semta andCogent are partnering on a Working Higher Project which isdeveloping a Foundation Degree for Bioscience, leading to furtheracademic and career progression opportunities.

HOW SEMTA CAN HELP YOU

Semta is supporting businesses and the Government, workingwith the National Apprenticeships Service and the Skills FundingAgency, to put businesses in its sectors at the forefront of arebalanced economy.

Businesses working with Semta’s National Skills Academy forManufacturing have seen, on average, a 6:1 ratio of return on theirskills investment. The National Skills Academy offers a wider rangeof quality approved programmes specifically designed to deliver realbenefits to individuals and their companies. There are programmesand qualifications in Business Improvement Techniques (B-IT),Leadership and Management, Employability, Health and Safety andTechnical skills. To support individuals there is an e-learning centrewith over 1,000 courses ranging from How to Make Presentations,through to Environmental Legislation and Policy, to Six Stigma. Thecost of e-learning modules starts at £5 - £10.

Huntingdon Life Sciences achieved immediate cost savings of£250,000 after implementing B-IT training with the NationalSkills Academy for Manufacturing. Over 150 employees targetedprocess improvements as part of their NVQ programme. Theydelivered bottom-line benefits through the rationalisation oflaboratories, better organisation of storage, reduction of floorspace and reduced inventory.

Changing standard operating procedures from paper toelectronic format alone saved at least £50,000; the cost ofarchiving was reduced by 85%; rework was reduced, and 20%was taken out of QA auditing costs.

Jane Pearse, Director of Special Projects, said: “I’ve never seensuch empowerment as I’ve seen with B-IT. Staff are tellingsenior managers about the success of their projects, as they arenow able to measure success and demonstrate savings. Thesense of ownership has been superb. Lean is now firmly part ofour culture.”

Semta works with individual employers to identify and supporttheir individual skills needs. There are four simple steps:

1. Make an appointment with one of our sector experts

2. With Semta’s advice and guidance, create a plan which:

a. Addresses the skills needs of the individual business

b. Identifies sources of training to meet these needs

c. Helps them access any available funding to support thetraining

3. Implement the plan

4. Evaluate the success of the training and consider further skillsneeds.

To find out how employee skills training can boost yourbusiness, contact Semta Customer Services on 0845 643 9001,email [email protected] or visit www.semta.org.uk

In essence, the Science Cluster of Sector Skills Councils is activein representing the employer voice to those responsible foreducational policy. Recent activities include working with awardingbodies to review draft GCSEs in Science, to ensure they are rigorousand more oriented to eventual future employment. IndividualSector Skills Councils are also encouraging a more practical,innovative style of teaching for the delivery of qualifications in theirsectors.

A key function of the cluster is sharing good practice, and Semtais collecting data on members’ current activities. This includesexploring ways in which Sector Skills Councils can work withSTEMNET to recruit STEM ambassadors. Here, Semta is targetingnewly-qualified apprentices and their employers by sending outSTEMNET leaflets with apprenticeship certificates through leadingawarding bodies such as EAL. Within the Science Cluster, Semta isdriving work to ensure that Higher Education providers haveaccurate intelligence on employer demand and to increase thenumber of work placements, particularly among small and mediumsized employers.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


In Vitro Diagnostics, or IVDs,are the tests performed onclinical samples to provideinformation for diagnosing andscreening for disease. The testscan also be used to monitortherapy or rule out putativediagnoses and have anincreasing role to play alongsidedrugs. There are a growingnumber of diagnosticdependent drugs which shouldonly be prescribed for patientswhere a parallel test has shownthe drug will be effective for thatpatient based on the geneticmake-up of the individual or thedisease they are suffering from.It is likely that many more drugswill routinely be used with IVDsin this way in the future,particularly for cancer. There alsowill be IVDs which show if anindividual is responding to aspecific therapy.

Of immediate concern is theability of IVDs to play their rolein cost savings for the NHS overthe next few years. Pathologyservices have been in theheadlights of the QIPP initiativeof the Department of Healthsince its inception in September2009. QIPP is the acronym forQuality, Innovation, Preventionand Procurement, an ongoingproject to identify budgetarysavings while maintaining health

outcomes and patient safety. Inthe final report of the review ofpathology services by LordCarter of Coles (from 2005-2008) it was identified thatthere could be significantsavings made by the re-designof pathology services. There hasbeen a tremendous amount ofwork done in England in the lasteighteen months to do just this,led by the National ClinicalDirector for Pathology Services,Dr Ian Barnes. This has seenimproved utilisation ofnetworked laboratories and arange of other innovationsincluding the joint venturebetween Guys and St Thomas’sNHS Trust and Serco to providea more commercialised serviceunder the name of GSTSPathology. This is a model whichis starting to appear across thecountry in other hospitals andthere are also other privateproviders with an interest indoing similar activities.

However that is the workbeing done to streamline andimprove efficiency of the service.Of the total expenditure onpathology, just under a quarterof the money is actually used topurchase the reagents andequipment to perform thetesting. So industry hasrecognised that it also has a role

to play in making costefficiencies and this issomething which BIVDA and itsmember companies haveviewed as a real opportunity forour sector. We have long beenconcerned that the laboratory isusually viewed as an overheadby hospital management andthat the tests provided are merecommodities. This is far fromthe truth and IVD companies inthe UK have been very eager toparticipate in the QIPP initiativeby providing examples on testswhich can save money andimprove patient outcomes. Formedical technologies this islargely being achieved throughthe iTAPP programme. iTAPP is

How In Vitro Diagnostics canrealise cost savings and improvepatient outcomes for the NHS

Doris-Ann WilliamsDirector General, British In VitroDiagnostics Association

The Department of Health estimate that 4% of the NHS budget isspent on the provision of pathology services which contributeabout 70% of the information used in making clinical decisions.This already represents a great value for money proposition butit is clear that there are opportunities for achieving even morethan this.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


the Innovative TechnologyAdoption ProcurementProgramme and is being run bythe Procurement, Investmentand Commercial Division of theDepartment of Health (PICD)and now under QIPP. It is anactivity reviewing submissionsfrom industry for technologieswith potential for costs, systemsand patients benefits, were theyto be more widely adopted.iTAPP is working also with NHSTechnology Adoption Centre ondeveloping adoption strategies.There are currently 100 differentmedical device and IVDtechnologies being examinedwith a top tier which alone couldrepresent savings in thehundreds of millions of poundsannually.

However adoption of newIVD technology is very complexdue to how the money movesaround the NHS. For example,Payment by Results incentiviseshospitals to perform invasivetests or procedures which couldbe replaced by a moreminimally invasive test usingblood or another biologicalsample. Sometimes these aren’tpleasant but, as an example,providing a faecal sample mustbe less upsetting to individualsthan having to go through acolonoscopy unnecessarily.There is also an increase in

patient safety by using lessinvasive technology. So there isan urgent need for hospitalfinance managers to re-engineertheir systems so that testing isprovided to allow greater savingin other areas.

Increasingly testing is beingdone outside of the laboratoryusing technology developed byIVD manufacturers to be smaller,often portable, straightforward touse but still utilising the sciencewithin the equipment that isused in a laboratory setting. It isnow relatively common formuch testing to be done inwards, operating theatres, criticalcare units etc within a hospital.The best scenario for this iswhere the testing and relatedequipment is centrally managedby the pathology staff so thatthey can ensure the correctmaintenance, staff training andquality assurance is used. It alsooffers better financialmanagement as the sameequipment can then beprovided across the hospital siterather than each departmentmaking their own procurementdecisions in an area where theywill have less expertise thantheir scientific colleagues.

Another area forimprovement is in the utilisationof testing in the community

setting to prevent referral tohospital in many cases. This isalready making significantsavings in some areas ofEngland – for example in theEast of England where manyGPs use a point of care test forD-dimer to rule out a diagnosisof deep vein thrombosis inpeople presenting with clinicalsigns of this condition. Thissaves the cost of an admissionwhen the condition is notpresent and speeds uptreatment for the people whomay have DVT when they reach

hospital. Another example is inthe management of people withchronic obstructive pulmonarydisease (COPD) who are oftenadmitted to hospital at nightwhen there is often no realclinical reason to do so. Portableblood gas meters can now allowa fingerprick of blood to betested in the patient’s home bya community nurse orparamedic and if the gas levelsare normal then the patient canbe reassured and settled withoutbeing taken into hospital. Asconfidence in the use of thesetechnologies grows and withadoption being supportedappropriately then patientoutcomes and care can beincreased while saving moneyon hospital admission andinterventional procedures.

For more information pleasecontactDoris-Ann Williams MBEDirector GeneralBritish In Vitro DiagnosticsAssociation (BIVDA)1 Queen Anne’s GateLondon SW1H 9BTTel 020 7957 4633www.bivda.co.uke-mail [email protected]

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


“At a time when there are close on 400 All-Party Groups inParliament, I always like to remind people that we were the firstsuch Group.

Founded in 1939 amid the perils of the threat of war, thisunique institution came into being as a crucial necessity to guideParliament and the Government on the role of science andtechnology.

In its early years, after the war, it was responsible for securing anumber of innovative changes in the relations between science,Government and Parliament. For instance, it was this Committeewhich started the process that eventually led to the formation ofPOST. It also was very influential in the establishment of the Scienceand Technology Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament –Committees which have a vital role in holding Governments to

account, and helping to ensure that Ministers are kept aware oftrends and discoveries in S and T.

However valuable all this has been and is, we have to recognisethat, as a consequence, the P & Sci no longer occupies the centralrole it once had – particularly in holding Ministers to account.

Yet, successive Officers and Councils have successfully ensuredthat we continue to have a really worthwhile role. We are a uniquefocus and think-tank for science and technology. We are animportant bridge between, on the one hand, scientists, engineersand technologists in industry, academia, the professions, and on theother, Members of both Houses. We can be a platform for thoseable to put forward new ideas which need consideration inParliament; for those who have new scientific advances to report,and for those seeking to influence the research policies of

ANNUAL LUNCHEON OF THEPARLIAMENTARY ANDSCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE The Annual Lunch of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee was held onWednesday, 27th October 2010 in the Cholmondeley Room and Terrace, House of Lords.

The President, The Rt Hon Lord Jenkin of Roding, opened proceedings with a warmwelcome to all present.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


Departments. These are mattersof importance to Governmentsof all persuasions.

It is significant that ourChairman, Andrew Miller MP,was elected to this post shortlybefore he was elected by theHouse of Commons to be theChair of the Select Committeeon Science and Technology. Hisdual role, though no doubt time-consuming, is very valuable inboth jobs.

Enough about us! My mainduty today is to welcome DavidWilletts MP, Minister of State forUniversities and Science, as ourguest speaker.

After leaving university, hebegan his career in the Treasury,progressed to further seniorposts near the centre ofGovernment; and enteredParliament in 1992 as the MPfor Havant. His great abilities –the media do not call him ‘two-brains’ for nothing! – led to earlyfront bench appointments – hedid time as a whip, then aMinister in the Cabinet Office,then Paymaster General, all inhis first term in the House.When David Cameron becameLeader of the Opposition, DavidWilletts was appointed shadowspokesman on Education andSkills, later being promoted tospokesman, shadowing thatcurious but short-livedDepartment of Innovation,Universities and Skills.

Following the 2010 election,David was made Minister ofState for Universities andScience. In that capacity heattends Cabinet. It is widely

recognised in Whitehall, andincreasingly outside, that it wasDavid’s influence and argumentsin the CSR which won such agood settlement for Science. Heis currently involved, togetherwith his Secretary of State, VinceCable, in working out how therecommendations of theBrowne Committee can becarried forward into policydecisions on the future financingof the Universities. He is right atthe centre of the issues that areof great interest to thisCommittee, and we very muchlook forward to hearing what hehas to say to us. Over to you,David!”

DAVID WILLETTS MP

David Willetts thanked LordJenkin for the introduction. “It’s agreat pleasure to be here tocelebrate what has been a greatyear for British science. Whenone thinks of all those NobelPrize winners, it is anextraordinary recognition of thestrength of our science base. Itis also a year where we mark anew vigour in the relationshipsbetween the scientificcommunity and both Houses ofParliament.

The Parliamentary andScientific Committee is hugelyimportant. I only realised when Iread Andrew Miller’s excellentpiece in the most recent editionof Science in Parliament that thegroup was founded in 1939.Lord Jenkin touched on this inhis introduction. One can only

assume that there wasrecognition, with war looming,that investing in, andunderstanding, science andtechnology was going to becrucial. As we all know, the roleof British scientists in the warwas crucial. The extraordinaryproductivity and creativity of thatperiod is something that stillamazes us.

Well, we now have a differenttype of challenge, it’s aneconomic challenge, and it’sone where we have torecognise that our competitorsare themselves investing. AsMartin Rees pointed out sopersuasively in the weeks andmonths running up to thescience settlement, we had totake into account what washappening in other countries.I’m very pleased that with thenew kind of challenges that weface, in the CSR settlement, theCoalition Government didindeed recognise the enormousimportance of science andresearch.

And so it is not so much agreat pleasure as a great reliefthat we got the settlement wedid. Just to take you through thefigures, we have a commitmentto a ring-fenced budget eachyear of £4.6bn. So it’s a secure,ring-fenced budget for the nextfour years. We still have todecide on the exact breakdownof the figures.

Although we have yet todecide on the breakdown of thefigures, as a rough indication Ican tell you in the current yearwe give Research Councils£2.75bn, HEFCE £1.6bn for QRfunding for universities, theAcademies £0.1bn and theHigher Education InnovationFund £0.15bn, which adds up to£4.6bn. That gives you a roughsense of the scale of the flowsof funds that we’re talking about.

It is ring-fenced, it is securebut, of course, the protectedcash settlement that we nowhave presents us all with achallenge – a challenge todeliver efficiency savings. If wecan offset much of the effects ofinflation at 9 or 10% over thenext four years, by delivering thekind of efficiency savings that BillWakeham has identified in hisvery useful report, for example,then we really will be able toensure we have a stable andsecure science base.

So the funding is important.But other things are importantas well. And I just wanted totouch on two others. One thingthat matters is being able toconvert that science spendinginto economic activity andeconomic benefit.

That does not mean thatindividual scientists carrying outtheir research have to beexpected to behave as if they’rebusinessmen. They are not, they

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


have a different set of skills, andthey have a different set ofinterests. We should not expectscientists carrying out theirresearch to be thinking of somecommercial application or otherevery day. That is bad forscience, and in the long run it’sbad for the economy as well.

But we do need people withbroader skill sets who then thinkabout how the ideas emergingfrom our very productive scienceand research base themselveshave a practical industrialapplication. Last week weannounced the CSR settlementfor science. This week we’vebeen able to announce fundingfor Technology and InnovationCentres, as proposed by bothHerman Hauser in his report forthe previous Government andalso by James Dyson in hisreport for my Party. We hopethat the £200m or so that wehave identified to fund those willalso help tackle one of the greatchallenges we’ve always faced inBritain; ensuring that we canmove through those technologyreadiness levels from thescientific research to genuinecommercial applications.

That is a crucial challenge. Iinvite the different experts that Isee here today to start thinkingand advising us on the sectorswhere we need theseTechnology and InnovationCentres and how we definetheir role. Come forward withideas. The next few months are

going to be crucial as wedevelop our plans and I verymuch welcome any input wemay have from theParliamentary and ScientificCommittee, or from the Scienceand Technology SelectCommittees, as we develop ourspecific proposals.

So as well as science, there isa technology and commercialagenda. My third point is theimportance of ensuring thatthose of us in the House ofCommons and House of Lordshave proper access to scientificadvice and information.

We cannot be accused ofslavish devotion to empiricalevidence in day to day politics.Just occasionally the argumentruns free, and perhaps runsrather ahead of the evidencebase that one might require.Fortunately, our speeches do nothave to appear in peer reviewedjournals. Indeed, I evenremember the arguments whenthere was the suggestion thatbasic standards set by theAdvertising Standards Authorityshould apply to politicalspeeches. Even that we had abit of a problem with.

So I have to accept that inpolitics we don’t always matchthe high standards of rigour andevidence that the scientificcommunity expects. However, itis very important that we havethe opportunity to draw onscientific evidence. The

Parliamentary and ScientificCommittee, the ParliamentaryOffice of Science andTechnology and the SelectCommittees all ensure that wedo that.

Finally, there have beensome rather pessimisticcomments that we are losingparliamentarians with scientificknowledge and understanding. Iwant to take you through this,because we have to look at thepicture in the round. Of coursethere are very distinguishedparliamentarians, with a closeinterest in science, who havesadly stood down. I saw IanTaylor here for example, whomade a fantastic contributionover the years in the House ofCommons and who is no longera colleague.

But at the same time wehave new members ofparliament joining us with aninterest in science. I see oppositeme George Freeman, who reallyknows about this and it’s great

that George is here today.Although it went very muchagainst the grain, we actuallycommissioned a small bit ofempirical research on this. I canreport to this group that beforeMay, based on the calculationswe made, there were 65Members of Parliament who hada degree level qualification inscience or engineering. Since theelection in May there are stillapproximately 65 Members ofParliament with a degree inscience or engineering.

So we have at leastmaintained what I can only call aprotected base. We havesecured, once again, stability. Wemay wish to have an increasebut at least we have stability. Wehave frozen it at that nominallevel of 65. I hope youappreciate what an achievementthat is! Of course if we can buildon that base it would beexcellent, but at least we havethat as a secure base fromwhich we can start. Thank youvery much indeed.

Following a brief discussion,the Chairman, Andrew Miller MP,then proposed a vote of thanksto David Willetts for thisdemonstration of his unfailingconfidence in and strongencouragement and support forScience, Technology, Engineeringand Mathematics and all thosewho contribute towards this aimas key components in therecovery of the UK from thedepths of the economicdownturn.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


ENGINEERING INREGENERATIVE MEDICINE

Professor Molly M StevensDepartment of Materials,Department of Bioengineering &Institute for BiomedicalEngineering, Imperial CollegeLondon

HOW ENGINEERING PROVIDES BETTER HEALTHCARE Meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on Tuesday 16th November 2010

There are few things morefascinating, and more difficult torecreate, than the naturalprocesses involved in thegrowth and development ofanimal and human life. From theembryo, cells grow and divide,transforming into a myriad ofdifferent cells types defined bymolecular and cellular signalsand events (differentiation).

The goal of tissueengineering (TE) is to replicatesome of these complexprocesses to replace andregenerate lost tissue. Decadesof research now seem set topay off in the treatment of amultitude of debilitating anddeadly conditions such asmyocardial infarction, spinalinjury, osteoarthritis,osteoporosis, diabetes, livercirrhosis and retinopathy.

The general strategy is toseed cells within a scaffold, astructural device that defines thegeometry of the replacementtissue and providesenvironmental cues thatpromote tissue regeneration. TEskin equivalents have been inclinical use since 1997 andother TE devices currently inclinical trials or in use includethose for cartilage, bone, bloodvessel and pancreas. TEbladders and sections of thetrachea have been successfullyemployed in humans.

Even without interventionfrom scientists, human tissuehas a staggering capacity to self-regenerate. For example, ahuman liver can regrow to itsprevious size when as much as

half of it has been removed.Bone, skin and several othertissues are also able to self-regenerate to fill injuries up to acritical size, often aided by stemcells present naturally in thebody. These stem cells can bestimulated in the presence ofthe correct conditions to growinto multiple different cell types.Thus complex tissue can beproduced by using andenhancing the body’s ownsystems.

As well as requiringinformation from each other,cells derive information fromtheir environments, including thematerial that surrounds themwithin tissues, namely the extracellular matrix (ECM). A TEmaterial scaffold must take onthis instructive role to maintaincell viability and control cellbehaviour. Mechanisms for suchinstruction can be both chemicaland physical, and include thedegree of physical support,geometry, and directionalflexibility, as well as numerouschemical signals that lead tocascades of intra- andextracellular events.

THE VALUE IN TAKING AMULTIDISCIPLINARYAPPROACH

Research in regenerativemedicine within the Stevensgroup at Imperial CollegeLondon includes the directeddifferentiation of stem cells, thedesign of novel bioactivescaffolds and new approachestowards tissue regeneration. Wehave developed novelapproaches to tissue

engineering that are likely toprove very powerful in theengineering of large quantities ofhuman mature bone fortransplantations in which thedonor is also the recipient, aswell as other vital organs suchas liver and pancreas. Suchtargets have proven elusive withother approaches. To achievethese diverse aims we employcollaboration with numerouspartners and have amultidisciplinary team consistingof members with backgroundsacross:

• Biomedical Engineering• Bioengineering• Materials Engineering• Chemical Engineering• Electrical Engineering• Mechanical Engineering• Surgery• Chemistry• Cell biology• Physics

With the combinedknowledge from all of thesediverse fields, successfuldevelopment of tissueengineering is greatly facilitated.

REGROWING BONES

Bone tissue is of particularinterest due to its highlycomplex architecture thatcontains many blood vesselsand covers several length scales(macro to nano), importantstructural function, regulationrole of calcium and phosphatelevels within the body, and itshigh regenerative capacity. Themajority of bone fractures healthemselves without the need formedical intervention, however in

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


or “bioreactor” in the bodybetween a bone and theperiosteum (a membrane thatsurrounds all the major bones).A cavity is first created betweenthe bone and periosteum by theinjection of a salt solution. Thiscavity is then filled with abioactive gel containing calciumto trigger the production of freshlayers of bone in the in vivobioreactor. New bone tissuegrows from stem cells in theperiosteum into the bioactive geland rapidly fills the bioreactorspace. The new bone can thenbe easily harvested andtransplanted elsewhere in thebody without major trauma tothe harvest site unlike withtraditional bone harvesting frombody sites such as the iliac crest.This reduces long-term morbidityand pain for the patient.Cartilage can also be producedusing a similar concept using adifferent biomaterials gelformulation.

STRONTIUM – THE VITALINGREDIENT

Bioceramics form aparticularly strong bond withliving tissue by formation of ahard bone-like layer on thesurface, and they have beenused to repair hard tissue in avariety of craniofacial,maxillofacial and periodontalapplications. We have recentlyshown that if the bioceramicused contains strontium then ithas the potential to combine theknown bone regenerativeproperties of such glasses withthe positive effects on themetabolism (anabolic) andslowing of tissue-breakdown(catabolic effects) demonstratedby strontium cations.

It is thought that this result iscaused by a synergistic effect ofstrontium on the action of thebioceramics, which releasecalcium, silicon, and other vitalbone-growing minerals toencourage bone growth. When

implanted into a bone defect,the released strontiumstimulates osteoblasts (bonecells) to make new bone andprevents it from being resorbedby osteoclast cells. The newbone is significantly stronger andof higher quality than ifstrontium is not incorporatedinto the material.

FROM BENCH TOBEDSIDE

Repregen™ Ltd, formerlyBioCeramic Therapeutics Ltduntil March 2010, is a spin-outcompany from ImperialInnovations plc co-founded in2006 with Professor Stevensand headquartered within theImperial College Incubator.RepRegen Ltd is a medicaldevice company that usespatent-pending repair andregeneration technologyplatforms designed to mendand regrow hard tissue such asbone and soft tissue such ascartilage.

An ageing population and anincrease of high risk sports haveled to a surge of bone-relateddiseases and bone fractures. Asa result, the use of bone graftsubstitutes has dramaticallyincreased in the last decade.There are currently no syntheticproducts on the market withperformance that is comparableto biologics such as BoneMorphogenetic Proteins and thegold standard autograft.

RepRegen Ltd’s platform ofstrontium bone graft substitutesfor hard tissue regenerationoffers improved performanceover conventional bone graftmaterials. The first product,StronBone™, recently receivedEU regulatory approval fororthopaedic, spinal and dentalbone grafting indications. Thecompany has a series ofstrontium bioceramic products inthe pipeline which will build onthis first product including aputty and porous bone graft.

RepRegen have shown thatstrontium is highly beneficial tobone cells and enhancedmineralisation and have alsodemonstrated this in vivo withrapid formation of high quality,mechanically competent bone.In fact significantly higher qualitybone is formed with theincorporation of strontium intothe biomaterial.

There are over 50 syntheticproducts on the market withlittle to distinguish them fromeach other. RepRegen’s productsoffer a number of firsts whichwill clearly distinguish them inthe market. If the NHS were toadopt these products, this wouldresult in worldwide exposureand also result in the significantcost savings outlined above.RepRegen’s StronBone™ issignificantly cheaper tomanufacture than biologics suchas Bone MorphogeneticProteins. Adoption of StronBonein the NHS would aim to resultin faster patient recovery, fewercomplications and implantfailures due to infections,reducing costs to the NHS andburden on society and theeconomy in general.

Select bibliography:

Complexity in biomaterials for tissueengineering, E. S. Place, N. D. Evans, andM. M. Stevens, Nature Materials, June2009, 8, 457-470.

Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering,M. M. Stevens, Materials Today, May2008, 11, 5, 18-25.

In vivo engineering of organs: The bonebioreactor, M. M. Stevens, R. P. Marini, D.Schaefer, J. Aronson, R. Langer, and V. P.Shastri, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, August 2005, 102,32, 11450-11455.

The effects of strontium-substitutedbioactive glasses on osteoblasts andosteoclasts in vitro, E. Gentleman, Y. C.Fredholm, G. Jell, N. Lotfibakhshaiesh, M.D. O’Donnell, R. G. Hill, and M. M.Stevens, Biomaterials, 2010, 31, 3949-3956.

For more information go towww3.imperial.ac.uk/people/m.stevens and www.repregen.com

some cases such as removal oftumours, this self-regenerationmust be supplemented withgrafted cells from elsewhere inthe body. Harvesting of suchautologous bone tissue islimited by supply and bynegative effects on the donorsite, which make TE of bonehighly desirable.

Bone repair and replacementis also an importantconsideration in an ageingpopulation. The number of age-related bone replacements suchas primary knee arthroplasties isincreasing rapidly; already 16%of the US population is over 65years of age and this looks setto rise. Overall, globally, thereare around 1 million bonedefects annually that requiregrafting to repair.

