Science and the Parliament
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3454, in the name of Sylvia Jackson, on science and the Parliament. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the "Science and the Parliament" event being held on Wednesday 6 November 2002, organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry in association with Scotland's leading science organisations; notes the contribution of Scotland's 40,000 scientists to our economic, environmental and social development; further notes that Scotland is a world leader in many scientific disciplines; congratulates Scotland's scientists for their excellent ratings in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise; welcomes the Scottish Executive's science strategy set out in A Science Strategy for Scotland and the efforts to foster an environment which enhances student participation in science, to invest in the science infrastructure and equipment of our educational establishments, to increase investment in research along with supporting greater industrial research and assisting in the practical application of our world-beating research, and believes that the Executive should take measures to reverse the downward trend and ensure that more students are choosing to study science at higher grade and degree level.
As a chemistry teacher and a teacher trainer at Moray House Institute of Education, not too far down the road from here, I have had an interest for many years in science development generally and in science education in particular.
I give special thanks to the Royal Society of Chemistry, in association with Scotland's leading science organisations, which include the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Biology, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Save British Science Society, the Scottish universities policy and research advice network, the Association for Science Education—of which I have been a member for too long—and the Society of Chemical Industry. They have organised today's science and the Parliament event, and I hope that all MSPs present have been able to attend that event and will join us in the Signet library after the debate.
Science and the Parliament is now an annual event for scientists, parliamentarians and science policy personnel. Last year's event was very popular and successful and I am sure that this year's event will be, too. As members will know, this year's event takes place during European science week.
I would like to say a little about the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is the learned society for chemical sciences and the professional body for chemical scientists in the UK. It has more than 46,000 members worldwide, is a major publisher and provider of chemical information and supports the teaching of the chemical sciences at all levels. It organises hundreds of chemical meetings every year and is a leader in communicating science to the public.
As my motion says, Scottish scientists are world beaters. The results of the 2001 research assessment exercise confirmed that universities and higher education colleges in Scotland are leaders in carrying out internationally competitive research. In Scotland 5,666 academic staff were submitted for assessment under the exercise—12 per cent of those submitted for assessment across the United Kingdom as a whole. That figure is much higher than Scotland's percentage share of the population, which is less than 9 per cent.
However, the numbers studying science at higher and degree level have been falling over the past few years, and that fall is especially pronounced in chemistry and physics. Between 1993 and 2001, there was a large decrease in the number of pupils passing higher grade sciences. Chemistry was down from 10.8 per cent of the school roll to 9.2 per cent, physics was down from 10.4 per cent to 9 per cent, and biology was down from 7.6 per cent to 6.6 per cent.
I will refer now to science numbers in higher and further education. Answers to parliamentary questions have revealed the true extent of the decline in popularity of physics and chemistry degree courses in Scotland. It is astonishing that there has been a 27 per cent drop in applications to chemistry courses over the past five years, and a 19 per cent drop in applications to physics courses. The drop in acceptances is even greater, with a 30 per cent drop in chemistry and a 34 per cent drop in physics.
Scotland is expected to face a shortage of physics and chemistry teachers in a few years' time, when numbers of physics and chemistry teachers retire and new posts come on stream.
I do not think that my own example is a particularly good one. I did sixth-year chemistry, but chose instead to study history at university. I should say in my defence that the most famous chemist in the land at the time was a certain Mrs Thatcher. Time has moved on, however, and I wonder whether Sylvia Jackson agrees that it is crucial that we get more students to study physics and chemistry at university. In particular, does she agree that we must recruit more chemistry and general science teachers? Is not that the most important step that we can take?
That is exactly right. I thank Kenneth Macintosh for that intervention and I will go on to say more about the points that he raised.
Science teachers, many of whom were recruited at the same time as I was when I first went into teaching and are therefore of a similar age, are among the oldest group of teachers in our schools. That fact, combined with the falling number of applicants to train as teachers, is likely to result in a shortfall of teachers, especially experienced ones. That is a vital issue. Local councils predict that they will need 763 new science teachers over the next six years and 321 for physics alone.