Bone has specificrequirements that differ fromthose of other bodily tissues,which must be considered inthe engineering of bone tissue.Ideally, the template or scaffoldfor bone TE should be bioactive,contributing actively towards celldifferentiation, encouragingdirectional bone growth andafterwards being reabsorbed orreplaced by the body. Materialsfor such scaffolds usedcommonly include bioactiveglasses, bioceramics, orpolymers in the form ofnanofibres or compositematerials; they must be porous,functional, and, of course,biocompatible. Biologicalcomponents from the ECM suchas proteins that “switch on”certain cellular signals are oftenincorporated into the scaffolds.

SIMPLE MATERIALS CANSOMETIMESREGENERATE EVENCOMPLEX TISSUES

Our developed concept thatallowed the engineering of largevolumes of bone in apredictable manner relied onthe creation of an artificial space

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


INTRODUCTION

Developments in the lastdecade have led to mobilecommunications technologiesbecoming a new tool for thedelivery of healthcare. It is only25 years since the UK cellulartelephony service, as it wascalled then, was launched. Asrecently as 10 years ago, the linkbetween mobile phones andhealth was seen in an entirelynegative light. Exposure toelectromagnetic radiation closeto the brain, through the use ofa mobile phone, was perceivedas giving rise to an increased riskof developing a brain tumour,and all mobile phones had to beswitched off inside hospitalsbecause of “possible interferencewith medical equipment”.

What changed between 2000and 2010? A number of studies,for example the report fromProfessor Sir William Stewart in2000 as well as two reportsfrom the World HealthOrganisation and a paper in theBritish Medical Journal inJanuary 2006 (SJ Hepworth, MJSchoemaker, KR Muir et alMobile phone use and risk of

glioma in adults: case-controlstudy) showed that there wereminimal health risks associatedwith mobile phone use, althoughchildren under the age of 16 arestill advised to limit the time theyspend on calls.

The introduction of GPRS(General Packet Radio Service),sometimes known as 2.5G, in2002 made it possible to havetwo-way real-time transfer ofdata to and from a remotecomputer server. Today, mobiletelephony, which includes voice,text messaging (SMS) and dataservices, has become the mostwidespread communicationinfrastructure in the world, with80% of the world’s populationliving within range of a cellularnetwork. The mobile phone isboth a data entry device with akeyboard and a data reviewdevice with a colour screen.Mobile phones have nowbecome tools to facilitate thedelivery of healthcare services,based on the secure exchangeof medical data, and leading to anew term, “mHealth”, the use ofmobile communicationstechnologies in health solutions.

LONG-TERMCONDITIONS

A 2010 report from McKinsey(mHealth: A new vision forhealthcare) warns that, if currenttrends continue, spending onhealthcare will consume anunsustainable proportion of thewealth of developed nations, upto 25% of gross domesticproduct (GDP), with themanagement of long-termconditions accounting for 80% ofthe growth in costs. Long-term

conditions (also called chronicdiseases) are defined by theWorld Health Organisation ashealth problems that requireongoing management over aperiod of years or decades.Innovative methods are requiredto address this challenge, andmHealth is highlighted in thereport as having the potential toachieve significant reductions inthe cost burden of long-termconditions.

In the UK there are 17.5million people with a long-termcondition. Some 12 million ofthese suffer from the mostcommon conditions, namelydiabetes, hypertension, asthmaor chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease – COPD. In the UnitedStates, long-term conditions affect130 million people, generatinghealthcare costs of approximately$1.4 trillion per annum overall.Around 80% of GP consultationsrelate to long-term conditionsand patients with theseconditions or their complicationsuse over 60% of hospital days.Type 2 diabetes is the fastestgrowing disease in thedeveloped world as a result ofpoor diet and obesity, and theWorld Health Organisation haspredicted that long-termconditions will be the leadingcause of disability by 2020.

Improved self-management,coupled with regular educationand support, is seen as the bestmeans of slowing the inexorablerise of healthcare spending onlong-term conditions, through areduction in the number ofunplanned hospital admissions,emergency visits to the GPsurgery or days off work.

HOW ENGINEERING ISHELPING

The challenge today is tocreate sustainable, large-scaleprogrammes that can supportself-management of long-termconditions without being a drainon healthcare resources. Patientswith a mild or moderate form ofa long-term condition expect tolead a normal life and do notwant to change their routine orbe confined to one location forself-monitoring. The mobilephone can be used not only totransmit self-monitoring data andpatient diaries to a remote serverbut also to provide real-timefeedback, which increasespatient compliance. Transmissionof the encrypted data from thephone to the server using GPRSor 3G is a secure process.Algorithms running on the servercan then prioritise patients for“telehealth nurses” to review andcall on their mobile phone,whenever appropriate, withoutthe costs of frequent visits to thepatient’s home.

Telehealth services (or“remote health monitoring”) arefocused mainly on two types ofpopulations, with differenteconomic cases. One typetargets patients with COPD orchronic heart failure, for example,those who have a high risk ofexperiencing an expensive careepisode, such as an unplannedhospital admission. The secondtype is more concerned with thelong-term benefits of self-management for conditions suchas diabetes. Here the targetpopulation is more likely to beyounger, more active and earlyadopters of new technology.

mHEALTH – MOBILE PHONESFOR HEALTHCARE

Professor Lionel Tarassenko, FREngProfessor of Electrical EngineeringDirector, Institute of BiomedicalEngineeringUniversity of Oxford

HOW ENGINEERING PROVIDES BETTER HEALTHCARE

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


Advances in modern medicine have led to increased life

expectancy and we all expect to live longer. A fifty year old

today may well live for another fifty years and may well walk up

to another 100 million steps in the second half of their lifetime.

Our musculoskeletal system starts to age and degenerate at

around the age of fifty. As we age, we need to keep active in

order to avoid other co-morbidities, remain healthy and

continue to contribute to society and the economy. The ageing

population, the so called “silver tsunami” is now one of the

major societal challenges.

MEDICAL ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FOR“FIFTY ACTIVE YEARS AFTER FIFTY”How can we be more active and live more healthilyfor the second half of our lives?

John Fisher and Eileen InghamInstitute of Medical and BiologicalEngineeringUniversity of Leeds

HOW ENGINEERING PROVIDES BETTER HEALTHCARE

The concept of mHealth canbenefit both groups, although ithas so far been mostly deployedamong the second group. Oneof the main barriers to theadoption of mHealth by the firstgroup has been the small anddifficult-to-use keyboards oftoday’s mobile phones, but thisis being eroded by theintroduction of the newgeneration of smart phones withlarge icons on touch-sensitivescreens. It is essential thatmHealth solutions are designedfor the requirements of theirtarget population, which can varywidely: an application to helpteenagers manage their diabeteswill be very different from oneused by elderly patients tomonitor their blood pressurefollowing their discharge fromhospital after a stroke. Both ofthese have been successfullydeveloped at the University ofOxford and adopted byhundreds of patients (seehttp://www.ibme.ox.ac.uk/bspand www.obsmedical.com/products/telehealth/).

OTHER APPLICATIONSOF MHEALTH

Other mHealth services arealso being developed in marketsoutside the management oflong-term conditions. Forexample, the automatic sendingof text messages to remindpatients of appointments iswidespread within the NHS.Similarly, text-messagereminders can help promoteadherence to medicationregimens, by promptingindividuals to take theirmedication and encouragingthem to complete theirtreatments. The Pill Phone, amobile medication reminderfrom a US company, tellspatients when they should taketheir medicine. MedicationTracker, MedsLog and Pillbox areamong the most popularmedication trackers in theiPhone store. Text messaginghas also been used to improvesuccess rates in smokingcessation programmes.

Recently mHealth has begunto have an impact in the

developing world, albeit mostlythrough pilot projects at thisstage. Three quarters of mobilephone users are in developingcountries. Making sure that thereis the right amount of malariadrugs at the hospital or thehealth centre where they aredispensed is a hard logisticalproblem in sub-Saharancountries, which mobile phonetechnology is helping to solve.Mobile phone applications havealso been developed toempower community healthworkers, allowing them to recordmedical information in patients’homes and uploading it to abasic electronic health record.

FUTURE WORK

Before any new drug ormedical device can beintroduced into the market-place, evidence is required of itssafety and efficacy. BecausemHealth is a technology basedon self-monitoring, there are nosafety implications as it isgenerally accepted that the useof a mobile phone carries nohealth risks. There are now

several thousand healthcareapplications for the iPhone.

But the sustained use ofmobile phones for healthcarewill depend on evidencegathered in clinical studiesdemonstrating improved patientoutcomes, for example anincrease in the long-term controlof blood glucose levels inpeople with diabetes or fewerexacerbations in people withrespiratory conditions such asasthma or COPD.

The new generation of smartphones and tablets (iPads)based around either the iPhoneOperating System (OS) or itsopen-source alternative, theAndroid OS, has the potential toprovide a generic mHealthplatform, usable across the long-term condition spectrum. Withthe computing power availableon these new devices, mHealthwill deliver software applicationswhich can be optimised for theindividual and integrated intocare pathways so as tomaximise the productivity ofhealthcare workers.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


patented. Research work isongoing for blood vessels,cartilage and bone and othersoft and hard tissue compositegrafts. This family ofregenerative biological scaffoldsrepresents a paradigm shift inmedical technologies and tissuereplacement, directly addressingthe needs of the ageingpopulation.

The Institute of Medical andBiological Engineering and itspartners in the WELMEC Centreof Excellence in MedicalEngineering, the IKCRTDInnovation and KnowledgeCentre in RegenerativeTherapies and Devices,regeNer8 Centre forTranslational RegenerativeMedicine integratemultidisciplinary research,innovation, translation andproduct development, with 200research staff, 50 industrypartners and 50 clinicalcollaborators addressing thechallenges of “50 active yearsafter 50”. With our academic,clinical and industry partners weare developing a novelapproach to establishing aresearch led technology andinnovation centre in medicaltechnologies.

Research and innovation issupported by EPSRC, theWellcome Trust, TechnologyStrategy Board, BBSRC, EU,NIHR, NIH, MRC, DOH, NHSBT,CHSF, FCRF, Arthritis UK andover 30 industry partners.

For example, it is estimatedthat the number of jointreplacements implantedworldwide will increase fivefoldto 5 million by 2030. Thesejoint replacements will have tolast longer and meet higherpatient expectations anddemand. Medical engineeringcan provide solutions for repair,restoration and replacement oftissues in the musculoskeletaland cardiovascular systems tohelp keep the ageing populationhealthy and provide “fifty activeyears after fifty”. This papersummarises past medicalengineering achievements,recent advances in longer lastingjoint replacements and researchinto the future potential ofregenerative biological scaffolds.The examples cited demonstratethe importance of integratingresearch, innovation andcommercialisation, andpartnership working betweenuniversities, industry andhealthcare providers.

Total artificial hip jointreplacements were invented inthe UK in 1960 and have beenmanufactured here for over 50years. The traditional designs,made from metal onpolyethylene, provide pain reliefand mobility for the elderlypopulation, over 65 years. Ourresearch has shown that whenused in younger more activepatients, the conventional designresults in long term failure dueto adverse reactions to theincreased load of polyethylenewear products. This has definedthe need for lower wearing andlonger lasting joint replacements.

We have also researched anddeveloped replacement heartvalves. Chemically treatedbioprosthetic heart valves whichwere researched, designed anddeveloped in the University,were licensed to a local startupcompany and have beenmanufactured in the UK for overtwenty years. These traditionalmedical devices have providedeffective technology solutionsfor the elderly, but do notaddress the needs of thecurrent ageing population.

Over the last twenty years,one area of our research hasfocused on reducing wear andimproving the longevity of jointreplacements. We haveresearched novel hard on hardbearings, and our uniqueceramic-on-metal hip joint hasdemonstrated extremely lowwear and extended life times. Ithas been licensed to a globalcompany and is now soldworldwide for use in youngactive and high demandpatients. In the knee we haveredefined the scientific laws ofthe wear of polyethylene, andthis has led to theunderstanding of lower wearingdesign solutions, which are nowmarketed worldwide. Oneexample, the partial kneereplacement, which allows earlyintervention and preservesnatural tissue, has been shownto have tenfold less wear thanconventional knee designs.During this period we havedeveloped the largest simulationfacility in the world for artificialjoints, which allows us to studynew materials and pre-clinically

evaluate new technologysolutions and designs, thusimproving performance,reliability and safety of devicesthat are implanted in the body.

Our current and futureresearch is focused onregenerative biological scaffolds.These are scaffolds of biologicalorigin, which uniquely replicatethe structure and function of thetissue from which they arederived. When implanted in thepatient they regenerate with thepatients own cells. We believethat by replicating tissue specificarchitecture, structure andfunction, that the cells aresubjected to the appropriatetissue specific environment,signals and strains, which willdrive them to differentiate downthe correct tissue specificlineages.

Research on biologicalscaffolds is being translatedthrough University spin outcompany Tissue Regenix Group,recently listed on AIM and alsothrough NHS Blood & TransplantTissue Services. Current clinicalproducts include the dCELL®vascular patch for blood vesselrepair, a pulmonary valvereplacement scaffold currently inclinical studies, and a dermalproduct for skin repair. Biologicalscaffolds for meniscus repair arecurrently under commercialdevelopment by Tissue RegenixGroup. Unique biologicalscaffolds for ligament andbladder repair have been

. . . we have developed the largest

simulation facility in the world for

artificial joints . .

. . . Our current and future research

is focused on regenerative biological

scaffolds. . .

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


THE CODE FORSUSTAINABLE HOMESSt John’s Vicarage, Wembley for the London Diocesan Fund

The London DiocesanFund, in partnershipwith ASRA GreaterLondon HousingAssociation, havecommissioned a newvicarage in the parishof Wembley, St Johnas part of a mixed usedevelopment includingsocial housing and achurch hall. Thisvicarage is one of thefirst in the countrydesigned to complywith Level 6 of theCode for SustainableHomes (the Code)and demonstrates theFund’s commitment tosustainability and theenvironment. Thispaper explores keyissues relating to theCode and theexperiences of thisproject.

What is a Code 6 dwelling?The Code is an environmental

assessment method developedfor the Department forCommunities and LocalGovernment in 2007 for new-build dwellings. It is nowmandatory to assess all newdwellings in England under thisscheme. The Code rates thesustainability of the dwelling byawarding credits across a numberof categories including energyusage, pollution and waste, andhealth and wellbeing. Itaddresses both construction and‘in-use’ aspects of the dwelling;Code 1 being the lowest leveland Code 6, the highest,achieving a sustainable zerocarbon home.

What makes this a Code 6dwelling compared to astandard new-build dwelling?

The Code 6 detailed vicaragespecification by Wilson StephenAssociates, the Fund’s projectmanagers, required the energyrating of the dwelling to havemore than a 100%improvement above the BuildingRegulations notional building asdefined in Approved DocumentPart L and the SAP calculationmethodology. The required CO2

emissions are zero, necessitatingrenewable technologies designedto offset all the emissionsproduced from the heating, hotwater systems and occupant’sappliances.

The vicarage includescontrolled water usage, rainwaterharvesting, vertical-bore groundsource heat pumps, whole-houseventilation with heat recovery and

photovoltaic arrays. Grey-waterharvesting was not necessary.The success of the design verymuch depends on the attentionto detail from the maincontractor, Galliford TryPartnership, and rigorousmonitoring of the constructionprocesses is ongoing inconjunction with BSRIA Limited,the Fund’s appointed Codeconsultant. High standards ofinsulation and air-tightness arekey to minimising heat loss.

The Church Commissioners’publication, Parsonages: ADesign Guide, details therecommendations for vicaragedesign and performance butdiffers slightly in emphasis to theCode. However, there is sufficientflexibility within the interpretationof both requirements to procurean acceptable design solution.

What are the planningconsiderations?

The Code 6 dwelling createdplanning benefits. The retentionof the existing ecologicalinfrastructure along withenhanced landscaping provisionsand sustainable on-site energygeneration was well received.Such proposals along withcompliance to Lifetime Homesstandards are likely to find favourwith the published policies ofmost planning authorities.However, early consultation withplanning authorities is essentialas the physical characteristics ofthe technologies required toachieve Code 6 affect a widerange of parameters includingroof design, aspect, impact oflocal environment and day-lighting.

Karen SmithLondon DiocesanFund

What site considerations areapplicable for a Code 6dwelling?

A Code 6 dwelling is likely tobe more readily achievable on abrown-field site with low or littleexisting ecological value andminimal solar shading. Anassessment of the intendedtechnologies on the surroundingenvironment is also importantrequiring particular attention toground conditions and waterpermeability.

This vicarage site provedparticularly challenging in relationto building aspect and solarshading but notwithstandingthese conditions, a solution hasbeen developed through theemployer’s agent, Cyril Silver &Partners LLP, and architects,Calford Seaden LLP.

Could anyone build it?A Code 6 dwelling can be

constructed by any competentcontractor; however extensivetechnical knowledge andexperienced design andconstruction management areessential. The process typicallyinvolves extensive administrationincluding construction materialsource certification, designassessments, CO2 monitoring,SAP production and analysis andwaste recycling. The Galliford TryPartnership’s in-house projectteam enables them to deliver therequired holistic constructionapproach.

Do Code 6 properties have tobe new-build?

The Code is designed fornew-build dwellings only.Refurbished properties use the

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


constraints, ground conditionsand renewable technologiesinstalled.

What would the carbonfootprint be of a Code 6dwelling?

A Code 6 dwelling is zerocarbon operationally with thepredicted occupancy energy loadbeing displaced throughrenewable technologies. Carbonfootprints, however, will vary butthe vicarage dwelling emission

rate is anticipated to be - 5.25 KgCO2/m²/yr.

How much energy does aCode 6 dwelling save?

A Code 6 vicarage shouldproduce significant energysavings compared to a standarddwelling. However, mostelectricity-generating renewabletechnologies cannot operate atpeak generation throughout theyear. This vicarage energy targetis 5072 kWh/yr compared to

14193kWh/yr for a Part L 2010dwelling or 164193 kWh/yr for aPart L 2006 dwelling.

For more information contact:London Diocesan Fund:Michael [email protected] Diocesan Fund:Karen [email protected] Stephen Associates:Ryan Bunce, [email protected] t: 020 7803 0450

BRE EcoHomes 2006 scheme,although a DomesticRefurbishment Assessmentscheme is currently being trialled.

What is the percentage ofadditional costs to build a Code6 over a standard dwelling?

A straightforward new vicaragewould normally equate to Code 3level. The financial uplift toachieve the vicarage Code 6 is22%. Clearly, each project willdiffer depending on site

TESTING TIMES - NEW IDEASDr Steve Thompson, Science and Innovation Promoter,British High Commission, New Zealand

Policy directions in manycountries are moving to linkscience closely with innovationand commercial exploitation.New Zealand and Britain are noexceptions and both countriesare strengthening their incentivesfor adding commercial valuefrom science. There is a naturalfit between New Zealand’spractical creativity and the UK’sown innovation system, whichcan combine to access capitaland penetrate world markets.

The UK addedencouragement to UK-NZ linkswith the creation in 2007 of aScience and Innovation Promoter(SIP) position at the HighCommission in Wellington. TheSIP’s aim is to develop practicaland commercialisable researchcollaborations between the UKand New Zealand.

The first year of operationwas characterised by start-upand two missions to NZ:Greenhouse Gases and Ag/Bio.Subsequent missions haveconcentrated on the

Ag/Bio/Food area, Clean Energyand Technology, Textiles, Sensorsand Extremophiles (organismswhich live in extremeconditions). Results over thethree years to date have reapedover 50 “Significant Assists”, and7 concrete collaborationsinstigated by, plus a further 5collaborations assisted by, theSIP.

Times are tough in bothcountries right now, andredoubled efforts are needed tobuild new collaborations. Closeliaison with UKTI’s New Zealandteam ensures that thesemissions are jointly advertised tocover the spectrum from R&Dthrough to investment, andtrade, with UKTI beingresponsible for trade andinvestment. The SIP is able tobid for BIS funding to assistmissions, while UKTI mustcharge for many of its services. Ithas thus been important todefine the area(s) of commoninterest and the point at whichthe research role hands over toUKTI, and a set of liaison

principles has been evolved overtime:

1. The SIP’s remit starts at theresearch end of the spectrumin order not to invade UKTIspace, but the focus is oncommercially-orientatedresearch - ie collaborationswhich stand a good chance ofdeveloping exploitable IP. Thismay involve researchorganisations with acommercial orientation and/orthe research arms ofcompanies.

2. The SIP can bid for BISfunding to assist visits, as longas the visitors a) candemonstrate their interest atthe research end of thespectrum, b) are seriouslyinterested in collaboration, andc) couldn't come withoutassistance.

3. The SIP keeps UKTI Aucklandinformed as ideas for missionsare developed. As the interestsof mission participantsbecome clear, UKTI Aucklandidentifies those participants

who might benefit from, andbe chargeable for, its services.If an investment angleemerges from an R&D visit,this is passed to UKTI tofollow through.

Concrete collaborations arethe name of the game, butbehind the scorecard, muchwork goes into nurturingpromising linkages in both theUK and New Zealand. Seminarsand workshops give NewZealanders an up-to-date pictureof UK capabilities, but UKorganisations are often unsure ofNZ capabilities and are unwillingto visit unless some brokeringhas taken place beforehand. Anew initiative this year will be totwin UK S&I organisations withtheir counterparts in NewZealand, so that a natural streamof information flows betweenthe two countries.

And on top of that, there’sthe rugby world cup towards theend of 2011. Now that’s a goodreason to visit!

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


the Women in Science – Policyand Networking Conference. Itprovides a forum in whichscientists and engineers at thebeginning of their careers canmeet those involved in theprocesses of developing andimplementing policies that are,or should be, underpinned byscientific evidence. We have runa series of these workshops overthe last two years and havebeen encouraged by how thescientific community hasresponded to them.

Most workshops were held inLondon, often in the Palace ofWestminster, but also in venuesprovided by Learned Societiesand Trade Associations. It is notsurprising therefore that thegreat majority of the participantscame from institutions andorganisations in London and theHome Counties. However wealso had delegates from as farafield as the West Country, theMidlands, Scotland and Wales. Inaddition to the London-basedevents two workshopssponsored by the University ofEast Anglia were held inNorwich and a further twoworkshops were run as part ofthe NESTA Crucible Labprogramme. In all over 380people have attended one ofthese workshops the greatmajority (70%) being youngresearchers – PhD students andPost-doctoral fellows – but theyalso attracted a significantnumber of people from outside

BUILDING BRIDGES – LAYINGDOWN SOME FOUNDATIONS

Developments in Science, Engineering and Technology have muchto offer Society yet many of the difficulties of transferringscientific evidence into strategies, policies and regulations stillremain.

Newton’s Apple Foundationwas founded in 2006 with theobjective of acting as a bridgebetween the science andengineering communities andpolicy makers in Governmentand Parliament (Science inParliament (2008) vol 65 page4). We believe that such bridgesare even more important todaythan they were in 2006.Developments in Science,Engineering and Technologyhave much to offer society yetmany of the difficulties oftransferring scientific evidenceinto strategies, policies andregulations still remain. We sawit as a particular challenge toencourage younger scientistsand engineers to engage withpolicy issues which affect theway they work, or to which theirown research could make acontribution; and to understandthe governmental andparliamentary structures andprocesses involved.

We therefore established agroup of relevant expertscharged with the task of lookingat how we could meet thischallenge. They devised the“Newton’s Heirs Introduction toScience Policy Programme.” Thisprogramme, launched inWestminster in October 2008,delivers workshops and wasinformed by our experience ofrunning science policy events forthe annual NESTA Crucible Labprojects, the British AssociationCommunication Conference and

Dr Michael W ElvesChairman Newton’s Apple Foundation

academia, including ResearchCouncil HQs and LearnedSociety staff and from industry.

Each workshop providesparticipants with a briefintroduction to the way thatGovernment and Parliament arestructured, and how the policyand legislative processes areoperated. Participants hear talksfrom a panel of experts in thevarious fields of policyformulation including an MP,someone with experience of aGovernment Department(usually a civil servant) and arepresentative of a LearnedSociety, with sometimes aspeaker from industry withexperience of science policyissues. In addition each isprovided with copies of ourthree booklets “Science PolicyExplained and Explored” and“How Policy is made – a ShortGuide” and “A Directory ofuseful Science Policy Websites.”The latter was created inresponse to requests fromparticipants in the first workshopand includes web addresses forGovernment Departments,Parliamentary SelectCommittees, the major LearnedSocieties and other relevantbodies. An important part of theworkshop is the discussionperiod which provides anopportunity for questions to beraised and issues discussed withthe panel members. Thediscussion period is so popularthat it often continues informally

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32

priorities and strengths of the two countries, the capacity to deliverexcellent research and the potential for co-investment from China(and from other UK sources) to support the delivery. As in science,we think that excellence and openness are vital for success ininternational innovation.”

Dr Cable also announced that British company MRCT has signedagreements with Chinese companies to connect innovativeresearch in the UK with development capabilities in China. Thisincludes jointly developing a new drug for cancer.

Dr Cable highlighted the UK plans to promote technology-basedinnovation as a key driver of growth, as set out in the UK’s Blueprintfor Technology, launched by the Prime Minister on 4 November.


Business Secretary Vince Cable announced a joint investmentproject between the UK and China on solar energy and fuel cells.

The Research Councils UK Energy Programme will invest £2.45million and will work together with the Chinese Academy ofSciences to provide equivalent resources to fund the research.

Vince Cable’s speech outlined the UK’s ambitions for building onits science and innovation relationship with China and his ambitionfor an open international framework to promote innovation.

Extracts from the speech include the following:

“The UK envisages an ambitious programme of researchengagement with China over the next five years. This recognises the

Business Secretary announces joint UK/ChinaInvestment in Solar Energy and Fuel Cells

with individual speakers after themeeting has ended.

The workshops highlightchannels through whichscientists and engineers mayengage with policy formulationprocesses by providing theirviews, expert opinions andevidence when scientific issuesare raised, or matters affectingthe way science is conductedare involved;

• By responding to GovernmentConsultations, Green Papersand Inquiries;

• By providing evidence torelevant Select CommitteeInquiries;

• By supporting Policy Groupswithin their Learned Societiesand becoming involved withthe production of ‘positionpapers’; and

• By acting as mentors toconstituency MPs helpingthem understand the scientificmethod, the processes

involved in research and theinterpretation of scientific data.

Participant feedback providesus with information about theimpact the workshops have ontheir understanding of policyformulation and implementationprocesses. Participants are askedto place their understanding ofscience policy and the processesinto one of four levels beforeand after the event:

1. No understanding

2. Some understanding

3. Good understanding

4. In-depth understanding

The majority of participants(over 90%) came to theworkshops claiming no, or onlysome, knowledge of sciencepolicy and the policy processes.At the end of the event themajority felt that theirunderstanding had increased byat least one level (72%) and insome cases (17%) by twolevels – or even three levels! A

more detailed report on theworkshops may be found onour website (www.newtons-apple.org.uk)

We have discovered thatthere is a real and growinginterest amongst the youngergeneration of scientists in policymatters and a thirst forknowledge about the processes,and how they may becomeinvolved. All of our events havebeen greatly oversubscribedwithin a few days of beingadvertised. It is of particularinterest that we have found anincreasing number of questionsat these events which centrearound careers in the policyarena. A small number ofparticipants have even gone onto take up temporary jobs asinterns, fellows, etc inorganisations that provide themwith some hands-on experience.The workshops are thereforemeeting a real need in thescientific community and arelaying down some foundations

in the building of the bridgebetween scientists and policymakers. We are therefore greatlyencouraged as we moveforward with our thirdprogramme of workshops in2010/11 and as we start todevelop further programmes toprovide some more in-depthexperience for young scientistsand encourage a deeperengagement in the field ofscience policy. We are alwaysopen to ideas as to how thismay be done as Newton’sApple is committed toconsolidating the progress wehave made and to forming yetstronger foundations.

Dr Michael Elves was a FormerDirector of Scientific andEducational Affairs, GlaxoWellcome and a specialistadviser to the House ofCommons Select Committee onScience and Technology 1997-2005

1. The UK Blueprint for Technology was published on 4 November. See http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2010/Nov/blueprint-for-technology

2. The new collaboration in Solar Energy and Fuel Cells has been agreed between Research Councils UK Energy Programme and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The UK willprovide £2.45m, with matched resources from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This new research initiative will fund five research projects which will address challenges insolar energy and fuel cells and contribute to tackling energy security and climate change. The successful UK recipients are Ifor Samuel, University of St Andrews, Wen-Feng Lin,Queen's University Belfast, Bryce Richards, Heriot-Watt University, Anthony Kucernak, Imperial College and Richard Catlow University College London. The Research Councils UKEnergy Programme's total portfolio of collaborative energy research with China now stands at approximately £20m.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


The acceptance that large scale use of fossil fuels is leading todangerous levels of climate change and a growing recognition ofthe finite nature of hydrocarbon reserves, as well as energy securityconcerns, has led to a resurgence of interest in renewable energy.Nations around the planet are progressively committing toambitious targets for renewable power generation.

In Europe, the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive sets a bindingrequirement that 20% of energy across the EU is to be fromrenewable sources by 2020. For the UK, this EU Directive translatesinto a legally-binding target of 15% of energy from renewables. Thisambitious target will require a seven-fold increase in UK renewableenergy from 2008 levels. Under its lead scenario the Departmentof Energy and Climate Change suggests we could see more than30% of UK electricity being generated from renewable sources,

Realising the promise of abundant marine renewable energy hashad a long gestation. For decades, there have been attempts tocapture the power of ocean winds, waves, tides, currents andtemperature differences as a source of renewable energy. Untilrecently, few of the promising technologies for doing so hadreached commercial viability or significant delivery of their potentialcontribution to energy supplies. Granted, there are a few notableexceptions, such as the La Rance tidal barrage, which has beensuccessfully delivering about 600 million KWh of electrical powerfrom the rise and fall of the tides every year since 1966. Moregenerally, until the end of the twentieth century, the majority ofactivity in marine renewable energy was experimental, conductedwith limited budgets, and with little government support orencouragement.

MARINE RENEWABLEENERGY

Dr Ralph RaynerSector Director, Energy and Environment, BMT Group LimitedMember of the Executive Council of the SMI Association ofMarine Scientific Industries

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


compared with 5.5% today. Much of this is expected to come fromwind power, on and offshore, with biomass, hydro, wave and tidalalso performing an important role.

The announcement of successful negotiations for leases todevelop UK offshore wind farms with a potential capacity of up to25 GW takes offshore wind energy onto a path to meeting thistarget. Other nations are also expanding commitments to offshorewind energy and more plan to do so. 2010 marks a turning pointfor offshore wind energy and sets a massive challenge for deliveryof increased UK capacity over a single decade.

Although less mature, other marine renewable energy sourcesare emerging from experiment and prototype to becomecommercially viable technologies. The installation of the world’slargest commercial tidal current turbine in the narrow entrance toStrangford Lough in 2008 marked the start of serious exploitationof tidal stream energy in the UK. More schemes are to follow soon,including the installation of a novel tidal stream generating systemin Ramsay Sound.

Wave power is another potentially huge renewable energysource. Many different systems have been developed to exploitwave energy but none have yet demonstrated viability at a trulycommercial scale. A number of prototype and pre-commercialsystems are under test and clear winners are likely to emerge in thecoming few years.

Over the coming decade, investment in marine renewableenergy will be substantial. Offshore wind is already creating some ofthe biggest infrastructure projects in the world with a potentialinvestment of over £100 billion.

This rapidly growing market creates exciting opportunities formembers of the Society of Maritime Industries with their wealth ofknowledge and experience in marine engineering, science andtechnology.

Engineering skills are needed to design and build highly reliableand robust structures and machinery capable of operating in thedemanding and sometimes very hostile marine environment.Scientific knowledge is needed to identify optimum locations,determine design criteria, minimise impact on the environment andplan installation operations and through life maintenance. Noveltechnologies are needed to optimise power outputs and efficientlytransmit electricity to shore for connection to the grid. Specialisedvessels are needed for construction and maintenance.

Realising the potential of marine renewable energy draws onknowledge, skills and experience that Society of Maritime Industries’members have in abundance. Our collective understanding of theunique engineering, scientific and technical challenges of operatingin the maritime environment gives us a major part to play inbuilding a low carbon economy and a sustainable basis for meetingthe world’s energy demands.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


AUTISM: A DIFFERENCE ORDISORDER? IMPLICATIONS FORACCESS TO SERVICES

Dr Ellie DommettDepartment of Life Sciences, The Open University

The meeting heard fromProfessor Simon Baron-Cohen(Cambridge University) andProfessor Patricia Howlin(Institute of Psychiatry, London).Howlin opened by stating that tocall Autism a difference ordisorder is more than a debateover semantics and is, in fact,critical in enabling access tosupport services. Althoughacknowledging that the debateis not black and white and that,in reality, Autism may be boththese things, Howlin presentedpersuasive arguments for seeingAutism as a disorder includingthat such an approach is likely tolead to improvements intherapy. She stated that evenchildren with High FunctioningAutism, can find adulthood veryhard thus warranting thedisorder label, for what appearthe more mild cases. She statedthat, as adults, less than 10% ofsuch individuals liveindependently, less than 1% hasa high quality of life and around25% develop psychiatricproblems. She also suggestedthat there are dangers oflabeling Autism as a difference,including the risk of teasing,rejection and bullying. Howlinacknowledged that in an idealworld we should be moretolerant of difference, but thereality of the situation, especiallyin the current economic climatewhere services are stretched, isthat a difference will not betreated with empathy. Given thatan individual with Autism mayappear healthy and highlyeducated, society and those infrontline health services will lack

sympathy for them. Howlinconcluded by stating that whilstthe term disorder may beunpalatable to some, it is likelyto be of help to many byproviding them with appropriate,and much needed, support.

Baron-Cohen began bystating that Autism andAsperger’s Syndrome areunambiguously medicalconditions and that ‘condition’ or‘disability’ may be moreappropriate terms than ‘disorder’.He reasoned that disorderimplied something was brokenand had a known cause, whilstboth ‘condition’ and ‘disability’give access to support ifneeded, without implyingsomething requiring fixing.Nevertheless, he noted that low-functioning Autism may co-existwith disabling characteristics, inaddition to social andcommunication problems, suchas epilepsy, gastrointestinalproblems and anxiety. He wenton to argue that those with high-functioning Autism andAsperger’s Syndrome, whilstsuffering from disabling socialand communication problems,will show key differences to thegeneral population, which maybe advantageous. These includeexcellent attention to detail andability to gain a deepunderstanding of a particulartopic, such that they could beseen as specialists rather thangeneralists. Baron-Cohen wenton to suggest that the currentfocus on weaknesses associatedwith Autism rather thanstrengths, together with the ideathat there is a single, normal

route to adulthood may becounter-productive. Perhapsmore provocatively hesuggested that everyone falls ona continuum for autistic traits,with those with a diagnosistypically, but not always, havinga higher autistic spectrumquotient. He even proposed thatit is not the score thatdetermines diagnosis but ratherthe environment, with somepeople finding themselves in amore supportive environmentnot needing help or diagnosis,whilst others greatly need thediagnosis to access supportservices. Baron-Cohen closed bysuggesting that both a disabilityand difference approach remainuseful.

In conclusion, both speakersagreed that the situation wasnot clear-cut and that whilstAutism does producedifferences in functioning, thislabel alone however couldpreclude access to services.Both speakers also supportedmore research with girls andadults with Autism, which havereceived less funding to date.They also suggested that, giventhe prevalence of Autism,schools should expect to havechildren with Autism in eachyear group and must showflexibility in supporting theheterogeneous group with bothdisabilities and differences. Insum, the debate raised manyvaluable questions andaddressed key considerations inhow nomenclature can impacton societal views and access tosupport services.

The APPG on ScientificResearch in Learning andEducation was re-launched inOctober to continue exploringissues at the interfacebetween scientific researchand education. The mostrecent meeting, chaired byBaronesses Warnock andGreenfield, focused onwhether Autism is bestdescribed as a disorder or adifference. Autism ischaracterised by social andcommunication problemsalong with restrictive orrepetitive behaviour andinterests. It affects about 1%of the population and can bedivided into high- and low-functioning Autism, which aremarked by impaired languagedevelopment anddifferentiated by IQ; andAsperger’s Syndrome in whichlanguage development and IQmay be normal but social andcommunications problemspersist.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


HOW FAR SHOULD WE GO TOMEET THE DEMAND FORHUMAN BODILY MATERIAL?Catherine JoynsonCommunicationsManager, NuffieldCouncil on Bioethics

despite encouraging trends,there is a continuing need to bemet. Eight thousand people arewaiting for an organ transplantand 1700 more egg and spermdonors are wanted.

The reasons why this is acontroversial problem are clear.Body parts can only come frompeople, and people often feelvery strongly about donating apart of their body or a relative’sbody. Increasing the ‘supply’ cantherefore mean increasingpressure on potential donors.

Professor Dame MarilynStrathern, chair of the inquiry,outlined that this led the Councilto two key ethical questions: is italways right to try to meetdemand, and how far can we goin encouraging people todonate? By looking at all kinds ofdonation, the Council isconsidering these questions fromthe perspective of the potentialdonor and the complex range ofoptions that each person faces inlife.

IS IT ALWAYS RIGHT TOMEET DEMAND?

The question of whether weshould be trying to meetdemand at all may depend onwhat the donation is for. Bodilymaterial is needed for medicaltreatment that could enhance,prolong, save or even create alife, and for research which maylead to new scientificunderstanding and treatments.Some uses of bodily materialmay result in commercial gain,such as in the case of fertilityclinics or research. It could beargued that it is more importantto meet some types of demandthan others.

HOW FAR CAN WE GOIN ENCOURAGINGPEOPLE TO DONATE?Raising awareness

We can all donate bodilymaterial, but the majority of usfail to take action. Raisingawareness of the need couldhelp, suggested presenter andbroadcaster Tessa Dunlop(above). In 2010, Tessa made afilm for BBC1’s The One Showabout her father’s decision todonate his body to a localmedical school after a diagnosisof terminal cancer. ‘The carcaseis an unattractive thing, youwon’t want mine hangingaround,’ he informed Tessa. Herfather’s decision to ‘carry onworking’ after his death providedher family with great comfort.

Following the broadcast therewas a significant rise in enquiriesabout body donation to medicalschools. Yet she found thatsome members of the medicalprofession were reluctant to beinvolved in the programme.Improving communicationbetween doctors and familiesabout donation could helpincrease awareness of the needand understanding of what isinvolved, said Dr VivienneNathanson from the BritishMedical Association.

Following a publicconsultation which asked howethical it was to encouragepeople to donate their bodyparts, The Guardian newspaperproclaimed that the NuffieldCouncil on Bioethics “nevershrinks from the unthinkable”.

It is true that the Council’sinquiry on the donation ofhuman material touches onsome extremely sensitive issues.It is also true that the Councilsees its role to confront theseissues openly and rigorously.Hence, it chose to discuss theshortage of human bodilymaterial in medicine andresearch at its annual ‘Bioethicsin Parliament’ seminar, this yearhosted by Professor Lord Harriesof Pentregarth and attended byMPs, peers and keyorganisations in the field.

TAKING A BROAD VIEWThe Council’s inquiry is

considering and comparing allkinds of bodily donation,including donation during life ofblood, organs, tissue, sperm,eggs and embryos, and donationafter death of tissue and bodyparts, as well as whole bodiesfor medical training.

There have been severalinquiries focusing on specifictypes of donation in recent years,such as the Organ DonationTaskforce, which have led toimprovements in NHS transplantservices and high-profile publicawareness campaigns. Yet

Incentives

When the Council publisheda public consultation in 2010,the media coverage focusedheavily on the question ofwhether providing furtherincentives would encouragemore people to donate. Manydonors regard altruism as thehighest incentive, and it can alsobe an effective way of ensuringhigh quality donations. But itmay be that others areencouraged by financial or othertypes of rewards. Payment is notallowed for most types ofdonation in the UK at themoment, although women canget reduced-cost IVF treatmentin return for egg donation.Increased financial incentivescould take the form of moregenerous reimbursement ofexpenses, a donation to thedonor’s charity of choice, orpayment towards funeralexpenses for donation afterdeath.

Consent

Gaining consent from thedonor is a key principle in thedonation and use of bodilymaterial, but the regulations onconsent vary. Participants at theseminar were keen for theCouncil to review whethercurrent consent rules are fit forpurpose, particularly in the areaof consent to use human tissuefor research. The Council is inthe process of doing this, andwill publish its conclusions onthe whole range of ethical issuesraised by demand for humanbodily material in autumn 2011.

Find out more:www.nuffieldbioethics.org/human-bodies

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


AS THE CLIMATE CHANGES, WHAT’S THEEFFECT OF THIS UNUSUALLY COLDWINTER WEATHER ON OUR WILDLIFE?

Birds are importantbarometers of change – theyare colourful, vocal and highlyvisible components of Britishwildlife which respond,through the timing andsuccess of breeding attempts,their migration patterns andtheir survival rates, to changesin the conditions theyencounter. The British Trust forOrnithology (BTO) draws onpeople’s inherent interest inbirds to underpin our scientificresearch into the populationsand ecology of birds. Withclimate change high onpolitical agendas world-wide,the long term study of birdpopulations puts Britain firmlyat the leading edge of climateresearch.

This has been anextraordinary winter for birds,with extreme weather-relatedmovements of many species.Already there are indications thatsome species are faring badly –reports of dead Barn Owls toour Ringing Office are twicewhat they would be in anaverage winter, as these birdsfind it difficult to feed whensnow cover hides smallmammal prey – whilst anyoneinterested in birds in even themost urban environment will,with luck, have noticedWaxwings, those rather exoticlooking crested berry-eaters, thathave arrived from Scandinavia inunusually large numbers thisyear.

The BTO’s work, partneringthe observations of 40,000volunteer bird recorders withrigorous survey design, andintelligent, modern data analysisand interpretation by ourprofessional scientists, meanswe can contribute solidevidence-based science toGovernment and society in aremarkably cost-effectivemanner. It was the BTO Atlas ofBreeding Birds in Britain andIreland during the 1980s thatdemonstrated marked declinesin farmland birds, first noticed inearlier BTO surveys during the1970s. This led to the design ofthe BTO/RSPB/JNCC BreedingBird Survey that collects data toinform the Farmland Bird Index.By extending the measure toencompass other types of land-cover the BBS survey provides a

broader measure ofenvironmental health using theWild Bird Indicator (Fig 1).

BTO scientists not only workwith volunteers to monitor birdtrends, as reflected in theFarmland Bird Index, we alsoundertake research tounderstand the causes ofchange. Working alongside arange of NGO, academic andgovernment partners, we wereat the heart of the planningprocess to devise wildlife-friendlyprescriptions to use in the EntryLevel and Higher LevelEnvironmental Stewardshipschemes. We are nowcompleting the circle by helpingto monitor the effectiveness ofthe Entry Level Scheme. Arecent paper in the BTO journal,Bird Study, shows that fieldboundaries managed under ELSprovide benefits for the red-listed Yellowhammer. The long-term, extensive datasets for

Dr Andy ClementsDirector, British Trust for Ornithology

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:32


which we are the guardians are invaluable, recording the evidence ofchange and providing a resource that helps us to address keyquestions through more intensive research.

We’ve further capitalised on the enthusiasm of our ever-increasingcommunity of citizen scientists by providing opportunities to recordother taxa too. The Breeding Bird Survey collects data on mammalsas part of the Tracking Mammals Partnership so, for example, we canpresent results showing how deer populations are growing andexpanding their range (Fig 2). Linked, intensive researchdemonstrates the effects large numbers of deer arehaving on woodland structure and how this, inturn, affects Nightingales. We know that this isa species that has declined dramaticallyand we now know that, where theyoccur as breeding birds, theyselectively prefer habitats where thereis thick understorey in which to holdterritory and to nest – habitatswithout deer.

As a ‘birds-first’ organisation, thewhole life cycle approach tounderstanding what is happening to ourbird populations is important. Escaping coldwinters, like the one we are currentlyexperiencing, is the strategy adopted by our long-distance migrant birds, of which Nightingale is a classicexample. So, if we want answers about their migration and winteringareas, then we have to follow them – and new technology allows usto do this. Working with colleagues in Switzerland, we showed that asingle data-logged Nightingale travelled as far as Guinea-Bissauduring the autumn and winter of 2009/10, before returning to itsbreeding woodlands in the fenland of Cambridgeshire (Fig 3). Our

Out of Africa project is run in collaboration with RSPB and localpartners in West Africa to build on information like this, andundertakes extensive survey and ringing work to find where migrantspecies spend the winter and what pressures (for example by qualityof life development for the rural poor) are placed on the habitats andfood resources they require.

But let’s return to this cold winter. We will only gain a sound viewof the fate of our resident birds after many thousands of volunteershave undertaken their summer counts, returning to the same sites

they surveyed in 2010, or through ringing studieslooking at adult survival. Our experience tells us

to expect declines in the populations ofsmall birds, herons and Kingfishers that

require open unfrozen waters, andbirds of prey. It may be that some ofthe dramatic spreads andcolonisations of southern speciesseen in recent years, and no doubtassisted by climate change, maystall. The BTO long running

Heronries census data from 1929shows well the effects of hard winters

(Fig 4).

So, how does our contribution sit withincurrent Government priorities? An impartial, policy-

relevant evidence base is undoubtedly an asset. BTO has astrong partnership with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee(JNCC), the Government agency which is itself an impartial evidenceprovider on biodiversity, supporting BTO core surveys that contributeto the Government’s environmental surveillance requirement. BTOraises some £5m annually from contracts, donations andmembership to fund our research and survey work. But that is notthe whole story. With a volunteer workforce of 40,000, contributingthe equivalent of £36m of survey work annually, and frameworks thatreliably scale-up local effort to the national scale (our ‘super-volunteer’ Regional Representatives that encourage and support thetroops), the BTO model looks like the Big Society in action. Ourvolunteers think that too, and one of the commonest reasons theygive for making an effort, is to see their own individual recordsbecome part of a significant body of scientific work. As their recordscome in this year, you will be able to track the growing knowledgeabout how our birds have fared this winter – check out our scienceat www.bto.org.

Fig 1 Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


The main drivers for thereport were concerns fromnumerous sources from withingovernment, the professionsand learned societies etc, aboutthe increasing challenges arisingrelating to water security (iesecurity of supply) and theimplications for Britain, bothwithin the UK andinternationally. Some of thesechallenges, threats andopportunities are introducedbelow.

There are 1.2 billion peopleliving on this earth today withno access to safe drinking waterand 2 million people dieannually of diarrhoea – still oneof the biggest causes of infantmortality on earth today and Itell my first year students that itis engineers that hold the key toreducing significantly this sadstatistic, rather than the medicalprofession. Engineering offersrewarding career opportunitiessecond to none to those young

people aspiring to want to savelives or improve the quality oflife of our fellow citizens livingon this earth today.

There are 2.4 billion peoplewho do not have basic watersanitation and 1 million dieannually of hepatitis A. Womenin developing countries have towalk typically 3.7 miles to carrywater for the family; againengineers could make a hugecontribution to the quality of lifefor these women. Floods oftencause significant loss of life anddestroy homes, with this year’sPakistan floods leading to 21million people being homeless.However, the disease associatedwith the after effects of suchfloods can often bring far moreloss of life to communities andcountries than the floodsthemselves. It is estimated thatat any one time more than halfthe hospital beds worldwide areoccupied by people with waterrelated diseases (BMJ, 2004).

So the challenges of watersecurity are immense and Britaindoes, and can continue to do,so much to help the rest of theworld in addressing some of themassive challenges of watersecurity.

Along with these challengesthere are two further issues thatare exacerbating the currentthreats to water security. Firstly,there is climate change, whereaverage global temperatures areexpected to rise by at least 2°Cby the end of this century. If thetemperature increases between2 and 5°C there will be majorwater resources problemsglobally, also resulting insignificant sea water level riseand causing catastrophic coastalflooding in many parts of theworld, such as Bangladesh.Secondly, we are encountering‘the Perfect Storm’ in the formof global population growthexpected to rise by 2030 from 6to 8 billion. Associated with thispopulation growth we canexpect the demand for food,energy and water to increase by50%, 50% and 30%respectively. The water, food andenergy nexus is crucial to ourexistence, with water being atthe heart of everything; it is

GLOBAL WATER SECURITY:AN INTRODUCTION

IS GLOBAL WATER SECURITY ACHIEVABLE? AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE

Roger A Falconer FREngHalcrow Professor of WaterManagementCardiff School of Engineering,Cardiff University

In April 2010 the Royal Academy of Engineering published a reportentitled Global Water Security – An Engineering Perspective. This reportwas produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Academyof Engineering and the Chartered Institution of Water andEnvironmental Management, through a Steering Group of 12 specialistsworking in the field. The Steering Group took evidence (in hearing andwritten) from a wide range of UK and international experts covering allaspects of water security.

. . . half the hospital beds worldwide are occupied by

people with water related diseases. . .

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

crucial for our energy supply,food, health, industry, trade etc.If we look at the water stressglobally (defined as millions oflitres of water available perperson per year) from 1960 to2010, we find that even in thesoutheast of England watersupply is currently particularlystressed. If we predict forward tothe 2050s and beyond we seethat even the whole of the UKwill be facing problems towardsthe end of this century.

Problems in water supply willrelate not only to the 50%increase in human populationover the next 30 years;urbanisation is occurring all overthe world, which will tend toexacerbate this effect. Incountries such as China, forexample, people are movinginto the major cities while in theUK people are moving moreand more to the southeast ofEngland, which is notsustainable.

Food production is also rising,along with industrial production,and new energy sources will berequired to support thisindustrial production and feedthe population growth. Ascountries become richer theywill change their diets, astypified for example by the bigincrease in meat consumptionin China. If we now look at theconsequences of changing dietsand food consumption etc inthe context of embedded orvirtual water, the globalimplications are considerable. Toproduce 1kg of wheat requires

1,300 litres of water, whereas incontrast to produce 1 kg of beefrequires 15,000 litres of water,ie over 10 times as much water.

Looking at other com-modities, it takes 140 litres ofembedded water, nearly a bathfull (150 litres), to produce onecup of coffee, and that water isused in another country – suchas Brazil – when the coffee isdrunk in Britain. One pair ofcotton jeans requires 73 bathsfull of embedded water, whichare attributable mainly to thecotton production, and thatwater is likely to be used incountries such as Egypt, wherethere are already serious watershortages. The embedded waterfootprint of the 25 EuropeanUnion countries bears mostheavily on countries such asIndia and Pakistan, which arethe primary sources of cottonsupply to the EU. The drying upof the Aral Sea is one examplewhich can be partly attributed tocotton production, though this isnot the only cause of the dryingup of this water body. The pointto appreciate, however, is thatthe demand for embeddedwater products in one countrycan have very serious impactselsewhere in the world, such as

Egypt, for example.

Desalination is one possiblesolution in large coastal cities,but this process is still relativelyexpensive and imposes a largecarbon footprint, through largeenergy demands. Researchstudies being undertaken withinour Hydro-environmentalResearch Centre at CardiffUniversity have found thatsalinity levels along the Arabiancoast of the Persian Gulf areincreasing slowly, potentially dueto the rapid growth indesalination plants and this musthave long term impacts for thehydro-ecology of this highlystressed water body.

Conservation and water re-use is often a short termsolution to a longer termproblem. Storage involves watertransfer and better integratedwater management, with amuch more holistic approach toriver basin management beingrequired than used hitherto. Toincrease global water security,improved water quality in riverbasins and coastal waters isrequired, along with a reductionin global water pollution. It alsogoes without saying that globalpopulation growth needs

controlling. Integrated watermanagement requires a Cloudto Coast (C2C) approach thattreats the water cycle as anintegrated system, bringingtogether the professionals whocurrently specialise in modellingvarious components of thesystem, including: hydraulicengineers, hydrologists,biologists etc and with thedistribution from the cloud tothe coast, through thecatchment, groundwater, sewers,rivers, estuaries, needing to betreated as one. Our researchcentre at Cardiff is currentlydeveloping such an integratedapproach with consultantsHalcrow.

In addressing some of thesechallenges global actions areneeded; in particular, we needthe water footprint and theconcept of embedded or virtualwater to be better understoodand more widely promoted.Better technologies and furtherresearch is needed for moreefficient agriculture. Newsustainable sources of water areneeded from desalination,recycling and water harvesting.Inter-governmental bodies, suchas the WTO, must elevate issuesof water security further up theiragenda. The public mustbecome more engaged in thechallenges we all face withregard to water security; this is aglobal problem which affectsevery nation.

There are also key watersecurity Challenges andOpportunities for the UK. Forexample, population growth isnot just a challenge fordeveloping countries; it is also

we can expect the demand for food, energy and

water to increase by 50%, 50% and 30%

respectively.

. . . countries become richer they will change their

diets, as typified for example by the big increase

in meat consumption in China. . .


9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

an issue that concerns the UK.The population is predicted togrow by nearly 16% over thenext 22 years, from 61.8m in2009 to 71.6m by 2033. Thisimplies a yearly average growthrate of 718,000 per annum andwill probably continue toincrease at a comparable ratethereafter unless action is taken.

Water stress in the UK is notdistributed evenly, with thesoutheast of England, includingLondon, subjected to seriouslevels of water stress, while lowwater stress is located in boththe north and southwest ofEngland, but not includingCornwall, which has moderatewater stress levels comparable

with East Anglia and the Eastand West Midlands. Rivertransfers offer a solution towater shortages in the SouthEast of England by raising damsin Wales and transferring watervia networks of rivers and canalsas shown in the illustrationprovided. Alternatively, theproposed Severn Barrage must

be considered as more than arenewable energy project; thisproject offers the opportunity tocreate a large water body 1.5times the size of Lake Garda,with much reduced tidalcurrents than now, reducedturbidity, and much clearerwater; thus creating a hugeresource for recreationalopportunities etc. This largewater body would then providea great catalyst to encouragemore of the UK’s populationand industry and commerce tore-locate from the South East tothe South West of England,making Bristol a larger city, andencouraging some of thepopulation to move from a high(SE) to a low (SW) waterstressed region of the UK. Onething is for certain; the currentlevel of population migration tothe South East of England is notsustainable – at least in terms ofwater security!

Cor

lan

Haf

ren

Ltd


9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

Though Earth is 4/5thscovered with a thin layer of saltywater, human life depends onfreshwater, as does Earth’sincredible biodiversity, a crucialcomponent of human well-being. That freshwater comescourtesy of Earth’s greatestengine, the water cycle, butnow, in Earth’s 45th millioncentury, a global crisis offreshwater scarcity is on ourdoorstep; a crisis that isaccelerating through ourunbridled development,burgeoning demand for foodand energy, and the effects ofclimate change.

Only 0.01% of the totalglobal water volume of 1.4billion cubic kilometres isfreshwater, and only 105thousand cubic kilometres iseasily accessible.

This limited volume, which isnot uniformly distributed in timeor space provides a wide rangeof functions:

• to sustain human life(consumption and sanitation)

• with nutrients and sunlight forfood production

• to support energy production

• to sustain industry

• to maintain our ecosystems,biodiversity environment andlandscape

Increasing attention is nowbeing paid to the Water-food-energy nexus, a nexus overlainby competition for finance, theimpact of international tradeflows and climate changeimpacts.

Even though 13% of waterabstractions in Europe are fordrinking, the largest withdrawalsare for irrigated agriculture; forfood production. There is limitedscope to increase global areaunder irrigation – therefore weneed higher yielding crops orimproved irrigation to meetfuture food demands.Alternatively we need to seek togrow more food in those partsof the world with sufficient landand rainfall. In any case weneed to produce food in a waythat protects the naturalresources it depends on – soil,nutrients and water – and onwhich we rely for other services– drinking water, climateregulation, flood protection,filtering of pollution.

One fifth of the world’spopulation, 1.2 billion, live inareas of physical water scarcity(not enough water to meet alldemands). About 1.6 billion livein basins affected by economicscarcity (lack of investment inwater or lack of human capacityto satisfy the demand for water).Lack of adequate water and

GLOBAL WATER SECURITYIs it achievable?What are the consequencesof failure?

Michael Norton MBE CEngManaging Director, Water andPower, Halcrow Group Ltd

IS GLOBAL WATER SECURITY ACHIEVABLE? AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILUREMeeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on Tuesday 19th October 2010

In his Reith Lectures this year Professor Sir Martin Rees, AstronomerRoyal, said “This is a crucial century. The Earth has existed for 45 millioncenturies. But this is the first when one species, ours, can determine forgood or ill – the future of the entire biosphere.”

. . . Population growth means that the earth will have

to sustain 2 billion more people in the next 20 years. . .


9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

sanitation causes 5-10 milliondeaths annually; 80% of allsickness and disease isattributable to inadequate waterand sanitation. The MDGs ofhunger alleviation, povertyalleviation, sanitation, watersupply and environmentalsustainability are all linked towater-related issues.

Conflicts over water havetaken place and seem set toincrease. “The fighting in Darfur,Sudan resulted from watershortage and subsequentfighting between farmers andherders” (Ban Ki-moon 2008).Water may be key to solvingMiddle eastern conflict.

Recent work by a group ofresearchers led by ProfessorVorosmarty from New York andpublished in September 2010has shown that richer nationshave been able to improve theirwater security throughinvestment in more storage andsupply infrastructure. Richnations tolerate high levels ofwater stress and reduce theirnegative impacts throughinfrastructure development.

Lack of water infrastructure inEthiopia plus its climate andhydrological vulnerability take a38% toll on GDP. WhileCambodia, Indonesia, thePhilippines and Viet Nam losean estimated $9 billion a yearbecause of poor sanitation(2005 prices), or 2% of theircombined GDP.

Climate change will affect theamount of rain and when it falls,the demand for water, waterquality, and land use. Populationgrowth means that the earth willhave to sustain 2 billion morepeople in the next 20 years. Thenumber of people affected bywater scarcity may increase from1.7 billion to 5 billion by 2025irrespective of climate change;60% of the world’s people.

Here in UK we will seewarmer and drier summers,

wetter winters, more extremerainfall events and a rise in sealevels. Our eastern counties willsee summer evaporation exceedrainfall and that is going tochange our landscape. If weexperience an averagetemperature rise of 4 degrees, itis quite possible that our citieswill experience 10 degrees riseand that will have significantwater and energy implications.We will have up to 20 millionextra people in England andWales by 2050’s, and over 3million more homes mostly inthe southeast, where waterresource zones are alreadyclassified as water stressed.

In my personal viewadaptation to the impacts ofclimate change in the UK willonly be achieved through anational programme of waterstorage; from water harvesting,green roofs and infiltrationdevices, to major projects ofAquifer Storage and Rechargeand impounding reservoirs inour wet regions. The cost will betens of billions of pounds butput that alongside the majorinvestments in energy £200billion over the next ten years, orHS2 £35 billion or evenCrossrail at £20 billion. It is acost we must face.

If we look at the water cycle,we see that for every 100 raindrops, only 36 reach the ocean.The competing uses for greenand blue water on its journey for“Cloud to Coast” need us tounderstand better thesecompeting uses and the impactsof exporting virtual water ingoods and food. We need moresimple and yet more flexiblesimulation models to allow us tooptimise the use of water forsociety.

Virtual water can beexpressed as water footprint; byperson, nation, industry orproduct. Applied to nations, theconcept permits assessment ofexternal and internal footprints,

often linked closely to trade. UKnational footprint is102Gm3/year of which 38% isinternal (water in the UK), and62% external (water in othercountries).The UK averagefootprint per person is 4.5m3

per day; thirty times the 150litres supplied by our watercompany. The remainder is thevirtual water embedded in thefood we eat, the beverages wedrink, the clothes we wear, thecars we drive and so on. The UKis the sixth largest net importerof water in the world.

Work on virtual water flowsbetween the world’s regionsreveals some interesting insights.Some water scarce areas of theworld are net exporters, such asAustralia. Why? Because theywish to trade on the globalmarket their products such aswine and fruit. This means thatinternational trade has thepotential to save water globally ifa water intensive commodity istraded from an area where it isproduced with high productivityto an area with lowerproductivity. However, there is acontinuing lack of correlationbetween countries hydrologicallybest suited to grow food andthose that actually do. This hasled to a view that virtual watermight have a sub-optimizingcharacteristic in that itsavailability slows down adoptionof water policy reform.

But where does the waterused in production come from?Though there has been anemphasis on blue water throughirrigation, there is now morefocus on the potential ofimproving water security through

rain fed crop production. Greenwater already comprises themajority of virtual water butvirtual water trade can do moreto reduce irrigation waterdemand. Unlike blue water,green water cannot bereallocated to other uses. Greenwater also has relatively fewenvironmental externalitieswhereas blue water use is linkedto water depletion, salinisation,water logging and soildegradation. Green water tradeis constrained by: internationaltrade agreements and subsidies(in the USA and Europe, theseare leading to increased bluewater use); land availability;technology eg agriculturalefficiencies.

By importing from USA, Egyptsaves 930m3/ton of water, butits trade with the USA results ina net global water loss of777m3/ton, because morewater is used in USA to growwheat. However, based on bluewater only, this trading saves251m3/ton.

Water scarcity is beingrecognised as an increasinglycritical issue for sustainability oflife on our planet. Six highprofile reports and papers havebeen published in the last 18months:

• Global Water Security, preparedfor John Beddington by analliance of RAEng, ICE andCIWEM.

• Water in a Changing World, thethird report of UN Water.

• Charting our Water Future, byWorld Bank, McKinsey and the2030 WRG.

. . . Lack of adequate water and

sanitation causes 5-10 million

deaths annually . . .


9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

• Water: Our Thirsty World, inNational Geographic.

• Innovative Water Partnerships,by the World Economic Forum.

• For Want of a Drink, a specialfeature in the Economist.

• September issue of Naturewith the work of Vorosmartyand others on the linksbetween water security, loss ofbiodiversity and GDP.

Economic theory tells us thatit is easier to encourage fundingif true economic value of wateris realised. Without it, we getprice-cost differential and long-term sustainability becomesunlikely. However, to what extentis water a human right and if sowhose responsibility is it todeliver it and who should meetthe costs? True water pricing andtrading is rare, but Australia andChile have introduced it in theirwater scarce regions.

On average in the UK we payaround £3 for each cubic metreof water we buy from our watercompany; and that serves ourdrinking, washing, cooking,garden, car washing, andsewerage needs for a wholeweek! It is interesting tocompare what we get for that£3, with other everyday thingssuch as a sandwich, a coffee ora pint of beer.

I believe that until we valuewater appropriately, we will notbe able to face some of thechallenges that I am describingtoday. The value of water in ourecosystems is taken for granted,and includes:

• Provisioning services includecontrolling water quantity and

quality for consumptive use.

• Regulatory services includebuffering of flood flows andclimate regulation

• Cultural services includerecreation and tourism

• Support services includenutrient cycling and ecosystemresilience to, for example,climate change

The report Charting ourWater Future uses so-called“cost curves” to prioritise watersector interventions to close thesupply-demand gap. The curvefor India turns around traditionalthinking by showing that a suiteof measures starting with thosethat improve the efficiency ofwater in agriculture would makemore sense, leaving majorsupply measures until later. InChina, the work shows that afocus on improving industrialefficiency may mean that closingthe gap could be achieved at acost benefit.

The Innovative WaterPartnerships work of the WEFsuggests that communities,industry and government canwork successfully together tofind win-win solutions. Forexample treated municipalwastewater can be a resourcefor industry and agriculture, asare the biosolids which thetreatment process produces.Traditionally, the private sectorwas never present at waterpolicy discussions. However,things are changing and waterrisks are faced by manybusinesses and those that arerealising this first are taking stepsto secure their water. SAB Millerimproved water efficiency

through re-designing ofbreweries and investment inequipment with efficientconsumptions of water andenergy.

Governments can provide afacilitating role, ensuringengagement of allstakeholders and promoting ashared resource which makesmisuse less likely. Throughdemonstrating which measureshave the greatest impact, thiscan spur investment from theprivate sector.

UK government aims toensure UK food security throughstrong UK agriculture, andinternational trade links thatsupport developing economies.However, high reliance oninternational trade for our foodsecurity means high reliance onwater management in thenations which are supplying thefood.

The concepts of blue andgreen water, virtual water andwater footprint, and of waterscarcity are not yet taughteffectively within the educationcurriculum – anywhere. There isa pressing need to promote theidea of water as a shared andvalued resource in our schools.

So, is global water securityachievable? And if so, howwould we know that we hadachieved it? What would it looklike? Here are five “tests” which Ipropose:

• Affordable drinking water forall, to promote public health

• Sustainable sources of waterfor industry and its supplychain, to promote economichealth

• Integrated management ofwater in all its forms and for allits users

• And linked to this, policy andtrade reforms which encouragesustainable water resourcesdevelopment and which

discourage conflicts

• Mobilisation of the substantialvolumes of public and privatefunds, via transparent and fairregulatory regimes whichcorrectly value water

The consequences of failure arevery grim. We will see:

• more people without safedrinking water and sanitation.

• food security endangered innations which are waterscarce.

• more pollution in developingnations.

• more conflict over water whichcrosses boundaries.

The potential for waterscarcity or lack of water securityto destabilise the world is high.

I will conclude by saying thatwe need to widen and deepenthe debate around thefundamental role played bywater in all human activity onour planet; social, cultural andeconomic. We know there aremany innovative ways to closethe supply demand gap, it isn’tthat difficult in theory, but thisrequires multiple stakeholderengagement and this is wheregovernment can do much tofacilitate and catalyse innovativewater partnerships which havelong term benefits and whichovercome corporate, political,and financial timescales

There is enough water,probably enough to sustain 10billion people on Earth. We justneed to use it wisely especiallyour precious green water. Thatmeans growing food wherethere is reliable green water.

Finally, water professionalslike me need to take thismessage outside of their cosygroup – the “water box”. Today, Iam doing just that!

. . . the demand for embedded water

products in one country can have very

serious impacts elsewhere . . .


9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


People have always beencurious about how living thingswork. For centuries humanshave studied micro-organisms,plants and animals (including ofcourse ourselves) to try to findout how they are constructedand how they work. In the past50 years this scientificendeavour has been extendedto the molecular level, withspectacular advances in ourknowledge of how genes work,how they are translated intocellular components, and howthey control the wholeorganism. More recentlyresearchers have been able tostore genetic information oncomputer databases that can beaccessed by the global scientificcommunity. At the same timemolecular biologists have learnthow to synthesise the basicgenetic components of cells,RNA and DNA, with greataccuracy; we can now assemblelong lengths of these molecules,which are of course theblueprint for life, and we can dothis increasingly rapidly andcheaply.

About 20 years ago, groupsof biologists, chemists,engineers and computerscientists realised that it wasnow possible to radicallyredesign biological componentssuch as DNA, proteins andmolecular modules thatassemble and run cells. Theculture of synthetic biology wasborn, and multidisciplinaryteams set out to make theaspirations real.

Pioneering researchers in thelast decade have demonstrated

that working viruses can beassembled using genesequence templates stored oncomputers, and a team led byCraig Venter in America this yeardemonstrated that bacterialchromosomes can besynthesised from scratch andsuccessfully transplanted intocells. Synthetic biology hasreached a new and importantdevelopmental stage, because inthe near future we will be ableto design and assemble micro-organisms to carry out amultitude of tasks currently doneusing rather crude and energy-intensive industrial processes.On a longer timescale it shouldbe possible to design and buildhigher organisms and otherbiologically-based systems toproduce fuel, industrial rawmaterials, engineeringcomponents, drugs and perhapsfood more sustainably. Severaleminent scientists havedescribed synthetic biology asthe “second industrialrevolution”. Undoubtedly there isgreat potential in this newscientific culture.

Like all new science andtechnology, beside potentialbenefits, societal and ethicalissues will emerge from the useof synthetic biology. TheResearch Councils, especiallyBBSRC and EPSRC, who fundmost synthetic biology researchin the UK, together with thelearned societies (especially theRAEng and Royal Society),realised several years ago thatthis was potentially acontroversial scientific area. Wecould only guess at what these

issues might be, so in 2007BBSRC’s Bioscience in SocietyPanel commissioned socialscientists Andy Balmer and PaulMartin at the University ofNottingham to give us a view ofthe societal and ethical issuesthat might arise from syntheticbiology. Their excellent andwidely-read report1 confirmedthat there would be significantissues arising from syntheticbiology and recommended thatwe engage with the public at anearly stage in the developmentof synthetic biology, beforecommercial products appeared,and that public engagementshould involve scientificresearchers, social scientists,NGOs and ethicists.

Partly as a response to thatreport, the societal and ethicalissues panels of BBSRC andEPSRC combined forces toinitiate the public dialogue thatstarted in 2009 and hasproduced the report publishedthis year 2. TNS/BMRB werecommissioned as the maincontractor and Laura GrantAssociates as evaluators, withSciencewise providing valuableadvice and funding. We set outto capture a wide range ofpublic views, including people’saspirations for synthetic biology,and their concerns. Most of allwe wanted this dialogue to bethe first phase in an ongoingconversation between theresearch community andmembers of the public,employing innovative techniquessuch as video ethnography,where researchers record theirdaily lives to show public

Dr Brian JohnsonChair, BBSRC/EPSRCSynthetic Biology PublicDialogue

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY DIALOGUE AND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE?Meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on Tuesday 7th December 2010

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PUBLICDIALOGUE

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


participants the world of scienceand scientists.

TNS/BMRB interviewed 41stakeholders with a professionalinterest in synthetic biology, andthen ran a series of threeworkshops at four locationsinvolving 160 public participantsand a number of researchers,including synthetic biologists andsocial scientists. Publicparticipants were drawn from awide range of backgrounds,ethnicity, faiths and abilities,making the group arepresentative sample of society.The whole process wasoverseen by a lively and diverseoversight group, includingsociologists, NGOs andscientists, who were chargedwith acting as ‘critical friends’ tothe contractors.

When first introduced tosynthetic biology publicparticipants mentioned that theability to design and assemblenovel biologically-based systemsgave synthetic biology a“uniqueness” that bothfascinated and excited them, notonly because they could see thepotential in this scientific areabut they also felt that thescience was “unimaginable”, farremoved from science withwhich they were familiar.

Participants were, as weexpected, excited by potentialoutputs from synthetic biology,but were also deeply interestedin the process of science.Scientists’ motivations andaspirations were the subjects ofmuch deliberation and debate,generating a series of questionsthat participants felt should beaddressed by the scientificcommunity. Amongst thesewere “Why are you doing thisresearch?”, “What do you hopeto achieve?” and “What sort oftechnology is produced whenyou are respectful of nature?”People also felt there was adisconnect between individuals’own science, seen by

researchers as incremental orroutine, and the field overall,viewed by the public astransformative. One of the keyissues to emerge was the needfor scientists to consider thewider implications of their workmore effectively and to showthe public that they had doneso.

The dialogue reveals thatboth professional stakeholdersand public participants foundthe technology fascinating andwere excited by its potential, forexample, to help us tackle someof the big challenges societyfaces, such as global warming,serious diseases, energyproblems and food security. Theprospect of being able to makeprogress towards these goalswas a significant factor in publicacceptability of the research. Butcoupled with this recognition ofpotential was a strong sense oftrepidation and concern, forinstance around the suitability ofcurrent regulations to cope withthis new field, and for widerimpacts of the technology.Concerns included the pace ofdevelopment in the field, theidea that the science may beprogressing too quickly whenlong term impacts wereunknown. Other significantconcerns focused on wheresynthetic biology was going, andwhat it might look like in thefuture, together with potential foruncontrolled release of syntheticorganisms into the environment.The need for effectiveinternational regulation andcontrol was one of the mostimportant issues flagged up byparticipants, but a significantnumber also felt thatoverregulation could slow downimportant research especially inthe medical field. There neededto be greater capacity forregulators to be able toanticipate scientificdevelopments. Given thenovelty of synthetic pathway ormicro-organism there was doubt

whether current regulatorysystems were adequate.

People were concerned thatscientists should afford dignity,responsibility and respect whenintervening in the natural world.Perhaps surprisingly, there wasgeneral agreement that creatinglife was acceptable whenbalanced with the benefits thatsynthetic biology could bring.However, people foundproblematic the idea of treatingnature as parts to beassembled. Nature was seen astoo complex with genetic andenvironmental interactions toodynamic and stochastic topredict in a precise way. Despitevoicing these concerns,participants did not divide into‘pro’ and ‘anti’ groups. Typically,excitement and trepidationresided within each individual.

Public participants felt thatthe Research Councils, as majorpublic funders of syntheticbiology research, should takethe lead in making sure thediscussions, concerns andhopes that the report highlightshave real influence on ResearchCouncil policies and those ofothers; for instance regulatorsand the private sector. One ofthe key issues to emerge waswhat was meant by funding‘good science’. Currently, thisprocess is focused on technicalexcellence, but participantswanted to see a broaderdefinition of good science,perhaps in a normative or socialsense. They also wanted scopeto feed public aspirations andconcerns into research fundingstrategy. To enable this it shouldbe incumbent on the ResearchCouncils to make the sciencepublicly accessible. For certaingrant applications, people feltthat a more iterative process isneeded not only involvingscientists, but also the public,social scientists, ethicists andothers to feed in views, withideas shaped through debate.

This dialogue breaks newground in public engagement,not only in terms of how it isplanned and conducted but alsobecause it is taking place at avery early stage in the science.This presents some realchallenges, not least because atthe start most public participantswere completely unaware ofsynthetic biology, and as yetthere are no tangible products. Itis perhaps a measure of thesuccess of this stage in thedialogue that many participantsare now keenly interested insynthetic biology and have saidthat they want to continue theirdialogue with researchers.

I hope we can enable themto do this, because as chair ofthe steering group, I would liketo see the dialogue continuewithin institutions and throughpublic debate; in other wordsbecome embedded in thebusiness of science andtechnology. To my mind it isonly right and proper thatmembers of the public are ableto make their views directlyavailable to scientists and notjust via the media, for thoseviews to be taken into account,and for researchers to be able toengage easily and openly withthe society within which theyoperate.

Finally, I would like to thankthe steering and oversightgroups for their hard work andprofessional stakeholders fortheir input. I also especially wantto thank our public participants,some of whom are here today,for the time and effort they putinto the workshop discussions.

1. Synthetic Biology: Social and EthicalChallenges. Balmer, A. & Martin, P.,University of Nottingham. 2008.Available at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdf

2. Synthetic Biology Dialogue.BBSRC/EPSRC 2010. Report availableat: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdf

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


BBSRC and EPSRC

recognised several years ago

that synthetic biology was an

emerging area of science that

had great potential both to

generate exciting beneficial

outputs and to raise social and

ethical concerns. In 2009 we

commissioned a dialogue to

begin to explore the diversity of

views around this novel area of

science so that our future policy

and dialogue activities could be

better informed. Workshops with

members of the public took

place in early 2010 and a report

was published later in the year

highlighting a number of

recommendations for the

Research Councils and others to

consider when thinking about

synthetic biology. Here, I will

take the opportunity to explain

some of the actions the

Research Councils have

committed to in our response to

those recommendations. A

number of the actions will be

carried out jointly between

BBSRC and EPSRC but,

recognising that the

communities of scientists that

we fund are different from one

another, we will also be working

on some actions separately.

Firstly, it is important to

convey that we view this

dialogue as the foundation for

an ongoing conversation about

synthetic biology. As the field

develops and matures and as

applications begin to reach the

marketplace and consumers, it

is vitally important that we stay

engaged with those who have a

stake in synthetic biology – that

includes the public but also

special interest groups such as

NGOs, industrialists,

environmental groups and

others.

There are many ways of

having these conversations and

multiple routes for them to

influence not just the Research

Councils, but others such as

scientists and policy makers. To

facilitate ongoing discussion we

will be producing a reader

friendly digest of the report to

help get its messages to a wider

audience. In BBSRC we draw on

the expertise of our Bioscience

for Society Strategy Panel (BSS),

with its diverse membership that

includes social scientists,

bioethicists and consumer

groups. It was this panel who

first highlighted the potential for

synthetic biology to raise social

and ethical issues to the

Research Councils and in doing

so sparked this whole exercise.

BSS helps us to include

perspectives in our policy

making from beyond those of

the close-knit scientific

community and they will

continue to keep a close eye on

this area as the science

develops.

Clearly, though, the report

and dialogue call for much more

than a watching brief, and our

response sets out our

commitment to do much more.

It is not necessary to repeat

what is laid out in the response

letter, but it may be helpful to

outline the thinking behind the

actions and illustrate it by pulling

out one or two examples.

The report highlights that

there are some issues that are

particularly acute in synthetic

biology: the juxtaposition of

‘synthetic’ and ‘biology’; of

‘artificial’ and ‘natural’: and, the

potential for synthetic biology to

have industrial scale impacts

and so to be both very exciting

and yet also very ‘scary’, are two

that stick in my mind. This

means that we do need to be

particularly vigilant and attentive

to synthetic biology as a

scientific area. It is why we have

committed to working hard, with

our synthetic biology research

community, to ensuring that we

are open and engaged. I know

that our Networks in Synthetic

Biology are already doing a great

deal to talk about their research

and to bring in outside

perspectives to their work. But

we can do more which is why,

with funding from Sciencewise,

we will be holding a workshop

with the synthetic biology

community not only to discuss

the report and its messages but

also to share best practice in

public engagement and to begin

to build a tool kit that will help

researchers talk about their

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY DIALOGUE AND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE?


Professor Douglas Kell Chief Executive,Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council,The University of Manchester

Tim

Gan

der

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


research and explore the issues

around it.

The headline message from

the report is, “conditional

support of synthetic biology”. It’s

striking that for all four

applications discussed in the

workshops each time at least

half of people thought research

should be encouraged.

But it would be a grave

mistake to interpret this

simplistic top line message as

meaning that we need do

nothing. The report really brings

out the plurality of voices and

views that were expressed

during the dialogue. It was

striking to me how people’s

views were nuanced, for

instance the same people would

recognise the potential for

synthetic biology to tackle global

challenges whilst at the same

time expressing anxiety about

regulatory and societal issues.

Clearly discussion and debate

about synthetic biology is not

either black or white, nor should

it be depicted or treated as

such. Each new advance and

novel application of synthetic

biology will prompt a

conversation to explore the grey

areas and to try to decide

whether the potential risks are

or are not outweighed by the

potential benefits.

The report has real value to

us because as well as helping

us understand people’s attitude

to synthetic biology it also tells

us about issues that stretch right

across our work and indeed that

of government and industry. For

instance, there are messages

about how innovation happens

that are not just relevant to

synthetic biology but can be

applied to any area of research

that we fund. In fact, BBSRC’s

Bioscience for Industry Strategy

Panel has recently been

discussing just these issues and

has helped us put together a

Knowledge Exchange and

Commercialisation policy that

aims to shift the focus of

knowledge exchange towards

recognising social goods as well

as commercial potential research

and its outputs. This work has

the support of our Research

Council colleagues.

The dialogue and report has

also prompted us within BBSRC

to review how we monitor the

ethics of all our grant

applications and to think about

how we can encourage

researchers right across the piece

to consider the motivations for

their work and to look at it in the

wider social context.

Of course, the report touches

on areas that are beyond the

Research Councils’ sphere of

influence. Far from ignoring

these issues we are actively

working to ensure that the

report has influence beyond our

walls, we know it is important

that the messages from this

report reach all those who have

a stake in them.

Finally, I would like to thank

all those who’ve taken part so

far in this discussion, either as

advisors or participants and by

inviting those of you haven’t yet

been involved to join in the

ongoing discussion around this

potentially life changing

technology.

The recommendations that have arisenfrom the dialogue and the response thatBBSRC and EPSRC have made to thoserecommendations are available throughour website (www.bbsrc.ac.uk/syntheticbiologydialogue).

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY DIALOGUE AND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE?


Professor David DelpyChief Executive, Engineeringand Physical SciencesResearch Council

Synthetic biology provides us

with a unique opportunity to

engage the public early on in

the future direction of an

emerging and potentially

revolutionary area of research.

The synthetic biology public

dialogue, commissioned by

EPSRC, BBSRC and Sciencewise,

has been an extremely valuable

and positive experience for the

Research Councils. We hope this

is the first step in building a

platform for ongoing

communication with the public

about important scientific

advances – getting issues out in

the open and engaging a wider

audience in the debate.

Two of the main themes

emerging from the dialogue

responses, which I will explore

further here, were regulation

and an approach to responsible

science and innovation.

REGULATION

The issue of regulation for

synthetic biology is a

problematic one as framing

regulation when hypothesizing

about future technology is

fraught with difficulties. However,

strong concerns were expressed

by all participants in the dialogue

about the need for effective

regulation and adaptive

governance, with regulators

seeking to anticipate and

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


respond to scientific

developments. Doubts were

also expressed about the ability

of the current regulatory systems

to cope if a breakthrough led to

an increase in synthetic biology

applications.

If these issues are not

satisfactorily addressed then

there could well be a public

reaction against synthetic

biology, limiting our ability to

realise the potentially huge

benefits of the technology.

Much of our existing

regulation uses conventional risk

assessment to assess the safety

of, for example, a genetically

modified (GM) organism by

comparing it with that of a

predecessor. If synthetic biology

were to create totally new

entities without provenance or

predecessors this approach

would not necessarily work. To

complicate things further,

research is still in its infancy and

the hypothetical applications

cross over the boundaries of

different Government

Departments, potential

regulators, and international

bodies.

This is an area where the

Research Councils have limited

influence, but I have alerted Sir

John Beddington in his role as

the Government’s Chief

Scientific Adviser. We have

discussed this and corresponded

and I know he is giving this his

active consideration.

I do believe that the

Research Councils and our

research communities can and

should seek to identify at an

early stage the potential wider

impacts of emerging

technologies (on society, health

and the environment) and in so

doing inform regulatory

decisions. The researchers we

fund should form the first link in

an anticipatory and adaptive

governance partnership.

RESPONSIBLE SCIENCEAND INNOVATION

A key message from the

dialogue is that the public have

an interest not just in the

outcomes of research, but in the

process and conduct of the

research itself. The public rightly

expect to be able to trust

funders to ensure that scientists

think about the potential impacts

of their research and act

responsibly, and that

government puts in place

appropriate and timely

regulatory processes.

These are generic issues that

are not limited to synthetic

biology, but apply across the

whole spectrum of research and

innovation.

Research Councils have a

responsibility to scrutinize the

potential impacts and risks of

emerging technologies, and

encourage the researchers we

fund to do likewise. This is an

area that EPSRC’s advisory body,

the Societal Issues Panel1, is

considering closely. Such

processes must not be about

necessarily stopping areas of

research in response to potential

risk and uncertainty; we need to

identify how to proceed

responsibly. The challenge will

be to define an approach that

promotes creativity and

innovation in research

underpinned by a commitment

to its responsible development.

DEVELOPING AFRAMEWORK FOR THEFUTURE

Through a pilot project in

partnership with the Economic

and Social Research Council

(ESRC) we have been exploring

ways to encourage and embed

such ‘upstream’ reflection. As

part of the pilot EPSRC included

a specific section on responsible

innovation for the first time

within a major funding call.

For more detail on the pilot

project see Rising to the

Challenge of Responsible

Innovation by Professor Richard

Owen on page 5 of this

publication.

In conjunction with ESRC we

are looking at how we might

build on this pilot and develop

an outline Responsible Science

and Innovation Framework as a

basis for a wider discussion and

to explore how we might

develop a unified, consistent

approach across Research

Councils and other partners.

Although any potential

framework would be made

available to all research areas, it

would not be expected to be

used in all cases. We must take

care not to be heavy handed

and force an approach on areas

where it might not be

appropriate. This is about

creating the opportunity for

reflection within the whole life

cycle of research and innovation,

encouraging researchers to think

imaginatively about the potential

applications and impacts of their

science, and helping to inform

policy and regulation

discussions.

CONCLUSION

We have embarked on the

first step in establishing a route

to responsible innovation, but

there is much left to do. If

successful we believe this will

lead to a positive culture change

for research and innovation

funders and those who are

funded by them. It will be an

important start to translating the

concepts of adaptive and

anticipatory technological

governance into practice at an

early stage in the innovation

process.

I would like to thank all those

who contributed to the dialogue,

especially the members of the

public and the scientists who

found time to participate. Special

thanks should go to BMRB who

conducted the exercise and also

to Sciencewise whose resources

and wealth of expertise

contributed so much to the

process.

1 EPSRC’s Societal Issues Panel is chairedby Professor Lord Robert Winston. Thecurrent membership comprises:Professor Jim Al-Khalili (University ofSurrey and EPSRC Senior MediaFellow), Anita Charlesworth (NuffieldTrust and Chief Scientific Advisor to theDepartment of Culture Media andSport), Professor Richard Jones(University of Sheffield), Professor PhilMacnaghten (Durham University),Professor Judith Petts (University ofSouthampton), Tim Radford (FreelanceJournalist), Professor Tom Rodden(University of Nottingham), ProfessorKathy Sykes (University of Bristol) andProfessor Paul Younger (University ofNewcastle).

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


WHY WE NEED A GREATERDIVERSITY OF EXPERTS FOREFFECTIVE PUBLIC DIALOGUE

One of the key outcomesfrom the ‘Use of Experts’workstream report was for therole of experts to be morecarefully considered in theplanning and delivery ofpublic dialogues. This articlelooks at one aspect of thatreport – to advocate bringingin a greater number anddiversity of experts in publicdialogue and why that isbecoming even morepertinent.

In the public dialoguesSciencewise-ERC has fundedand advised on, a sample ofmembers of the public is askedto deliberate on an issue,exploring their hopes, fears andaspirations so that policy can bebetter informed by those views.

Therefore, we give peoplequite a challenge – fromknowing little, if anything, on asubject to, over the course oftwo or three days, beingimmersed in subjects such assynthetic biology,geoengineering, stem cells andanimals containing humanmaterial, and then discussing thechallenges, issues, benefits andpitfalls. Participants are takenthrough a range of informationand often in a spread ofdifferent formats – informationsheets, videos, presentationsand their own research – tobring them up to speed with thecore aspects and narratives on

the subject. Participants alsohear the views of different‘experts’ as another way ofenabling them to see throughand round the different aspectsof an issue.

And therein is the challengethat requires explicitconsideration – who are the‘experts’ and how do wefaithfully and credibly cover thediversity of perspectives thatmay exist on an issue?

WHY A DIVERSITY OFEXPERTS?

I suggest there are two keydrivers for this diversity. Firstly, toenable participants to deliberateas effectively as they can on theissue at hand and, secondly,(and often not given enoughemphasis) to provide anopportunity for the experts to beparticipants themselves in thoseprocesses as a way of directlyhearing the issues from thepublic and thus informing theirown thinking and researchtrajectories.

FOR PUBLICPARTICIPANTS – SEEINGTHE WHOLE

If we are expecting people tomake choices or express viewson a subject, then we shouldprovide perspectives that enableparticipants to get as holistic aview as possible on the issue tohelp the process of deliberation.

Without faithfully providing asfull a picture as possible of theissues, the process becomes indanger of being challenged forbias.

“Debates about scienceshould involve differentopinions/viewpoints and aplurality of expertise andrecognition of other types ofknowledge that take intoaccount minority opinions”1

Obviously, each dialogue isspecifically planned and factorssuch as purpose of the dialogue,and the issue being discussedare key to defining who theexperts may be. Inevitably, timefactors will also play a partsomewhere along the linerestricting how much can beachieved – which is why it is soimportant to think carefullyabout who is chosen to provide‘expert input’.

Evaluations of dialoguesshow that a variety of viewpointsis always valued by participants– and, indeed, if the variety ofinput is not there, thenparticipants often quickly pick upon its omission.

“It was also particularlyvaluable to have a variety ofviewpoints among the speakers.This helped ensure thatparticipants did not feelmanipulated towards aparticular conclusion, and alsohelped them feel there was no‘right’ answer which, in turn,made them feel morecomfortable about expressingtheir own views.” (HFEA Hybrid& Chimera Embryos dialogue) 2

Suzannah LansdellDialogue and Engagement Specialist Sciencewise-ERC

As far as possible, it is reallyvaluable to give participants theopportunity to say which expertsand/or viewpoints they wouldwant to hear.

FOR EXPERTS –REFLECTING PUBLICHOPES, FEARS ANDASPIRATIONS

There is another reason forwanting to include a diversity ofexperts in public dialogue – toprovide greater opportunity forthe experts themselves. Publicdialogue is, importantly (orshould be), about experts beingable to discuss the issues withpublic participants – to hear firsthand the issues and concerns.Giving experts an opportunity tohear what the public thinks andfeels about an issue isimportant, and crucial in thecase of research, if we are totruly embed societal thinkinginto future research trajectories.

“I gained a lot from listeningto the views of a very diverserange of members of the publicwho, by and large, were verysupportive of us, but had a fewareas where they weren’tcertain. I think it has allowedme to sort of set my barometerat a more appropriate point.”(Professor Chris Mason,University College London, anexpert speaker and member ofthe Oversight Group in the StemCell Dialogue)3

Not only does diversityenable richer public dialogues, italso enables greater reflection ofpublic thinking into futurescience and technologicaldevelopments.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


EXPERT – WHATEXPERT?

So, who exactly is an expert?This, of course, will vary fromsubject to subject and processto process. In Sciencewisedialogues, expert input hasbroadly fallen into the followingcategories:

• Experts (scientific/technical/legal) provide technical andscientific-based inputs from thewhole range of science – fromsocial science and philosophythrough to physical and lifesciences

• Stakeholders largely provideviews and evidence based ona particular standpoint andoften represent lobbying orspecial interest groups, eg theRenewable Energy Association,Greenpeace

• Experiential publics aremembers of the public whohave a specific knowledge, cancontribute by sharing theirpersonal insights and storiesinto an issue, eg parents ofchildren with a chronic medicalcondition, who have gainedconsiderable knowledge of thatparticular condition over time,but who also have direct

experience as users of amedical service

BROADENING THENOTION OF WHO IS ANEXPERT

The notion of who might beperceived as an expert is underconstant debate.

“…when it comes to thefuture of an emergingtechnology, no one (oreveryone) is an expert.”http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100804/full/466688a.htmlNatureNews: World View: Not byexperts alone – David Sarewitz

As the Big Society starts toplay out, it is possible that, withan emphasis away fromcentralised ‘power’ to more localdelivery, there will come agreater recognition of the roleand experiences of thoseindividuals and organisationsdelivering solutions. Theextension of this means awidening of whom we mightperceive as experts in the future– particularly to those withincreasing direct and practical,rather than academic,experience.

Couple this with thecontinued rise of the

professional amateur, resourcedand profiled by ever widerinternet powered informationsharing, and it is likely that thechoice of which ‘experts’ andperspectives are pertinent,challenging and appropriate inpublic dialogue is sure tobroaden.

So, while advocating a muchstronger presence and numberof scientists and academicexperts to participate in publicdialogue, it is also necessary toconsider involving a much widerset of perspectives on an issueto equip public participants withthe range of viewpoints on thesubject at hand.

In conclusion, the tips to bearin mind for every dialogue is tothink carefully about which, andin what way, experts areinvolved in public dialogue:

- Are the range ofperspectives faithfullycovered to give participantsa holistic view of the issues?

- Who is best suited to givethose perspectives –academics, NGOs, thosewith experiences or storiesto share – do we need tolook beyond the ’usualsuspects’?

- How can expertsthemselves be participantsin the process and becomemore able to understandfully the thoughts of publicparticipants so that, in turn,this can help developthinking, research anddevelopments that are fit forpurpose and in line with asociety that ultimately givesthe ’licence to operate’ formany new technologies.

1 Participatory Science and ScientificParticipation: The role of Civil SocietyOrganisation in decisionmaking aboutnovel developments in biotechnology.http://www.participationinscience.eu/psx2/final/PSX2_final%20report.pdf

2 Warburton, Diane – Shared Practice(2007) - Evaluation of the HFEA publicconsultation on hybrid and chimeraembryoshttp://www.sharedpractice.org.uk/Downloads/HFEA%20Report.pdf

3 Mohr, Alison (2009) An independentevaluation of the BBSRC and MRCStem Cell Dialogue Project 2008.University of Nottingham, Institute forScience and Society, P47, Final draftMay 2009.

Contact details for furtherinformation below:E: [email protected] T: 0870 190 6324www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk

RESEARCHERS VISUALISE HERPESVIRUS’ TACTICAL MANOEUVRE

For the first time, researchershave developed a 3D picture ofa herpes virus proteininteracting with a key part of thehuman cellular machinery,enhancing our understanding ofhow it hijacks human cells tospread infection and openingup new possibilities for steppingin to prevent or treat infection.This discovery uncovers one ofthe many tactical manoeuvresemployed by the virus.

The Biotechnology andBiological Sciences ResearchCouncil (BBSRC)-funded team,led by The University ofManchester, have used NMR –a technique related to the oneused in MRI body scanners andcapable of visualising moleculesat the smallest scales – toproduce images of a herpesvirus protein interacting with amouse cellular protein. Theseimages were then used to

develop a 3D model of thisherpes virus protein interactingwith human protein. Theresearch was published thisevening in PLoS Pathogens on6 January.

Lead researcher Dr AlexanderGolovanov from Manchester'sInterdisciplinary Biocentre andFaculty of Life Sciences said,"There are quite a few types ofherpes viruses that causeproblems as mild as cold sores

through to some quite seriousillnesses, such as shingles oreven cancer. Viruses cannotsurvive or replicate on their own– they need the resources andapparatus within a human cell todo so. To prevent or treatdiseases caused by viruses weneed to know as much aspossible about how they do thisso that we can spot weak pointsor take out key tacticalmanoeuvres."

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


The 3D model shows howthe viral protein piggybacks ontothe molecular machinerycomponents inside human cells,promoting virus replication andspread of infection through thebody.

“When you look at theimage, it's like a backpack on anelephant: the small compactfragment of viral protein fitsnicely on the back of thehuman protein,” said DrGolovanov.

By studying the images alongwith biochemical experimentsusing the human version of the

cellular protein, the team hasuncovered the mechanism bywhich the viral and cellularproteins work together to guidethe viral genetic material out ofthe cell's nucleus. Once there,the genetic material can beutilised to make proteins thatare used as building blocks fornew viruses. The researchershave also confirmed that thisrelationship between the twoproteins exists for related herpesviruses that infect monkeys.

Dr Golovanov continued,“Our discovery gives us a wholestep more detail on how herpes

viruses use the human cell tosurvive and replicate. This opensup the possibilities for askingnew questions about how toprevent or treat the diseasesthey cause.”

Professor Janet Allen, BBSRCDirector of Research, said “Thisnew research gives us animportant piece of the jigsaw forhow a particular viral infectionworks on a molecular level,which is great news.Understanding the relationshipbetween a human, animal orplant – the host – and theorganisms that cause disease –

pathogens – is a fundamentalstep toward successfulstrategies to minimise theimpact of infection. To studyhost-pathogen relationships wehave to look in detail at thesmallest scale of molecules – asthis study does – and also rightthrough to the largest scale ofhow diseases work in wholesystems – a crop disease in thecontext of a whole area ofagricultural land, for example.BBSRC’s broad portfolio ofresearch into host-pathogenrelationships facilitates this well.”

550 MILLION YEARS AGO RISE INOXYGEN DROVE EVOLUTION OFANIMAL LIFE

Researchers funded by theBiotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council(BBSRC) at the University ofOxford have uncovered a cluethat may help to explain why theearliest evidence of complexmulticellular animal life appearsaround 550 million years ago,when atmospheric oxygen levelson the planet rose sharply from3% to their modern day level of21%.

The team, led by ProfessorChris Schofield, has found thathumans share a method ofsensing oxygen with the world'ssimplest known living animal –Trichoplax adhaerens –suggesting the method has beenaround since the first animalsemerged around 550 millionyears ago.

This discovery, published on17 December in the January2011 edition of EMBO Reports,throws light on how humanssense oxygen and how oxygen

levels drove the very earlieststages of animal evolution.

Professor Schofield said “It’sabsolutely necessary for anymulticellular organism to have asufficient supply of oxygen toalmost every cell and so theatmospheric rise in oxygen madeit possible for multicellularorganisms to exist.

“But there was still a verydifferent physiological challengefor these organisms than for themore evolutionarily ancientsingle-celled organisms such asbacteria. Being multicelluarmeans oxygen has to get to cellsnot on the surface of theorganism. We think this is whatdrove the ancestors of Trichoplaxadhaerens to develop a systemto sense a lack of oxygen in anycell and then do somethingabout it.”

The oxygen sensing processenables animals to survive betterat low oxygen levels, or ‘hypoxia’.In humans this system responds

to hypoxia, such as is caused byhigh altitudes or physicalexertion, and is very importantfor the prevention of stroke andheart attacks as well as sometypes of cancer.

Trichoplax adhaerens is a tinyseawater organism that lacks anyorgans and has only five types ofcells, giving it the appearance ofan amoeba. By analysing howTrichoplax reacts to a lack ofoxygen, Oxford researcher DrChristoph Loenarz found that ituses the same mechanism ashumans – in fact, when the keyenzyme from Trichoplax was putit in a human cell, it worked justas well as the human enzymeusually would.

They also looked at thegenomes of several otherspecies and found that thismechanism is present in multi-cellular animals, but not in thesingle-celled organisms that werethe precursors of animals,suggesting that the mechanism

evolved at the same time as theearliest multicellular animals.

Defects in the most importanthuman oxygen sensing enzymecan cause polycythemia – anincrease in red blood cells. Thework could also open up newapproaches to develop therapiesfor this disorder.

Professor Douglas Kell, ChiefExecutive, BBSRC said“Understanding how animals –and ultimately humans –evolved is essential to our abilityto pick apart the workings of ourcells. Knowledge of normalbiological processes underpinsnew developments that canimprove quality of life foreveryone. The more skilful webecome in studying theevolution of some of our mostessential cell biology, the betterour chances of ensuring longterm health and well being tomatch the increase in averagelifespan in the UK and beyond.”

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECTCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGYCURRENT INQUIRIESScientific advice and evidence in emergencies

The Committee announced on 27 July 2010that it would examine the Government’s use ofscientific advice and evidence in emergencysituations. The inquiry examined four case studiesindicated below in italics. The Committee heldfive oral evidence sessions.

On Wednesday 20 October the Committeetook evidence on Swine Flu from Professor SheilaBird, Vice-President (2006-09), Royal StatisticalSociety, Professor Neil Ferguson OBE, Director,MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling,Justin McCracken, Chief Executive, HealthProtection Agency, and Dr Peter Holden, BritishMedical Association; Professor Sir Gordon Duff,Chair of the Scientific Pandemic InfluenzaAdvisory Committee, Sir Liam Donaldson, FormerChief Medical Officer, Professor David HarperCBE, Chief Scientist, Department of Health.

On Wednesday 3 November the Committeetook evidence on volcanic ash from Ray Elgy,Head of Licensing & Training Standards, CivilAviation Authority, Dr Guy Gratton, RoyalAeronautical Society, Dr Sue Loughlin, Head ofVolcanology, British Geological Survey, andCaptain Tim Steeds, Director of Safety & Security,British Airways; Professor Brian Collins, ChiefScientific Adviser, Department for Transport, DrMiles Parker, Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser,Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, and Professor Julia Slingo, Chief ScientificAdvisor, Met Office.

On Wednesday 10 November the Committeetook evidence on space weather from ProfessorPaul Cannon FREng, Royal Academy ofEngineering, Professor Mike Hapgood, RoyalAstronomical Society, and Chris Train, NetworkOperations Director, National Grid; Professor BrianCollins, Chief Scientific Adviser, Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Phil Evans,Director of Government Business, Met Office,Paul Hollinshead, Director of Science andInnovation Group, and Phil Lawton, DownstreamGas and Electricity Resilience Manager,Department of Energy and Climate Change.

On Wednesday 17 November the Committeetook evidence on cyber security from ProfessorRoss Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering,University of Cambridge, Robert Hayes, SeniorFellow, The Microsoft Institute for AdvancedTechnology in Governments, Malcolm Hutty,Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange(LINX), and Professor Peter Sommer, VisitingProfessor, London School of Economics; Dr SteveMarsh, Deputy Director, Office of Cyber Securityand Information Assurance, Cabinet Office,Professor Bernard Silverman, Chief ScientificAdviser, Home Office, and Professor MarkWelland, Chief Scientific Adviser, Ministry ofDefence.

On Wednesday 1 December the Committeetook evidence from Professor Sir JohnBeddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser;Rt Hon Lord Adonis, former Secretary of State forTransport, and Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, formerSecretary of State for Health; Rt Hon BaronessNeville-Jones, Minister of State for Security, and RtHon David Willetts MP, Minister of State forUniversities and Science.

The written evidence received in the inquiry ison the Committee’s website. The Report iscurrently being prepared.

Technology Innovation Centres

On 20 October 2010 the Committeeannounced an inquiry into Technology InnovationCentres. The Committee announced that it wouldexamine the German Fraunhofer Institutes as amodel for Technology Innovation Centres in thiscountry and its validity in improvingcommercialisation of research in the UK. TheCommittee invited written submissions on thefollowing issues by 2 December 2010:

1. What is the Fraunhofer model and would it beapplicable to the UK?

2. Are there existing Fraunhofer-type researchcentres within the UK, and if so, are theyeffective?

3. What other models are there for researchcentres oriented toward applications and results?

4. Whose role should it be to coordinate researchin a UK-wide network of innovation centres?

The Science and TechnologyCommittee is established underStanding Order No 152, andcharged with the scrutiny of theexpenditure, administration andpolicy of the Government Office forScience, a semi-autonomousorganisation based within theDepartment for Business,Innovation and Skills.

The current members of theScience and Technology Committeeare: Gavin Barwell (Conservative,Croydon Central), Gregg McClymont(Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth andKirkintilloch East), Stephen Metcalfe(Conservative, South Basildon andEast Thurrock), Andrew Miller(Labour, Ellesmere Port andNeston), David Morris(Conservative, Morecambe andLunesdale), Stephen Mosley(Conservative, City of Chester),Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie andShotts), Jonathan Reynolds(Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridgeand Hyde), Alok Sharma(Conservative, Reading West),Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackleyand Broughton) and Roger Williams(Liberal Democrat, Brecon andRadnorshire).

Andrew Miller was elected by theHouse of Commons to be the Chairof the Committee on 9 June 2010.The remaining Members wereformally appointed to theCommittee on 12 July 2010.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


5. What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type instituteshave on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments andother existing research centres that undertake Governmentsponsored research?

The Committee held three oral evidence sessions.

On Wednesday 15 December the Committee took evidencefrom Dr David Bembo, Member of Council, Association forUniversity Research and Industry Links, Dr Tim Bradshaw, Head ofEnterprise & Innovation, Confederation of British Industry, ProfessorRic Parker, Director of Research & Technology, Rolls-Royce Group,and Patrick Reeve, Chair of the BVCA Venture Capital Public PolicyCommittee, British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association.

On Monday 20 December the Committee took evidence fromPam Alexander, Chief Executive, South East England DevelopmentAgency (SEEDA), Richard Brook OBE, President, Association ofIndependent Research and Technology Organisations, Nigel Perry,Chief Executive, Centre for Process Innovation Ltd, and ProfessorKeith Ridgway OBE, Research Director, Advanced ManufacturingResearch Centre.

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 the Committee took evidencefrom Iain Gray, Chief Executive, Technology Strategy Board; Rt HonDavid Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science.

The written evidence received in the inquiry is on theCommittee’s website. The Report is currently being prepared.

Strategically important metals

On 11 November the Committee announced an inquiry intostrategically important metals. The Committee invited writtensubmissions on the following issues by 17 December 2010:

1. Is there a global shortfall in the supply and availability ofstrategically important metals essential to the production ofadvanced technology in the UK?

2. How vulnerable is the UK to a potential decline or restriction in thesupply of strategically important metals? What should theGovernment be doing to safeguard against this and to ensuresupplies are produced ethically?

3. How desirable, easy and cost-effective is it to recover and recyclemetals from discarded products? How can this be encouraged?Where recycling currently takes place, what arrangements need tobe in place to ensure it is done cost-effectively, safely and ethically?

4. Are there substitutes for those metals that are in decline intechnological products manufactured in the UK? How can thesesubstitutes be more widely applied?

5. What opportunities are there to work internationally on thechallenge of recovering, recycling and substituting strategicallyimportant metals?

The written evidence received in the inquiry is on the Committee’swebsite. The Committee plans to take oral evidence in early 2011.

UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation

On 18 November the Committee announced an inquiry into theUK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI). TheCommittee invited written submissions on the following issues by 12January 2011:

1. Review the progress on the UKCMRI since 2008 and assess

the plans for the coming years.

2. What do the four partners hope to achieve from the projectand what new technologies and innovations are beingconsidered?

3. Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, withparticular reference to the public support for the project and theknock-on effect on budgets for other research?

4. What are the risk assessment arrangements to ensure thesafety of the site?

5. What are the arrangements for the closure of the existingNational Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill?

The written evidence received in the inquiry is on theCommittee’s website. The Committee plan to take oral evidence inearly 2011.

ORAL EVIDENCEThe transcripts of the evidence sessions described above and

below are available on the Science and Technology Committee’swebsite [www.parliament.uk/science].

Spending Review 2010

On 24 November the Committee took evidence on the SpendingReview 2010 from Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universitiesand Science, and Professor Adrian Smith, Director General, Scienceand Research, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. TheCommittee held a further evidence session on 19 January 2011when it took evidence from Chief Executives of the UK ResearchCouncils on their budget allocations and how they will meet theGovernment’s priorities for science.

The Reviews into the Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails

On 31 March 2010 the former Science and TechnologyCommittee published a report on the disclosure of climate data fromthe Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia(UEA) (HC (2009-10) 387-I). The Committee took evidence on TheReviews into the Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails from Lord Oxburgh,who headed the International Panel set up by the University of EastAnglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit on 8September 2010 and from Sir Muir Russell, who headed theIndependent Climate Change E-mails Review, Professor EdwardActon, Vice-Chancellor, and Professor Trevor Davies, Pro ViceChancellor for Research, University of East Anglia, on 27 October2010.

Government Office for Science Annual Review 2010

On 27 October the Committee took evidence on theGovernment Office for Science Annual Review 2010 from ProfessorSir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Head,Government Office for Science.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES Government Response to the Science and TechnologyCommittee report ‘The Regulation of Geoengineering’

On 28 September 2010 the Government published its Responseto the former Committee’s Report on ‘The Regulation ofGeoengineering’ as a Command Paper (Cm 7936).

Government Response to the House of Commons Science &Technology Select Committee Report: “The disclosure of

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (POST)RECENT POST PUBLICATIONS Indoor Air QualityNovember 2010 POSTnote 366

It is well established that outdoor air pollutionis harmful to human health. However, lessattention has been paid to the potential healtheffects of indoor air pollution. This POSTnotedescribes sources of indoor air pollution, theevidence for adverse effects on human healthand outlines possible policy responses.

BiofortificationNovember 2010 POSTnote 367

Breeding crops to enhance their nutritionalcomposition, known as biofortification, is onepotential strategy for addressing certain forms ofundernutrition. This approach may be usefulwhere there is a dependence on calorie-rich butnutrient-poor staple foods. This briefing describesdevelopments in biofortification, examines itspotential impact, and the implications for policymakers in the UK and abroad.

Rare Earth MetalsJanuary 2011 POSTnote 368

Rapid global industrialisation and populationgrowth are placing increasing pressure onavailability of raw materials. A group of elementsknown as the Rare Earth Metals has become ahighly sought-after resource for high-technologyand low carbon industries. Currently, globaldemand is increasing, and there are concerns

over future availability. This briefing examines thedebate on future supplies, and discusses the UKand international response.

Biodiversity OffsettingJanuary 2011 POSTnote 369

Given growing recognition of the importanceof biodiversity, all sectors are looking for ways tomitigate the environmental costs of humanactivity. Biodiversity offsetting refers to market-based schemes designed to compensate forlosses of biodiversity due to humandevelopment. The intention is to maintain orenhance an equivalent amount of biodiversity atan alternate location. This briefing summarisesbiodiversity offsetting and examines opportunitiesand risks of offsets within a UK context.

Environmental LimitsJanuary 2011 POSTnote 370

An environmental limit is usually interpreted asthe point or range of conditions beyond whichthere is a significant risk of abrupt, irreversible, ordifficult to reverse, changes to the benefitsderived from natural resource systems withimpacts on human well-being. Natural resourcessuch as land, water, soil, plants and animalsshould be used and managed within boundariesthat allow the resource to renew itself. Otherwisewell-being, for present and future generations, willbe impacted. This briefing summarises a longerPOST report on environmental limits, which setsout the challenges to achieving this aim, while

climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the Universityof East Anglia”

On 28 September 2010 the Government published its Responseto the former Committee’s Report on ‘The disclosure of climate datafrom the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’ as aCommand Paper (Cm 7934).

As of January 2011 the Government response to one of itspredecessor Committee’s Reports of Session 2009-10, is stilloutstanding: Bioengineering, Seventh Report (HC 220), published25 March 2010.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Further information about the work of the Science and TechnologyCommittee or its current inquiries can be obtained from the Clerk ofthe Committee, Glenn McKee, the Second Clerk, Ed Beale, or fromthe Senior Committee Assistant, Andy Boyd, on 020 72198367/2792/2793 respectively; or by writing to: The Clerk of theCommittee, Science and Technology Committee, House ofCommons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. Enquiries can also be e-mailed to [email protected]. Anyone wishing to be includedon the Committee’s mailing list should contact the staff of theCommittee. Anyone wishing to submit evidence to the Committee isstrongly recommended to obtain a copy of the guidance note first.Guidance on the submission of evidence can be found athttp://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm. TheCommittee has a website, www.parliament.uk/science, where allrecent publications, terms of reference for all inquiries and pressnotices are available.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


considering the complex trade-offs between social, economic andenvironmental objectives.

MEMBERS OF THE POST BOARD FOR 2010-15OfficersChair: Adam Afriyie MPVice-Chair: Lord Winston Director: Professor David CopeSecretary: Mr Glenn McKee

House of Lords: Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool; Lord Krebs; Lord Taylorof Warwick

House of Commons: Dr Therese Coffey MP; Mr MichaelConnarty MP; Dr Julian Huppert MP; Mr Philip Lee MP; Mr AndrewMiller MP; Mr David Mowat MP; Mrs Sarah Newton MP; Miss Chinyelu Onwurah MP

Non-Parliamentary Members: Professor Frances R BalkwillFMedSci; Sir David Davies CBE FREng FRS; Professor Jim NortonFIEE FRSA; Professor Ekhard Salje FRS

Ex-officio Members

For the House of Lords Committee Office: Mrs Christine Salmon

For the Department of Chamber and Committee Services: Mr Paul Evans

For the Department of Information Services: Mr ChristopherBarclay; Mr John Pullinger

CURRENT WORKBiological Sciences – Deception Detection Technologies,

Interpretation of the Mental Capacity Act, Review of Stem CellResearch.

Environment and Energy – Future Electricity Transmission,Climate Change Adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa, Update to CarbonFootprint of Electricity Generation (POSTnote 268), UnconventionalGas, Energy Security, Future Landscapes, Evidence BasedConservation.

Physical sciences and IT – Solar Technologies, Technologies forClean Water, Opening up Public Sector Data.

CONFERENCES AND SEMINARSHealth of Military Personnel

On 2nd November POST hosted a seminar in collaboration withthe British Psychological Society on the health of military personnel.Recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted the shortand long-term impacts on the physical health and mental well-being of personnel who have served in these theatres of war.Research in psychology and psychiatry is providing newperspectives on which support strategies are most effective formilitary personnel. James Arbuthnot MP, Chair of the House ofCommons Defence Select Committee, chaired the seminar.

Political and Market Factors Affecting Developments in EnergyTechnology and Climate Change

On 14th December POST hosted a Westminster Energy Forumseminar to examine the political and market factors affectingdevelopments in energy technology and climate change. Speakersincluded Oliver Graham of the Boston Consulting Group, FionaHarvey, Environment Correspondent of the Financial Times, AdrianHaworth from GE Energy, Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of theGrantham Institute for Climate Change, Huw Irranca-Davies MP,

Opposition spokesperson on Energy and David Kennedy, ChiefExecutive of the Committee on Climate Change.

Rare Earth Metals and Beyond

On 12th January POST hosted a seminar on global mineralresource availability, with a particular focus on “rare earth” metalsupply issues relevant to the UK and EU. Rapid globalindustrialisation and population growth are placing increasingpressure on global mineral resources. For example, currently “rareearth” metals, used widely in high-tech products and low carbonenergy technologies, are experiencing both increasing globaldemand, and supply issues. This has caused as much as ten-foldprice increases over the last six months, giving rise to debate overlonger term security of supply. Lord Oxburgh chaired the seminarwhich included presentations from Judith Chegwidden, ManagingDirector of Roskill Information Services Ltd, Dr Jonathan Di John,School of Oriental and African Studies, Andrew Gunn, BritishGeological Survey, and Nick Morley, Oakdene Hollins.

Staff, Fellows and Interns at POST

Staff

A new Physics and IT Adviser, Dr Mary Matthews, started at POST inNovember, following the secondment of Dr Martin Griffiths to theRoyal Statistical Society.A new Biology and Health Adviser, Dr Ana Padilla, started at POSTin January to cover for Dr Sarah Bunn who is on maternity leave.

Conventional Fellows

Beth Dyson, Manchester University, Natural Environment ResearchCouncilJoanne Edgar, Bristol University, Institute of Food Science andTechnologyEleanor Kean, Cardiff University, British Ecological SocietyBenjamin O’Driscoll, University of Reading, Royal Society ofChemistryDr Gareth Owen, Kings College London, Wellcome Trust BioethicsFellowship

Special Post-doctoral Fellow

Dr Mara Almeida, Medical Research Council Functional GenomicsUnit, University of Oxford, on a special Portuguese government six-month scholarship to study the functioning of parliamentary scienceoffices.

Hansard Society Intern

Lindsay Amico, Northeastern University, Boston, USA

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIESLectures and Presentations

On 25th/26th November the Director was invited to give akeynote presentation in Brussels at a pan-European conference on“Undergrounding of Extra High Voltage (EHV) Power Lines”. Thedriver for continental interest is that in various European countries,in particular Germany and Austria, intense local opposition isoccurring to planned new lines intended to bring renewable energyfrom the Baltic and North Sea to southern demand centres. Sometechnological advances are occurring in underground cable systemsbut these are unlikely to reduce their cost below being an order ofmagnitude greater than for overhead lines.

On 27th/28th November Dr Nath was invited to give a talkabout POST’s work with the Parliament of Uganda at a UNESCO

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


sponsored conference on “Regional cooperation in science andtechnology: opportunity and challenges in the context ofglobalisation in New Delhi.”

POST African Parliaments Programme

Preparations for parliamentary and presidential elections areunder way in Uganda so the programme is focusing on plans foractivities in the new parliament, which will include a third round of

MP-scientist pairing and the setting up of a “remote mentoring”scheme for Ugandan parliamentary staff working on scientific issues.Discussions are also being held with the Parliament of Uganda andthe Ugandan National Academy of Sciences about how to sustaincapacity building activities in science and technology when thePOST programme comes to an end in mid 2012.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTSECTIONDaylight Saving Bill

Research Paper 10/78

Over the past decade there have been severalattempts to shift clocks forward for one hourthroughout the year, so that more daylight wouldbe experienced in the evenings rather than themornings. There could be a range of benefitsfrom such a change including: fewer people killedon the roads; improved health and wellbeing; aneconomic stimulus; and reduced greenhouse gasemissions.

A number of commentators are not convincedby the supporting evidence and claims, or believethat more information is required before adecision can be supported. There are particularconcerns in Scotland about the implications ofthe darker mornings that a change would cause.

The Daylight Saving Bill 2010-11 is a PrivateMember’s Bill sponsored by Rebecca Harris MP. Itwould require the Government to conduct across-departmental analysis of the potential costsand benefits of advancing time by one hour forall, or part of, the year. If this analysis found that aclock change would benefit the UK, the Billrequires that the Government initiate a trial clockchange to determine the full implications.

Localism Bill: Planning and Housing

Research Paper 11/03

Part 5 of the Bill will abolish regional planning,introduce a neighbourhood planning regime andabolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Part 6 of the Bill will make significant changesto the way in which social housing is providedand will also repeal the legislation governing theprovision of Home Information Packs (HIPs). ThisPart includes provisions that will enable the longawaited reform of council housing finance.

Part 7 of the Bill will make changes to housing

Research Papers produced forMembers of Parliament aresummarised opposite. Papers canbe accessed athttp://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/research-papers/

The Section produces a series offrequently updated notes on a widerange of topics. Opposite aresummaries of some recentlyupdated notes.The notes can be accessed onlineat http://www.parliament.uk/topics/Topical-Issues.htm

For further information contactChristopher Barclay Head of SectionTel: 020 7219 3624 email:[email protected]

and regeneration functions in London. It willabolish the London Development Agency andintroduce a regime for Mayoral DevelopmentCorporations. Changes to Greater LondonAuthority governance will allow the delegation offunctions by Ministers to the Mayor.

Cancun Climate Conference SN/SC/5772

The high expectations for the CopenhagenClimate Conference (COP15) held in December2009 were not met and agreement on thesuccessor to the Kyoto Protocol was not reached.Instead a non-binding Copenhagen Accord wasput together by some of the major emittingcountries behind closed doors and agreed to atthe last minute. After Copenhagen progress wasslow with little movement from the variousparties.

Expectations were not high for any progressduring the next conference in Cancun (COP16).The outcome after two weeks of negotiations wasmodest, but the meeting was considered asuccess on the basis that the negotiations did notcollapse as they did in Copenhagen. Althoughthere was little progress in negotiating a successorto the Kyoto Protocol progress was made onseveral issues including technology transfer,funding and forestry. In addition, there wasagreement (mediated by India) that bothdeveloped and developing countries wouldcommit to reduce emissions; and that both wouldbe subject to some form of monitoring andverification. The Agreement was supported by allmember countries, with the exception of Bolivia.

The Green Deal SN/SC/5763

One of the main components in the EnergyBill 2010-11 is the framework for a “Green Deal.”The aim is to encourage home energy efficiencyimprovements, to be paid for by consequentsavings from energy bills. It will apply in England,

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


Wales and Scotland and is a two-strand policy.

The first strand is a pay-as-you save scheme whereby qualifyingGreen Deal customers would get the money upfront to make theenergy efficiency improvements in the form of a loan.

The second strand is to replace the current obligations onenergy suppliers, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from homes,with the new energy company obligation (ECO). The ECO wouldunderpin the Green Deal. It would focus the obligation on thoseproperties and households which could not make energy savingswithout extra financial support, such as those with hard-to-treathomes and the fuel poor.

The Green Deal is expected to be available to customers in thelatter half of 2012. This note examines the Green Deal proposals inmore detail.

Heating oil SN/SC/5806

Evidence suggests that the price of home heating fuel hasincreased substantially during winter 2010-11. The heating oilindustry has blamed the rise in prices on a combination of highercrude oil costs and on cold, snowy weather in the UK makingdeliveries more expensive. Campaign groups have accused thesecompanies of profiteering and using the cold weather as an excuseto raise prices unnecessarily.

The home heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem, but canbe investigated by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) if there isevidence to suggest that competition laws have been infringed.Following representations from the Government, the OFT has nowagreed to examine the supply of energy to consumers who are notconnected to the main gas grid. The study will launch formally inMarch 2011.

The Government has also said that it is keeping a careful watchon the situation. The Government also has a number of policiesand schemes to try to help the situation in the future. Theseinclude the Green Deal, social price support and the renewableheat incentive. This note sets out all these issues in more detail.

Flood defence SN/SC/5755

Between May and June 2007 extreme rainfall led to widespreadflooding in England and Wales. It was arguably the largestpeacetime emergency since World War II, causing 13 deaths and£3.2 billion in damage. Average flood damage costs are currently inthe region of £1 billion per year, but these costs could rise to £27billion by 2080.

Maintaining existing levels of flood defence would requirespending on asset maintenance and construction to increase toover £1 billion per year by 2035. Given current budget constraints,national flood defence spending will reduce slightly from currentlevels over the next four years. Local sources of funding willprobably play a bigger role in coming years.

The Forestry Commission and the sale of public forests inEngland SN/SC/5734

This note sets out information on the sale of the Public ForestEstate (PFE) in England, which is managed by the ForestryCommission. The PFE currently provides multiple economic, socialand environmental public benefits, although it costs some £15million per year to operate. Governments have been able to sellparts of the PFE since 1981. In the eighties thousands of hectareswere sold. There was a change in policy following the 1997 generalelection when the sale of such land was restricted.

The Coalition has signalled its intention to sell a significant

proportion of the PFE. Powers to enable the sale are contained inthe Public Bodies Bill 2010-11. A public consultation was launchedon 27 January. Some are concerned that the sale of the PFE maylead to the loss of public benefits and environmental damage.Others believe that the land could be managed better by other landowners such as charities and industry, in a way that preserves thesebenefits.

Animal cloning SN/SC/5798

Since 1997, when the first mammal was cloned from an adultcell at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, a number of commentatorshave raised concerns about the implications of animal cloning forfood safety, food supply and animal welfare. Others stress thatanimal cloning has the potential to improve animal welfare andfarming productivity. It may even be used in the conservation ofendangered species.

The current preferred method of cloning, somatic cell nucleartransfer (SCNT), has a number of drawbacks. Cloned animals oftensuffer significant health problems compared to conventionally bredanimals. The technology therefore has implications for animalwelfare. There do not appear to be food safety issues with thistechnology.

EU Regulations mean that foods derived from cloned animalsneed to be scientifically assessed and specifically licensed. There isa debate about whether regulations apply to the offspring of clones.In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) states that productsfrom the offspring of cloned animals are also novel foods andtherefore they need to be specifically assessed and licensed.European Commission proposals may ban the use of animal clonesin food, although controls would not apply to the offspring ofclones. European legislation is likely to come forward in 2011.

HIV and Hepatitis C infection from contaminated blood andblood products SN/SC/5698

During the 1970s and early 1980s some blood and bloodproducts supplied by the NHS, mostly to haemophilia sufferers,were contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C. More than 4500patients contracted one or both of these diseases as a result, ofwhom over 2000 are thought to have died.

No-fault government payment schemes were established toprovide support for those affected. These have been criticised asbeing insufficient but successive Governments have rejected callsfor an independent inquiry and additional compensation. A non-statutory inquiry funded from private donations, the Archer Inquiry,reported in February 2009. Amongst its recommendations was acall for reform of support for those affected, in line with a schemeused in the Republic of Ireland.

The Irish scheme offers substantially higher payments than theUK schemes but successive Governments have rejectedcomparability on the basis that the Irish scheme was established tocompensate victims for wrongdoing by a government agency butthat no similar wrongdoing occurred in the UK. An April 2010judicial review of the previous Government’s response to the ArcherInquiry questioned that assertion and the current Governmentresponded with a proposal to review aspects of support.

On 10 January 2011 the Government announced an increase inpayments for some of those infected with Hepatitis C, and offeredadditional medical and psychological support. These new measurescurrently apply only to patients in England and are estimated to cost£130M. While the measures were welcomed as a step in the rightdirection by some contaminated blood activists and their

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE

The members of the Committee(appointed 22 June 2010) are LordBroers, Lord Crickhowell, LordCunningham of Felling, BaronessHilton of Eggardon, Lord Krebs(Chairman), Baroness Neuberger,Lord Patel, Baroness Perry ofSouthwark, Lord Rees of Ludlow,the Earl of Selborne, Lord Wade ofChorley, Lord Warner, Lord Willis ofKnaresborough and Lord Winston.Lord Alderdice, Lord May of Oxford,Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve andLord Sutherland of Houndwoodhave been co-opted to Sub-Committee I for the purposes of itsinquiry into behaviour change policyinterventions.

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE POLICYINTERVENTIONS

The Select Committee has appointed a sub-committee under the Chairmanship of BaronessNeuberger to conduct an inquiry into theeffectiveness of behaviour change interventions inachieving government policy goals and helping tomeet societal challenges.

As governments across the world attempt tomeet societal challenges such as reducing carbonemissions and alleviating the burden on healthservices caused by smoking, drinking and the risein obesity, more and more attention is beingfocused on how behaviour can be influencedusing a range of behaviour change interventionsthat rely on measures other than prohibition orthe elimination of choice. The Committee willconsider the current state of knowledge aboutwhich behaviour change interventions areeffective, whether the Government’s currentbehaviour change interventions are evidence-based and subject to robust evaluation, and howsuch interventions are coordinated acrossdepartments. The Committee will also be lookingat the role of industry and the voluntary sector inshaping behaviour patterns and the social andethical issues surrounding behaviour changeinterventions by government.

As part of its inquiry, the sub-committee is alsoconducting two case studies. The first will look atbehaviour change interventions designed toreduce obesity. The second will focus on travel-mode interventions to reduce car use in townsand cities.

A call for evidence was published on 28 July2010 with a deadline for submissions of 8October 2010. A second call for evidence on thetravel-mode interventions case study waspublished on 10 December 2010 with a deadlinefor submissions of 21 January 2011. Thecommittee held a seminar as part of the obesitycase study on 19 October 2010 and a secondseminar on travel-mode interventions on 26

January 2011. The Committee began taking oralevidence in November 2010 and will finish inMarch 2011. The Committee is due to report inthe summer.

ONE-OFF EVIDENCE SESSIONS ONTHE IMPLICATIONS OF THECOMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEWFOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

On 16 and 23 November 2010 theCommittee took evidence on the implications ofthe Comprehensive Spending Review forscientific research. Witnesses included ProfessorSir John Beddington (Government Chief ScientificAdviser), Professor Sir Adrian Smith (then DirectorGeneral, Science and Research, BIS), ProfessorDavid Delpy (Chief Executive of the Engineeringand Physical Sciences Research Council), Sir AlanLanglands (Chief Executive of the HigherEducation Funding Council for England), Mr PaulClark (Director of Policy at Universities UK) andrepresentatives from industry. The transcripts areavailable on the Committee’s website.

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AS A TOOL TOSTIMULATE INNOVATION

The Select Committee, under thechairmanship of Lord Krebs, has launched a shortinquiry into public procurement as a tool tostimulate innovation within industry. The inquiry isfocused, in particular, on the Department forTransport and related public bodies, as a workingexample of the current procurement practiceswithin departments. The inquiry seeks toinvestigate the extent to which the currentprocurement practices and processes areeffective in encouraging innovation within industryand supporting the development and diffusion ofinnovations.

A call for evidence inviting written submissionswas published on 22 October 2010 with adeadline of 13 December 2010. The Committeebegan taking oral evidence on 21 December2010 and is due to report in the spring.

supporters, remaining concerns include the level of paymentsrelative to the Republic of Ireland, and whether the provisions willextend to the rest of the UK.

Cyber Security SN/SC/5832

It is widely acknowledged that cyber attacks will increasingly be akey aspect of future warfare and organised crime. This note explainsthe increasing threat to national security posed by the new “front” ofthe cyber realm of networked, digital activities (often internet-based)

and sets out the Government’s response.

The National Security Strategy (October 2010) has categorised“hostile attacks upon UK cyberspace by other states and large scalecyber crime” as one of its priority risks alongside terrorism, majoraccidents and natural hazards and military crises. The associatedStrategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) responds to this witha new “transformative” £650m Cyber Security Programme to protectthe UK from cyber attacks from both nation states and individuals.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33

Science in Parliament Vol 67 No 3 Summer 2010 55

OUTSTANDING ACTIVITIES FROM THE PREVIOUSPARLIAMENTSetting Priorities for Publicly Funded Research

An inquiry into the setting of science and technology researchfunding priorities was launched in July 2009. The inquiry wasundertaken by the Select Committee under the chairmanship ofLord Sutherland.

Cuts in overall public spending due to the current economicclimate will lead to some difficult decisions about how to allocatepublic funds for science and technology research. Effectivemechanisms for allocating funds are vital if the United Kingdomscience base is to remain healthy, both now and in the future, andis able to continue to meet societal needs. The Committeeinvestigated a range of issues including how decisions aboutfunding research are made across Government and withinGovernment departments and other public bodies, whether thebalance between funding for targeted research and unsolicitedresponse-mode curiosity-driven research is appropriate, and howresearch is commissioned.

The Committee published its report on 1 April 2010. TheGovernment response to the report was published on 30 July2010. The report is likely to be debated in the House during thecurrent session.

Radioactive Waste Management: a further update

The Select Committee appointed a Sub-Committee to conduct ashort follow-up inquiry into the management of radioactive waste,following the Committee’s previous reports on the subject, the lastof which was published in session 2006-07.

The inquiry focused on the role and performance of theCommittee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) whichprovides independent scrutiny and advice on the implementation ofthe Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme.The sub-committee held a one-off evidence session withrepresentatives from CoRWM, Lord Hunt, (then) Minister of Statefor Energy and Climate Change, and representatives from theDepartment of Energy and Climate Change and the NuclearDecommissioning Authority in February 2010, and published itsreport on 25 March 2010. The Government’s response wasreceived on 9 November 2010. It is anticipated that the report willbe debated by the House during the current session.

FURTHER INFORMATIONThe written and oral evidence to the Committee’s inquiries

mentioned above, as well as the Calls for Evidence and otherdocuments can be found on the Committee’s websitewww.parliament.uk/hlscience. Further information about the work ofthe Committee can be obtained from Christine Salmon Percival,Committee Clerk, [email protected] or 020 7219 6072. TheCommittee’s email address is [email protected].

SELECTED DEBATES

Opposite is a list of a selection ofDebates on matters of scientificinterest which took place in theHouse of Commons, the House ofLords or Westminster Hall betweenTuesday 5 October and Wednesday22 December.

From January 2011 a full digest ofDebates, Questions and Answerson topics of scientific interest fromboth Houses of Parliament shouldbe available on the website:www.scienceinparliament.org.uk.Please log in using the members’and subscribers’ password(available from the Committeesecretariat) and go to Publications:Digests.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ANDWESTMINSTER HALL12 Oct 2010 Offshore Wind Infrastructure

Competition HoC 57WH13 Oct 2010 Degree Validation (Univ of

London) HoC 46013 Oct 2010 Onshore Wind Turbines

HoC 131WH13 Oct 2010 Coal-burning Power Stations

HoC 140WH26 Oct 2010 Natural England HoC 46WH27 Oct 2010 Rarer Cancers HoC 126WH2 Nov 2010 SET (Women) HoC 251WH3 Nov 2010 Higher Education HoC 293WH9 Nov 2010 Clostridium Difficile HoC 2609 Nov 2010 Food Security (Africa)HoC 56WH10 Nov 2010 Science Research HoC 108WH10 Nov 2010 UK Software Industry HoC 75WH17 Nov 2010 Energy Efficiency Measures

HoC 308WH18 Nov 2010 Deep-Water Drilling Shetland

HoC 115730 Nov 2010 Shoreline Management Plans

HoC 221WH

2 Dec 2010 Fisheries HoC 341WH15 Dec 2010 Water Supplies (Developing

World) HoC 101220 Dec 2010 Mobile Phones (Health)

HoC 1284HOUSE OF LORDS7 Oct 2010 Food: Regulation and Guidance

HoL 26329 Nov 2010 Academic Health Partnerships

HoL 13406 Dec 2010 Arctic Ice Cap HoL 8413 Dec 2010 Population Growth HoL 46620 Dec 2010 NHS: Global Health HoL 901–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––PROGRESS OF LEGISLATIONA comprehensive list of Public Bills beforeParliament, giving up-to-date information on theirprogress, is published regularly when Parliamentis sitting in the Weekly Information Bulletin, whichcan be found at:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmwib.htm

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


SCIENCE DIRECTORYAerospace and AviationC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitution of Engineering DesignersNational Physical LaboratorySemta

AgricultureBBSRCCABIThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Engineering DesignersLGCPHARMAQ LtdSociety for General MicrobiologySociety of BiologyUFAW

Animal Health and Welfare,Veterinary ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesThe Nutrition SocietyPHARMAQ LtdSociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of BiologyUFAW

Astronomy and Space ScienceInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Engineering DesignersNatural History MuseumSTFC

Atmospheric Sciences, Climate andWeatherThe Geological SocietyNatural Environment ResearchCouncilSTFC

BiotechnologyBBSRCBiochemical SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCNational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Brain ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company LtdMerck Sharp & DohmeThe Physiological Society

Cancer ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company LtdNational Physical Laboratory

CatalysisC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersRoyal Society of Chemistry

ChemistryC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentrePlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Colloid ScienceLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreRoyal Society of Chemistry

Construction and BuildingThe Geological SocietyInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering DesignersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical Laboratory

Cosmetic ScienceSociety of Cosmetic Scientists

Earth SciencesThe Geological SocietyThe Linnean Society of LondonNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNatural History MuseumSociety of Biology

Ecology, Environment andBiodiversityAMSIThe British Ecological SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Mechanical EngineersLGCThe Linnean Society of LondonNational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNatural History MuseumPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Economic and Social ResearchEconomic and Social ResearchCouncil

Education, Training and SkillsABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesAIRTOBiochemical SocietyBritish Science AssociationThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition Foundation

British Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABIClifton Scientific TrustC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEPSRCEngineeringUKInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyInstitution of Mechanical EngineersLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumThe Physiological SocietyPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistryRoyal Statistical SocietySemtaSociety of Biology

EnergyCABIC-Tech InnovationEPSRCGAMBICA Association LtdInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering DesignersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyInstitution of Mechanical EngineersPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

EngineeringC-Tech InnovationEPSRCEngineeringUKGAMBICA Association LtdInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering DesignersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyInstitution of Mechanical EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipThe Royal Academy of EngineeringSemtaSTFC

Fisheries ResearchAMSIPlymouth Marine Sciences

PartnershipSociety of Biology

Food and Food TechnologyBritish Nutrition FoundationCABIC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitute of Food Science &TechnologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Biology

ForensicsInstitute of Measurement and ControlLGCRoyal Society of Chemistry

GeneticsABPIBBSRCLGCNatural History MuseumRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewSociety of Biology

Geology and GeoscienceAMSIThe Geological SocietyInstitution of Civil EngineersNatural Environment Research Council

Hazard and Risk MitigationThe Geological SocietyInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical Engineers

HealthABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEli Lilly and Company LtdEPSRCThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyGAMBICA Association LtdInstitute of Physics and Engineering inMedicineLGCMedical Research CouncilNational Physical LaboratoryThe Nutrition SocietyThe Physiological SocietyRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Biology

Heart ResearchABPIEli Lilly and Company LtdThe Physiological Society

DIRECTORY INDEX

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


Hydrocarbons and PetroleumThe Geological SocietyInstitution of Chemical EngineersNatural History MuseumRoyal Society of Chemistry

Industrial Policy and ResearchAIRTOC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilGAMBICA Association LtdInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyThe Royal Academy of EngineeringSemtaSTFC

Information ServicesAIRTOCABI

IT, Internet, Telecommunications,Computing and ElectronicsEPSRCInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Intellectual PropertyABPIThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdNESTA

Large-Scale Research FacilitiesC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumSTFC

LasersInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

ManufacturingABPIAMSIEPSRCGAMBICA Association LtdInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering DesignersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyInstitution of Mechanical EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratorySemta

MaterialsC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering DesignersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSTFC

Medical and Biomedical ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Pharmacological Society

British Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABIEli Lilly and Company LtdMedical Research CouncilMerck Sharp & DohmeThe Physiological SocietyPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal InstitutionSociety of BiologyUFAW

Motor VehiclesInstitution of Engineering DesignersLondon Metropolitan Polymer Centre

OceanographyAMSIThe Geological SocietyNational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilPlymouth Marine Sciences Partnership

OilThe Geological SocietyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGC

Particle PhysicsInstitute of PhysicsSTFC

PatentsThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysNESTA

PharmaceuticalsABPIBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyC-Tech InnovationEli Lilly and Company LtdInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCMerck Sharp & DohmePHARMAQ LtdRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety of Biology

Physical SciencesCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationEPSRCThe Geological SocietyLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical Laboratory

PhysicsCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Pollution and WasteABPIAMSIC-Tech InnovationThe Geological SocietyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilPlymouth Marine Sciences Partnership

PsychologyThe British Psychological SocietyEconomic and Social Research Council

Public PolicyBiochemical SocietyThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEngineeringUKThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNESTAProspectRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety of Biology

Quality ManagementGAMBICA Association LtdLGCNational Physical Laboratory

Radiation HazardsInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGC

Science PolicyABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Science AssociationCABIClifton Scientific TrustC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEli Lilly and Company LtdEPSRCEngineeringUKThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyGAMBICA Association LtdInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGCMedical Research CouncilNESTANational Physical LaboratoryThe Physiological SocietyPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipProspectResearch Councils UKThe Royal Academy of EngineeringRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFCSociety of BiologyUFAW

Sensors and TransducersAMSIC-Tech InnovationGAMBICA Association LtdInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Engineering andTechnologySTFC

SSSIsThe Geological SocietyRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew

StatisticsEconomic and Social Research Council EPSRCEngineeringUKRoyal Statistical Society

Surface ScienceC-Tech InnovationSTFC

SustainabilityThe British Ecological SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEPSRCThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersThe Linnean Society of LondonLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentrePlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety of Biology

Technology TransferAIRTOCABIC-Tech InnovationThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGCLondon Metropolitan Polymer CentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryResearch Councils UKRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Tropical MedicineNatural History MuseumRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewSociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General Microbiology

VirusesABPISociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General Microbiology

WaterAMSIC-Tech InnovationThe Geological SocietyInstitute of Measurement and ControlInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCPlymouth Marine Sciences PartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for Applied MicrobiologySociety for General MicrobiologySociety of Biology

WildlifeThe British Ecological SocietyThe Food and Environment ResearchAgencyThe Linnean Society of LondonNatural History MuseumRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewSociety of BiologyUFAW

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


Biotechnologyand BiologicalSciences Research Council(BBSRC)Contact: Dr Monica Winstanley Head of External RelationsBBSRC, Polaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1UH. Tel: 01793 413204E-mail: [email protected]: www.bbsrc.ac.uk

BBSRC is the UK’s principal public funder ofresearch and research training across thebiosciences. BBSRC provides institute strategicresearch grants to eight centres, as well assupporting research and training in universitiesacross the UK. BBSRC’s research underpinsadvances in a wide range of bio-based industries,and contributes knowledge to policy areas whichinclude: food security, climate change, diet andhealth and healthy ageing.

Research Councils UKContact: Alexandra SaxonHead of CommunicationsResearch Councils UKPolaris HouseNorth Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1ET

Tel: 01793 444592E-mail: [email protected]: www.rcuk.ac.uk

Each year the Research Councils invest around £3 billion in research covering the full spectrum of academicdisciplines from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry and engineering, socialsciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities.

Research Councils UK is the strategic partnerships of the seven Research Councils. It aims to:

• increase the collective visibility, leadership and influence of the Research Councils for the benefit of theUK;

• lead in shaping the overall portfolio of research funded by the Research Councils to maximise theexcellence and impact of UK research, and help to ensure that the UK gets the best value for money fromits investment;

• ensure joined-up operations between the Research Councils to achieve its goals and improve services tothe communities it sponsors and works with.

Contact: Jenny Aranha, Public Affairs Manager, EPSRC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1ETTel: 01793 442892E-mail: [email protected]:www.epsrc.ac.uk

EPSRC is the main UK government agency forfunding research and training in engineering andthe physical sciences, investing around £850 milliona year in a broad range of subjects – frommathematics to materials science, and informationtechnology to structural engineering.

EPSRC’s investment in high quality basic, strategicand applied research and training promotes futureeconomic and societal impact in the UK.

MedicalResearchCouncilContact: Sophie Broster-James, PublicAffairs and External Comms Manager14th Floor, One Kemble Street, LondonWC2B 4AN.Tel: 020 7395 2275 Fax: 020 7395 2421E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.mrc.ac.uk

For almost 100 years, the MRC has been improving thehealth of people in the UK and around the world bysupporting the highest quality science on behalf of UKtaxpayers. We work closely with the UK’s HealthDepartments, the NHS, medical research charities andindustry to ensure our research achieves maximumimpact as well as being of excellent scientific quality.MRC-funded scientists have made some of the mostsignificant discoveries in medical science – from the linkbetween smoking and cancer to the invention oftherapeutic antibodies – benefiting millions of people.

NaturalEnvironmentResearch CouncilContact: Judy ParkerHead of CommunicationsPolaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1EUTel: 01793 411646 Fax: 01793 411510E-mail: [email protected]: www.nerc.ac.uk

The UK’s Natural Environment Research Councilfunds and carries out impartial scientific research inthe sciences of the environment. NERC trains thenext generation of independent environmentalscientists.

NERC funds research in universities and in anetwork of its own centres, which include:

British Antarctic Survey, British GeologicalSurvey, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, andNational Oceanography Centre.

Science &TechnologyFacilities CouncilMark FosterPublic Affairs ManagerRutherford Appleton LaboratoryHarwell Science & Innovation CampusDidcot OX11 0QXTel: 01235 778328 Fax: 01235 445 808E-mail: [email protected]: www.stfc.ac.uk

Formed by Royal Charter in 2007, the Science andTechnology Facilities Council is one of Europe’s largestmultidisciplinary research organisations supportingscientists and engineers world-wide. The Counciloperates world-class, large-scale research facilities andprovides strategic advice to the UK Government ontheir development. The STFC partners in the UK’s twoNational Science and Innovation Campuses. It alsomanages international research projects in support of abroad cross-section of the UK research community. TheCouncil directs, co-ordinates and funds research,education and training.

Economic andSocial ResearchCouncilContact: Jacky Clake, Head of Communicationsand Public Engagement,Economic and Social Research Council,Polaris House, North Star Avenue,Swindon SN2 1UJTel: 01793 [email protected]://www.esrc.ac.uk

The ESRC is the UK’s leading research and trainingagency addressing economic and social concerns.We pursue excellence in social science research;work to increase the impact of our research onpolicy and practice; and provide trained socialscientists who meet the needs of users andbeneficiaries, thereby contributing to the economiccompetitiveness of the United Kingdom, theeffectiveness of public services and policy, andquality of life. The ESRC is independent, establishedby Royal Charter in 1965, and funded mainly bygovernment.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


The BritishEcologicalSocietyThe British Ecological SocietyContact: Ceri Margerison, Policy OfficerBritish Ecological SocietyCharles Darwin House, 12 Roger Street,London, WC1N 2JUTel: 020 7685 2500 Fax : 020 7685 2501Website: www.BritishEcologicalSociety.orgEcology into Policy Bloghttp://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/

The British Ecological Society’s mission is to advanceecology and make it count. The Society has 4,000members worldwide. The BES publishes fiveinternationally renowned scientific journals andorganises the largest scientific meeting for ecologists inEurope. Through its grants, the BES also supportsecologists in developing countries and the provision offieldwork in schools. The BES informs and advisesParliament and Government on ecological issues andwelcomes requests for assistance from parliamentarians.

AIRTO

Contact: Professor Richard Brook OBE FREng AIRTO Ltd: Association of IndependentResearch & Technology Organisations Limitedc/o The National Physical LaboratoryHampton RoadTeddingtonMiddlesex TW11 0LWTel: 020 8943 6600Fax: 020 8614 0470E-mail: [email protected]: www.airto.co.uk

AIRTO represents the UK’s independent researchand technology sector - member organisationsemploy a combined staff of over 20,000 scientistsand engineers with a turnover exceeding £2 billion.Work carried out by members includes research,consultancy, training and global informationmonitoring. AIRTO promotes their work by buildingcloser links between members and industry,academia, UK government agencies and theEuropean Union.

British NutritionFoundationContact: Professor Judy Buttriss,Director General52-54 High Holborn, London WC1V 6RQ

Tel: 020 7404 6504Fax: 020 7404 6747Email: [email protected]

Websites: www.nutrition.org.ukwww.foodafactoflife.org.uk

The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) was

established over 40 years ago and exists to deliver

authoritative, evidence-based information on food

and nutrition in the context of health and lifestyle.

The Foundation’s work is conducted and

communicated through a unique blend of

nutrition science, education and media activities.

Association of the BritishPharmaceuticalIndustry Contact: Dr Allison Jeynes-EllisMedical & Innovation Director12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DYTel: 020 7747 1408Fax: 020 7747 1417E-mail: [email protected]: www.abpi.org.uk

The ABPI is the voice of the innovative pharmaceuticalindustry, working with Government, regulators and otherstakeholders to promote a receptive environment for astrong and progressive industry in the UK, one capable ofproviding the best medicines to patients.

The ABPI’s mission is to represent the pharmaceuticalindustry operating in the UK in a way that:• assures patient access to the best available medicine;• creates a favourable political and economic

environment;• encourages innovative research and development; • affords fair commercial returns

Association of Marine Scientific Industries Contact: John MurrayAssociation of Marine Scientific Industries28-29 Threadneedle Street,London EC2R 8AYTel: 020 7628 2555 Fax: 020 7638 4376E-mail: [email protected]: www.maritimeindustries.org

The Association of Marine Scientific Industries(AMSI) is a constituent association of the Society ofMaritime Industries (SMI) representing companies inthe marine science and technology sector,otherwise known as the oceanology sector.

The marine science sector has an increasinglyimportant role to play both in the UK and globally,particularly in relation to the environment, securityand defence, resource exploitation, and leisure.AMSI represents manufacturers, researchers, andsystem suppliers providing a co-ordinated voice andenabling members to project their views andcapabilities to a wide audience.

Contact: Dr Helen Munn,Executive DirectorAcademy of Medical Sciences41 Portland PlaceLondon W1B 1QHTel: 020 3176 2150E-mail: [email protected]: www.acmedsci.ac.uk

The Academy of Medical Sciences promotesadvances in medical science and campaigns toensure these are converted into healthcare benefitsfor society. The Academy’s Fellows are the UnitedKingdom’s leading medical scientists and scholarsfrom hospitals, academia, industry and the publicservice. The Academy provides independent,authoritative advice on public policy issues inmedical science and healthcare.

Biochemical SocietyContact: Dr Chris KirkCEOThe Biochemical SocietyCharles Darwin House12 Roger StreetLondon WC1N 2JUTel: 020 7685 2433Fax: 020 7685 2470

The Biochemical Society exists to promote andsupport the Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. Wehave nearly 6000 members in the UK and abroad,mostly research bioscientists in Universities or inIndustry. The Society is also a major scientificpublisher. In addition, we promote Science Policydebate and provide resources, for teachers andpupils, to support the bioscience curriculum inschools. Our membership supports our mission byorganizing scientific meetings, sustaining ourpublications through authorship and peer reviewand by supporting our educational and policyinitiatives.

British ScienceAssociation Contact: Sir Roland Jackson Bt,Chief ExecutiveBritish Science Association, Wellcome Wolfson Building, 165 Queen’s Gate,London SW7 5HD.E-mail:[email protected] Website: www.britishscienceassociation.org

Our vision is a society in which people are able toaccess science, engage with it and feel a sense ofownership about its direction. In such a societyscience advances with, and because of, theinvolvement and active support of the public.

Established in 1831, the British Science Associationis a registered charity which organises majorinitiatives across the UK, including National Scienceand Engineering Week, the British Science Festival,programmes of regional and local events and theCREST programme for young people in schools andcolleges. We provide opportunities for all ages todiscuss, investigate, explore and challenge science.

Contact: Kate BaillieChief ExecutiveBritish Pharmacological Society16 Angel Gate, City RoadLondon EC1V 2PTTel: 020 7417 0113Fax: 020 7417 0114Email: [email protected]: www.bps.ac.uk

The British Pharmacological Society has beensupporting pharmacology and pharmacologists forover 75 years. Our 2,700+ members, fromacademia, industry and clinical practice, are trainedto study drug action from the laboratory bench tothe patient’s bedside. Our aim is to improve qualityof life by developing new medicines to treat andprevent the diseases and conditions that affectmillions of people and animals. Inquiries aboutdrugs and how they work are welcome.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


C-TechInnovationLimitedContact: Paul RadageCapenhurst Technology Park,Capenhurst, Chester, Cheshire CH1 6EHTel: +44 (0) 151 347 2900Fax: +44 (0) 151 347 2901E-mail: [email protected]: www.ctechinnovation.com

Leading innovation management andtechnology development company. We help companies, universities, government bodiesand non-governmental organisations to benefit andgrow through innovation. Vast experience of projectand programme management, implementation ofnovel technologies, contract and collaborativeresearch and technology development, business andtechnology consultancy, commercialization, IPexploitation, market and sector research.www.ctechinnovation.com

CABI(Centre for AgriculturalBioscience International)

Contact: Dr Joan Kelley, Executive Director,Global Operations, CABIBakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TYTel: 01491 829306 Fax: 01491 829100Email: [email protected]: www.cabi.org

CABI is an international not-for-profit developmentorganization, specializing in scientific publishing,research and communication. We create,communicate, and apply knowledge in order toimprove people’s lives by finding sustainablesolutions to agricultural and environmental issues.

We work for and with universities, national researchand extension institutions, development agencies,the private sector, governments, charities andfoundations, farmers, and non-governmentalorganizations. We also manage one of the world’slargest genetic resource collections: the UK’sNational Collection of Fungus Cultures.

CavendishLaboratoryThe Administrative Secretary, The CavendishLaboratory, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK.E-mail: [email protected]://www.phy.cam.ac.uk

The Cavendish Laboratory houses the Department of Physicsof the University of Cambridge.

Its world-class research is focused in a number ofexperimental and theoretical diverse fields.

Astrophysics: Millimetre astronomy, optical interferometryobservations & instrumentation. Astrophysics, geometricalgebra, maximum entropy, neutral networks.

High Energy Physics: LHC experiments. Detectordevelopment. Particle physics theory.

Condensed Matter Physics: Semiconductor physics, quantumeffect devices, nanolithography. Superconductivity,magnetic thin films. Optoelectronics, conducting polymers.Biological Soft Systems. Polymers and Colloids. Surfacephysics, fracture, wear & erosion. Amorphous solids.Electron microscopy. Electronic structure theory &computation. Structural phase transitions, fractals, quantumMonte Carlo calculations Biological Physics. Quantumoptics.

British Societyfor AntimicrobialChemotherapyMrs Tracey GuiseExecutive DirectorBritish Society for Antimicrobial ChemotherapyGriffin House53 Regent PlaceBirmingham B1 3NJT: 0121 236 1988W: www.bsac.org.uk

Founded in 1971, and with 800 membersworldwide, the Society exists to facilitate theacquisition and dissemination of knowledge in thefield of antimicrobial chemotherapy. The BSACpublishes the Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy (JAC), internationally renowned forits scientific excellence, undertakes a range ofeducational activities, awards grants for researchand has active relationships with its peer groupsand government.

The BritishPsychologicalSocietyContact: Lucy ChaplinPR & Marketing ManagerThe British Psychological SocietySt Andrews House 48 Princess Road East Leicester LE1 7DRTel: 0116 252 9910Email: [email protected]: www.bps.org.uk

The British Psychological Society is an organisationof over 48,000 members governed by RoyalCharter. It maintains the Register of CharteredPsychologists, publishes books, 11 primary scienceJournals and organises conferences. Requests forinformation about psychology and psychologistsfrom parliamentarians are welcome.

Chartered Institute of Patent AttorneysContact: Michael Ralph - Secretary The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys95 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1DTTel: 020 7405 9450Fax: 020 7430 0471E-mail: [email protected]: www.cipa.org.uk

CIPA’s members practise in intellectual property,especially patents, trade marks, designs, andcopyright, either in private partnerships or industrialcompanies. Through its new regulatory Board, CIPAmaintains the statutory Register. It advisesgovernment and international circles on policyissues and provides information services, promotingthe benefits to UK industry of obtaining IPprotection, and to overseas industry of using Britishattorneys to obtain international protection.

Clifton Scientific TrustContact: Dr Eric AlboneClifton Scientific Trust 49 Northumberland Road, Bristol BS6 7BATel: 0117 924 7664 Fax: 0117 924 7664E-mail: [email protected]: www.clifton-scientific.org

Science for Citizenship and Employability,Science for Life, Science for Real

We build grass-roots partnerships between school andthe wider world of professional science and itsapplications

• for young people of all ages and abilities

• experiencing science as a creative, questioning,human activity

• bringing school science added meaning andnotivation, from primary to post-16

• locally, nationally, internationally (currently between Britain and Japan)

Clifton Scientific Trust Ltd is registered charity 1086933

Eli Lilly andCompanyLtdContact: Thom Thorp, Head External AffairsTel: 01256 315000Fax: 01256 775858Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Lilly HousePriestley Road, Basingstoke, Hants,RG24 9NLEmail. [email protected]: www.lilly.co.uk

Lilly UK is the UK affiliate of a major Americanpharmaceutical manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Companyof Indianapolis. This affiliate is one of the UK’s toppharmaceutical companies with significantinvestment in science and technology including aneuroscience research and development centre andbulk biotechnology manufacturing operations.

Lilly medicines treat schizophrenia, diabetes, cancer,osteoporosis, attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder, erectile dysfunction, severe sepsis,depression, bipolar disorder, heart disease andmany other diseases.

Contact: Miriam LaverickPR and Communications ManagerEngineeringUKWeston House, 246 High HolbornLondon WC1V 7EXTel: 020 3206 0444Fax: 020 3206 0401E-mail: [email protected]: www.EngineeringUK.com

EngineeringUK is an independent organisation thatpromotes the vital role of engineers, engineeringand technology in our society. EngineeringUKpartners business and industry, Government and thewider science and technology community:producing evidence on the state of engineering;sharing knowledge within engineering, andinspiring young people to choose a career inengineering, matching employers’ demand forskills.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:33


Contact: Robert Neilson, General SecretaryFairmount House, 230 Tadcaster Road,York, YO24 1ESTel: 01904 610821 Fax: 01904 612279E-mail: [email protected]: www.ipem.ac.uk

IPEM is a registered, incorporated charity for theadvancement, in the public interest, of physics andengineering applied to medicine and biology. Itaccredits medical physicists, clinical engineers andclinical technologists through its membershipregister, organises training and CPD for them, andprovides opportunities for the dissemination ofknowledge through publications and scientificmeetings. IPEM is licensed by the Science Council toaward CSci and by the Engineering Council (UK) toaward CEng, IEng and EngTech.

Contact: Joseph Winters76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NTTel: 020 7470 4815E-mail: [email protected]: www.iop.org

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity

devoted to increasing the practice,

understanding and application of physics. It has

a worldwide membership of more than 36,000

and is a leading communicator of physics-

related science to all audiences, from specialists

through to government and the general public.

Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a

world leader in scientific publishing and the

electronic dissemination of physics.

IChemE is the hub for chemical, biochemical and process engineering professionals worldwide. We are the heart of the process community, promoting competence and a commitment to sustainable development, advancing the discipline for the benefit of society and supporting the professional development of over 30,000 members.

Contact: Andrew Furlong, Director t: +44 (0)1788 534484 f: +44 (0)1788 560833 e: [email protected] www.icheme.org

GAMBICAAssociation Ltd

Contact: Dr Graeme PhilpBroadwall House21 BroadwallLondon SE1 9PLTel: 020 7642 8080 Fax: 020 7642 8096E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.gambica.org.uk

GAMBICA Association is the UK trade associationfor instrumentation, control, automation andlaboratory technology. The association seeks topromote the successful development of the industryand assist its member companies through a broadrange of services, including technical policy andstandards, commercial issues, market data andexport services.

TheGeologicalSocietyContact: Nic BilhamHead of Strategy and External RelationsBurlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BGTel: 020 7434 9944Fax: 020 7439 8975E-mail: [email protected]: www.geolsoc.org.uk

The Geological Society is the national learned andprofessional body for Earth sciences, with 10,000Fellows (members) worldwide. The Fellowshipencompasses those working in industry, academiaand government, with a wide range of perspectivesand views on policy-relevant science, and theSociety is a leading communicator of this science togovernment bodies and other non-technicalaudiences.

Institute ofPhysics andEngineeringin Medicine

Institution of Civil EngineersContact: Vernon Hunte, Senior Public Affairs Executive ,One Great George Street, Westminster,London SW1P 3AA, UKTel: 020 7665 2265Fax: 020 7222 0973E-mail: [email protected]: www.ice.org.uk

ICE aims to be a leading voice in infrastructureissues. With over 80,000 members, ICE acts as aknowledge exchange for all aspects of civilengineering. As a Learned Society, the Institutionprovides expertise, in the form of reports, evidenceand comment, on a wide range of subjectsincluding infrastructure, energy generation andsupply, climate change and sustainabledevelopment.

The Food andEnvironmentResearch AgencyContact: Professor Robert EdwardsChief ScientistThe Food and Environment Research AgencySand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZTel: 01904 462415Fax: 01904 462486E-mail: [email protected]: www.defra.gov.uk/fera

The Food and Environment Research Agency’s overarching purpose is to support and develop asustainable food chain, a healthy naturalenvironment, and to protect the global communityfrom biological and chemical risks.

Our role within that is to provide robust evidence,rigorous analysis and professional advice toGovernment, international organisations and theprivate sector.

The Institute ofMeasurementand ControlContact: Mr Peter Martindale,CEO and SecretaryThe Institute of Measurement and Control87 Gower Street, London WC1E 6AFTel: +44 (0) 20 73874949Fax: +44 (0) 20 73888431E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.instmc.org.ukReg Charity number: 269815

The Institute of Measurement and Control provides aforum for personal contact amongst practiioners,publishes learned papers and is a professionalexamining and qualifying organisation able to conferthe titles EurIng, CEng, IEng, EngTech; Companies andUniversities may apply to become Companions.Headquartered in London, the Institute has a strongregional base with 15 UK, 1 Hong Kong and 1 MalaysiaLocal Section, a bilateral agreement with the ChinaInstrument Society and other major international links.

Institute of FoodScience &TechnologyContact: Angela Winchester5 Cambridge Court210 Shepherds Bush RoadLondon W6 7NJTel: 020 7603 6316Fax: 020 7602 9936E-mail: [email protected]: www.ifst.org

IFST is the independent qualifying body for foodprofessionals in Europe. Membership is drawn fromall over the world from backgrounds includingindustry, universities, government, research anddevelopment and food law enforcement.

IFST’s activities focus on disseminating knowledgerelating to food science and technology andpromoting its application. Another importantelement of our work is to promote and upholdstandards amongst food professionals.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:34


London MetropolitanPolymer CentreContact: Alison Green, London Metropolitan University41-71 Commercial Road, London, E1 1LATel: 020 7320 1882E-mail: [email protected]: www.polymers.org.uk

The London Metropolitan Polymer Centre providestraining, consultancy and applied research to theUK polymer (plastics & rubber) industry. LMPC isone of the departments within the Sir John CassFaculty of Art, Media & Design (JCAMD) andprovides a broad perspective of materials scienceand technology for the manufacturing and creativeindustries. JCAMD contains Met Works, a uniqueDigital Manufacturing Centre, providing newtechnology for rapid prototyping and manufacture.The Faculty will offer short courses in a range ofpolymer, rapid prototyping and practical areas.

LGCQueens Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex, TW11 0LYTel: +44 (0)20 8943 7000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8943 2767E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lgc.co.uk

LGC is an international science-based company andmarket leader in the provision of analytical, forensicand diagnostic services and reference standards tocustomers in the public and private sectors.

Under the Government Chemist function, LGCfulfils specific statutory duties as the referee analystand provides advice for Government and the wideranalytical community on the implications ofanalytical chemistry for matters of policy, standardsand regulation. LGC is also the UK’s designatedNational Measurement Institute for chemical andbiochemical analysis.

With headquarters in Teddington, South WestLondon, LGC has 27 laboratories and centres acrossEurope and at sites in China, Brazil and India.

Sir John Cass Faculty of Art, Media & Design

Institution ofMechanicalEngineersContact: India Melhuish1 Birdcage WalkLondon SW1H 9JJTel: 020 7973 1293E-mail: [email protected]: www.imeche.org

The Institution provides politicians and civil servants

with information, expertise and advice on a diverse

range of subjects, focusing on manufacturing,

energy, environment, transport and education

policy. We regularly publish policy statements and

host political briefings and policy events to establish

a working relationship between the engineering

profession and parliament.

TheNational Endowmentfor Science, Technologyand the ArtsContact: Madeleine HallwardHead of Public Affairs1 Plough PlaceLondon EC4A1DETel: 020 7438 2615Fax: 020 7438 2501Email: [email protected]: www.nesta.org.uk

NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts – an independent organisation with a missionto make the UK more innovative. It operates in three mainways: by investing in early-stage companies; informingand shaping policy; and delivering practical programmesthat inspire others to solve the big challenges of thefuture. NESTA’s expertise in this field makes it uniquelyqualified to understand how the application of innovativeapproaches can help the UK to tackle two of the biggestchallenges it faces: the economic downturn and theradical reform of public services.

UK Subsidiary of Merck & Co., IncContact: Margaret Beer/Rob PinnockLicensing & External Research, EuropeHertford RoadHoddesdonHerts EN11 9BUTel: 01992 452837Fax: 01992 441907e-mail: [email protected] /[email protected]

Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD) is the UKsubsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., of WhitehouseStation, New Jersey, USA, a leading research-basedpharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,manufactures and markets a wide range ofinnovative pharmaceutical products to improvehuman health. Our mission is to provide societywith superior products and services by developinginnovations and solutions that improve the qualityof life.

National Physical LaboratoryContact: Fiona AutyNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex TW11 0LWTel: 020 8977 3222Website: www.npl.co.uk/contact-us

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is the UnitedKingdom’s national measurement institute, aninternationally respected and independent centre ofexcellence in research, development andknowledge transfer in measurement and materialsscience. For more than a century, NPL hasdeveloped and maintained the nation’s primarymeasurement standards - the heart of aninfrastructure designed to ensure accuracy,consistency and innovation in physicalmeasurement.

The Linnean Society of LondonContact: Dr Ruth Temple, Executive SecretaryBurlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BF

Tel: 020 7434 4479Fax: 020 7287 9364E-mail: [email protected]: www.linnean.org

The Linnean Society of London is the world’s oldestactive biological society. Founded in 1788, theSociety takes its name from the Swedish naturalistCarl Linnaeus whose botanical, zoological andlibrary collections have been in its keeping since1829. The Society continues to play a central role inthe documentation of the world’s flora and fauna,recognising the continuing importance of suchwork to many scientific issues.

Institution ofEngineeringDesigners

Contact: Libby BrodhurstCourtleighWestbury LeighWestburyWiltshire BA13 3TATel: 01373 822801Fax: 01373 858085E-mail: [email protected]: www.ied.org.uk

The only professional membership body solely forthose working in engineering and technologicalproduct design. Engineering Council and CharteredEnvironmentalist registration for suitably qualifiedmembers. Membership includes experts on a widerange of engineering and product designdisciplines, all of whom practise, manage oreducate in design.

Contact: Paul DaviesIET,Michael Faraday House,Six Hills Way,Stevenage,SG1 2AYTel: +44(0) 1438 765687Email: [email protected]: www.theiet.org

The IET is a world leading professional organisation,sharing and advancing knowledge to promotescience, engineering and technology across theworld. Dating back to 1871, the IET has 150,000members in 127 countries with offices in Europe,North America, and Asia-Pacific.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:34


The Nutrition Society Contact: Frederick Wentworth-Bowyer,Chief Executive, The Nutrition Society,10 Cambridge Court, 210 Shepherds Bush RoadLondon W6 7NJTel: +44 (0)20 7602 0228Fax: +44 (0)20 7602 1756Email: [email protected]

Founded in 1941, The Nutrition Society is the premierscientific body dedicated to advance the scientific studyof nutrition and its application to the maintenance ofhuman and animal health.

Highly regarded by the scientific community, the Societyis the largest learned society for nutrition in Europe.Membership is worldwide and is open to those with agenuine interest in the science of human or animalnutrition. Principal activities include:

1. Disseminating scientific information through itsprogramme of scientific meetings and publications

2. Publishing internationally renowned scientific learnedjournals, and textbooks

3. Promoting the education and training of nutritionists

4. Engaging with external organisations and the public topromote good nutritional science

PHARMAQ Ltd

Contact: Dr Benjamin P North PHARMAQ Ltd Unit 15 Sandleheath Industrial Estate Fordingbridge Hants SP6 1PA. Tel: 01425 656081 Fax: 01425 657992 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.pharmaq.no Web shop: www.pharmaqwebshop.co.uk/shop

PHARMAQ is the only global pharmaceuticalcompany with a primary focus on aquaculture.Specialising in the supply of veterinarypharmaceuticals for the salmon and trout farmingindustries including vaccines, anaesthetics,antibiotics and sea lice treatments. In the UK wealso support an extensive range of biocides andcage and aviary products.

Contact: Rosie CarrThe Laboratory, Citadel HillPlymouth PL1 2PB

Tel: +44 (0)1752 633 234Fax: +44 (0)1752 633 102E-mail: [email protected]: www.pmsp.org.uk

The Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnershipcomprises seven leading marine science andtechnology institutions, representing one of thelargest regional clusters of expertise in marinesciences, education, engineering and technology inEurope. The mission of PMSP is to deliver world-class marine research and teaching, to advanceknowledge, technology and understanding of theseas. PMSP research addresses the fundamentalunderstanding of marine ecosystems and processesthat must be applied in support and developmentof policy, marine and maritime industry and marinebiotechnology.

Contact: Iffat MemonPublic Affairs ManagerThe Royal Academy of Engineering3 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5DGTel: 020 7766 0653E-mail: [email protected]: www.raeng.org.uk

Founded in 1976, The Royal Academy of Engineeringpromotes the engineering and technological welfareof the country. Our activities – led by the UK’s mosteminent engineers – develop the links betweenengineering, technology, and the quality of life. As anational academy, we provide impartial advice toGovernment; work to secure the next generation ofengineers; and provide a voice for Britain’sengineering community.

Prospect

Contact: Sue Ferns, Prospect Head of Research and SpecialistServices, New Prospect House8 Leake St, London SE1 7NNTel: 020 7902 6639 Fax: 020 7902 6637E-mail: [email protected]

Prospect is an independent, thriving and forward-looking trade union with 122,000 members acrossthe private and public sectors and a diverse range ofoccupations. We represent scientists, technologistsand other professions in the civil service, researchcouncils and private sector.

Prospect’s collective voice champions the interests ofthe engineering and scientific community to keyopinion-formers and policy makers. Withnegotiating rights with over 300 employers, we seekto secure a better life at work by putting members’pay, conditions and careers first.

The RoyalInstitutionContact: Dr Gail CardewHead of ProgrammesThe Royal Institution21 Albemarle Street, London W1S 4BSTel: 020 7409 2992 Fax: 020 7670 2920E-mail: [email protected]: www.rigb.orgTwitter: rigb_science

The core activities of the Royal Institution centrearound four main themes: science education,science communication, research and heritage. It isperhaps best known for the Ri Christmas Lectures,but it also has a major Public Events Programmedesigned to connect people to the world of science,as well as a UK-wide Young People’s Programme ofscience and mathematics enrichment activities.Internationally recognised research programmes inbio- and nanomagnetism take place in the DavyFaraday Research Laboratory.

NaturalHistoryMuseumContact: Joe BakerSpecial Adviser to the DirectorNatural History MuseumCromwell Road, London SW7 5BDTel: +44 (0)20 7942 5478Fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5075E-mail: [email protected]: www.nhm.ac.uk

We maintain and develop the collections we care for anduse them to promote the discovery, understanding,responsible use and enjoyment of the natural world.

We are part of the UK's science base as a major scienceinfrastructure which is used by our scientists and others fromacross the UK and the globe working together to enhanceknowledge on the diversity of the natural world.

Our value to society is vested in our research responses tochallenges facing the natural world today, in engaging ourvisitors in the science of nature, in inspiring and training thenext generation of scientists and in being a major culturaltourist destination.

The Science of Nature

RBG Kew is a centre of global expertise in plant andfungal diversity, conservation and sustainable usehoused in two world-class gardens. Kew receivesapproximately half of its funding from governmentthrough Defra. Kew’s Breathing Planet Programme hasseven key priorities:

• Accelerating discovery and global access to plantand fungal diversity information

• Mapping and prioritising habitats most at risk

• Conserving what remains

• Sustainable local use

• Banking 25% of plant species in the MillenniumSeed Bank Partnership

• Restoration ecology

• Inspiring through botanic gardens

Contact: The Director’s OfficeTel: 020 8332 5112Fax: 020 8332 5109Email: [email protected]: www.kew.org

Inspiring and delivering science-based plantconservation worldwide, enhancing the quality of life

ThePhysiologicalSociety

Contact: Dr Philip WrightPeer House, Verulam StreetLondon WC1X 8LZ

Tel:+44 (0) 20 7269 5716Fax: +44 (0) 20 7269 5720E-mail: [email protected]: www.physoc.org

Physiology is the science of how humans and otheranimals function in an integrated way and is thebasis for many biological and clinical sciences.Founded in 1876, The Physiological Society is alearned society with over 2,900 Members drawnfrom over 60 countries. The majority of Membersare engaged in research, in universities or industry,into how the body works.

Royal BotanicGardens, Kew

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:34


Societyof Biology

Contact: Dr Mark DownsChief ExecutiveCharles Darwin House12 Roger StreetLondon WC1N 2JUTel: 020 7685 2550

The Society of Biology is a single unified voice forbiology: advising Government and influencingpolicy; advancing education and professionaldevelopment; supporting our members, andengaging and encouraging public interest in the lifesciences. The Society represents a diversemembership of over 80,000 - including, students,practising scientists and interested non-professionals - as individuals, or through learnedsocieties and other organisations.

The Royal Societyof ChemistryContact: Dr Stephen BennParliamentary AffairsThe Royal Society of ChemistryBurlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BATel: 020 7437 8656 Fax: 020 7734 1227E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]: http://www.rsc.orghttp://www.chemsoc.org

The Royal Society of Chemistry is a learned,professional and scientific body of over 46,000members with a duty under its Royal Charter “toserve the public interest”. It is active in the areas ofeducation and qualifications, science policy,publishing, Europe, information and internetservices, media relations, public understanding ofscience, advice and assistance to Parliament andGovernment.

Contact: Dariel BurdassMarlborough House, Basingstoke Road,Spencers Wood, Reading RG7 1AG.Tel: 0118 988 1802 Fax: 0118 988 5656E-mail: [email protected]: www.sgm.ac.uk

SGM is the largest microbiological society inEurope. The Society publishes four journals ofinternational standing, and organises regularscientific meetings.

SGM also promotes education and careers inmicrobiology, and it is committed to representmicrobiology to government, the media and thepublic.

An information service on microbiological issuesconcerning aspects of medicine, agriculture, foodsafety, biotechnology and the environment isavailable on request.

UniversitiesFederation for Animal WelfareContact: Dr James KirkwoodChief Executive and Scientific DirectorThe Old School, Brewhouse HillWheathampstead, Herts. AL4 8AN.Tel: 01582 831818. Fax: 01582 831414.Email: [email protected]: www.ufaw.org.uk Registered in England Charity No: 207996

UFAW is an international, independent scientificand educational animal welfare charity. It works toimprove animal lives by:

• supporting animal welfare research.

• educating and raising awareness of welfareissues in the UK and overseas.

• producing the leading journal Animal Welfareand other high-quality publications on animalcare and welfare.

• providing expert advice to governmentdepartments and other concerned bodies.

Society of Cosmetic Scientists

Contact: Lorna Weston,Secretary GeneralSociety of Cosmetic ScientistsLangham House EastSuite 6, Mill Street, Luton LU1 2NATel: 01582 726661Fax: 01582 405217E-mail: [email protected]: www.scs.org.uk

Advancing the science of cosmetics is the primaryobjective of the SCS. Cosmetic science covers a widerange of disciplines from organic and physicalchemistry to biology and photo-biology, dermatology,microbiology, physical sciences and psychology.

Members are scientists and the SCS helps themprogress their careers and the science of cosmeticsethically and responsibly. Services includepublications, educational courses and scientificmeetings.

Society forAppliedMicrobiologyContact: Philip WheatSociety for Applied MicrobiologyBedford Heights, Brickhill DriveBedford MK41 7PHTel: 01234 326661Fax: 01234 326678E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.sfam.org.uk

SfAM is the oldest UK microbiological society andaims to advance, for the benefit of the public, thescience of microbiology in its application to theenvironment, human and animal health, agricultureand industry.

SfAM is the voice of applied microbiology withmembers across the globe and works in partnershipwith sister organisations to exert influence onpolicy-makers world-wide.

The Royal StatisticalSocietyContact: Mr Andrew GarrattPress and Public Affairs OfficerThe Royal Statistical Society12 Errol Sreet, London EC1Y 8LX.Tel: +44 20 7614 3920Fax: +44 20 7614 3905E-mail: [email protected]: www.rss.org.uk

The Royal Statistical Society is a leading source ofindependent advice, comment and discussion onstatistical issues. It promotes public understandingof statistics and acts as an advocate for the interestsof statisticians and users of statistics. The Societyactively contributes to government consultations,Royal Commissions, parliamentary select committeeinquiries, and to the legislative process. In 2009, theRSS celebrated 175 years since its foundation in1834.

Semtathe Sector Skills Councilfor Science, Engineeringand Manufacturing Technologies

Contact: Customer Services14 Upton RoadWatfordWD18 0JTTel: 0845 643 9001Fax: 01923 256086E-mail: [email protected]: www.semta.org.uk

Semta’s skills service for UK science, engineeringand manufacturing employers

• Training needs assessment against a company’sbusiness objectives.

• Quality programmes from The National SkillsAcademy for Manufacturing

• A training management service.

• Access to available funding and accredited trainingproviders.

• Research into training needs to influencegovernments’ support for skills strategies

The Royal SocietyContact: Dr Peter CotgreaveDirector of Public AffairsThe Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AG.Tel: 020 7451 2502 Fax: 020 7930 2170Email: [email protected]: www.royalsociety.org

The Royal Society is the UK academy of sciencecomprising 1400 outstanding individualsrepresenting the sciences, engineering andmedicine. The strategic priorities for our work atnational and international levels are to:

• Invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation• Influence policymaking with the best scientific

advice• Invigorate science and mathematics education• Increase access to the best science internationally• Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and

excitement of scientific discovery.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:34


SCIENCE DIARYTHE PARLIAMENTARY ANDSCIENTIFIC COMMITTEEContact: Annabel LloydTel: 020 7222 7085lloyda@pandsctte.demon.co.ukparliamentaryandscientificcommittee@hotmail.org.ukwww.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Monday 14 MarchSET for BRITAIN Poster Competition and Exhibition forearly-stage researchers12.30 - 14.30 Engineering15.30 - 17.30 Biological and Biomedical

Sciences18.30 - 20.30 Physical Sciences (Physics

and Chemistry)

Thursday 17 March 10.00-13.00Space – How can we use it?National Science and Engineering WeekSeminarGrand Committee Room, WestminsterHallThis will be followed by a Reception in theJubilee Room from 13.00 to 14.00 hrs.The Meeting and Reception are co-sponsored by the Parliamentary andScientific Committee and the Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Further provisional meeting dates for2011:Tuesday 26 April Tuesday 17 May Tuesday 14 June Tuesday 12 July Tuesday 18 October Tuesday 22 NovemberTuesday 13 December___________________________________THE ROYAL INSTITUTIONThe Royal Institution21 Albemarle StreetLondon W1S 4BS.

All events take place at the RoyalInstitution. Unless otherwise stated ticketscost £10 standard, £7 concessions, £5 RiMembers. For more information and tobook tickets visit www.rigb.org

Wednesday 23 February 18.00-19.30Science experiments An event for both children and adults,Scientist and TV presenter Robert Winstontalks about his new book ScienceExperiments.

Tuesday 22 March 19.00-20.30The limits of science Are there limitations to science? NobelPrize winner Peter Medawar famouslythought so, and others have supposedthat science cannot poke its nose into thevarious sensitive spots of a supposed

spiritual world. But is that in fact the case?Scientist, Peter Atkins examines the greatquestions of existence to see whetherscience is confronted by a brick wall, andif not, what it reveals.

Saturday 2 April 11.00–16.00Family fun day: FoodThere’ll be a range of activities, excitingdemonstrations and captivating talk forkids and families to explore the sciencebehind the food we eat.Tickets cost £10 adults, £5 Under 18s.

Thursday 7 April 19.00-20.30Let there be light- sunlight, DNA and skinageingPaul Matts, Research Fellow at P&GBeauty and Mark Birch Machin, Professorof Molecular Dermatology discuss newinsights into the effects of UV exposurewithin the skin cells, the visible effects onskin ageing and perception of age, healthand attractiveness, and most importantlywhat can be done to prevent thedamage.

Tuesday 19 April 19.00-20.30Zero degrees of empathy: a new theory ofhuman cruelty Psychologist, Simon Baron-Cohenpresents a new way of understandingwhat it is that leads individuals downnegative paths, and challenges all of us toconsider replacing the idea of evil withthe idea of empathy-starvation._________________________________________

THE ROYAL SOCIETYThe Royal Society hosts a series of freeevents, both evening lectures and two-daydiscussion meetings, covering the wholebreadth of science, engineering andtechnology.

All Royal Society lectures are availablefrom the Royal Society website. Thecollection includes over 200 lectures withspeakers including David Attenborough,Ottoline Leyser and James Lovelock.Details of all of these plus ourforthcoming events programme can befound at royalsociety.org_________________________________________

THE ROYAL ACADEMY OFENGINEERING3 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5DGwww.raeng.org.uk/events [email protected] 7766 0600_________________________________________

THE ROYAL SOCIETY OFCHEMISTRYFor details please contact Dr [email protected]_________________________________________

sipSCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT 3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJTel: 020 7222 7085 Fax: 020 7222 7189Editor: Professor Peter SimpsonEditorial Assistant: Annabel Lloyd

Editorial/Management Board:Mr Andrew Miller MP (Chairman)

Published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee,3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ.

Published four times a year. The 2011 subscription rate is £70.00.Single numbers £17.50

ISSN 0263-6271

All enquiries, including those from members wishing to take the front or back covers, advertisein the journal or appear in the directory to the Secretariat: Tel 020 7222 7085

Copyright ©2011 by Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. All rights reserved. None of thearticles in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in anyform, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise withoutthe prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Typeset and printed by The Bridge Press.

ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH22-26 George StreetEdinburgh EH2 2PQTel: 0131 240 [email protected]_________________________________________

BRITISH SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONFriday 11 – Sunday 20 MarchNational Science & Engineering WeekAs part of National Science & EngineeringWeek scientists, engineers, sciencecommunicators and the general publichost thousands of events across the UK,in order to engage as many people aspossible with science, engineering,technology and their implications. It iscoordinated by the British ScienceAssociation in partnership withEngineeringUK and funded by theDepartment of Business, Innovation andSkills (BIS).Visit www.nsew.org.uk for furtherinformation, including an onlineprogramme of events, or [email protected].

Wednesday 25 and Thursday 26 MayScience Communication Conference at King's Place, LondonThe annual Science CommunicationConference addresses the key issuesfacing science communicators in the UKand brings together people involved inpublic engagement. For furtherinformation visit:http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/ScienceCommunicationConference/_________________________________________

ROYAL [email protected]: 0845 257 2570www.rpharms.com

Monday 21 – Wednesday 23 FebruaryStability testing of pharmaceuticalsA three-day residential course organisedby the Royal Pharmaceutical Society inpartnership with the Academy ofPharmaceutical Sciences.at the Moller Centre, Cambridge

Tuesday 15 March Biomarkers 2011: Analytical challenges inthe qualification and validation ofpharmacodynamic biomarkers Joint Pharmaceutical Analysis Group at the Royal Society of Chemistry, London

Thursday 24 MarchCounterfeit medicines: the regulatory andindustry challengesJoint Pharmaceutical Analysis Group at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society,London

Tuesday 5 AprilThe 12th joint conference on theQualified Person: professionaldevelopment symposiumA joint conference organised by the RoyalPharmaceutical Society, the Society ofBiology and the Royal Society ofChemistry.at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society,London

Sunday 15 – Thursday 19 MayThe 13th advanced level workshop onPK/PD data analysisAn advanced and well-established four-day residential course organised by theRoyal Pharmaceutical Society inpartnership with the Swedish Academy ofPharmaceutical Sciences, at the MollerCentre, Cambridge

Wednesday 25 MayInternational clarke’s conference onanalytical toxicologyA one day conference organised by RoyalPharmaceutical Society in association withthe FSS, JPAG, LTG, and ChromSocat the Royal Pharmaceutical Society,London___________________________________

THE LINNEAN SOCIETY OFLONDONBurlington HousePiccadillyLondon W1J 0BFTel: +44 (0)20 7434 4479 ext 11www.linnean.orgUnless otherwise stated events are heldat the Linnean Society of London

Thursday 17 March 18.00What’s so special about British Mammals?Pat Morris FLS

Thursday 24 March 14.00Strain-induced assembly hypothesis andthe growth of formDavid Knight (meeting organised byAndrew Packard FLS)

Thursday 14 April 18.00Seeing REDD: Science, Policy and Politicsin Biodiversity and Climate ChangePeter Bridgewater FLS

Thursday 12 May Day meetingVisions from the Blind Seer of Ambon – ACelebration of Georg Everard Rumphius(1627-1702) and his Amboinese HerbalPieter Baas

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:30

Right People

Right Skills

Right TimeInvest in skills forthe future

To find out more about how Semta can help your

company contact Semta Customer Services:

T: 0845 643 9001 E: [email protected]

www.semta.org.uk www.nsa-m.co.uk

Research shows companies that invest in the skills of theirworkforce are two and a half times more likely to survive toughtimes than those who don’t.

Semta, the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing

Technologies, can help you identify your company’s skills needs, provide solutions

and help you to access funding for skills investment. Its National Skills Academy for

Manufacturing delivers an independent national standard for manufacturing training

content, delivery and process by focusing on business return which is typically 6:1.

9348 SIP SPRING 2011 8/2/11 09:30

9348 sip spring 2011 - science in parliament...unlocking the potential of in vitro diagnostics in...

Documents