In view of the considerable reductions in chemistry and physics and the other reductions that she has mentioned, does Sylvia Jackson have any comparisons with other countries in western Europe? Are there similar reductions in France, Germany or Holland, or do we not have figures?
I wish that John Young had given me notice of that question. I shall certainly try to find out and give him that information. In fact, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, who has much greater resources at his disposal, might be able to answer that question.
The Scottish Executive's report on the supply of teachers shows that physics has been listed as a priority subject for some time and that chemistry, biology and science are in the top 13 subjects that are identified as priorities by councils. Although there is currently no overall shortage of science teachers, the number of applicants applying to do teacher training in the sciences has fallen in recent years, especially in physics and chemistry.
However, it would be unfair to say that the Scottish Executive is not listening or pursuing useful policies. Those policies include the science strategy for Scotland; the creation of an independent Scottish science advisory committee; an £8 million investment in science equipment and training for schools; developments within the five-to-14 science education programme; science year in Scotland; the national education debate; the Royal Society of Edinburgh teaching fellowship; increasing research funds for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council; and, of course, the school building programme, which is upgrading and building many new school laboratories.
It seems that there are mostly males in the gallery. I think that they are science teachers, or they work in science, biology or whatever. What are we doing to encourage women to go into the sciences?
I suppose that Dr Jackson would like extra time to compensate for all the interventions.
I would like that, Presiding Officer.
There have been long campaigns to encourage more girls into the sciences, particularly into physics and chemistry. Those campaigns have been more at school than at university level. The Association for Science Education, of which I have been a member for too long, as I said, has dealt with such campaigns.
The science community, which includes the many science associations that I listed earlier, has suggested a number of measures that could improve matters. Members of those associations are in the gallery. First, there could be a Scottish centre for teaching excellence. To build on recent developments in science and teaching, the Scottish Executive should back the creation of a Scottish centre for science education. It would support continuing professional development, which is at the heart of the McCrone settlement, and developments in that respect, and it should be a partnership of all Scotland's universities and the scientific societies and institutes. I hope that there will be a centre in every region of Scotland.
Secondly, there should be incentives to recruit more science teachers. My colleague Kenneth Macintosh asked about those. Such incentives would help to tackle the potential shortage of quality science teachers.
Thirdly, there should be even more investment in school laboratories. To provide a modern science teaching environment, additional resources will be needed. Indeed, it has been calculated that £13 million should be invested each year fully to equip Scotland's secondary school laboratories and to keep them up to date. We desperately need an audit of secondary school laboratories to assess what investment is required and to find out whether £13 million has been invested. Improving school science facilities would also help to attract more pupils into the sciences. In recent years, a related issue has been the need to include more science in the training of primary teachers and the on-going professional development needs of teachers in primary and secondary schools.
Finally, there should be a network of Scottish science centres. The Scottish Executive should invest in Scotland's science centres in order to secure their financial future, support their work on the public engagement with science, cut the cost of entry to the public in a similar way to the scheme for free entry to museums and develop their role in the formal science education network. The work of the Scottish Science Trust in supporting pupils and teachers in informal science education through such centres is well known. I gather that the core funding for that organisation is being reviewed, but it is likely to be received too late to prevent the trust's closure. I have spoken to the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning rather than the deputy minister, who is here tonight, about the issue and look forward to a response. If that is not possible tonight, I look forward to one in the near future.
I look forward to other members' speeches and to the deputy minister's comments on how we can proceed.
Eight members wish to speak. Speeches will be of no more than four minutes.
I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say how pleased I am that, another year on, the Parliament has another opportunity to debate science issues.
In a recent newspaper article, the chair of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee used the example of China and outlined the lengths to which that country's leaders are going to encourage a strong science base. They recognise that science can contribute to wealth creation and they have invested heavily in scientific infrastructure. They are providing good opportunities for outstanding Chinese scientists to return to China. The implication is that Scotland needs to provide similar incentives to encourage the return of its own highly able graduates and postgraduates, many of whom work in other parts of the world.
It is a constant source of amazement to me that despite coming from a parental home that has much more of an arts ethos, both my children are science graduates and one makes his living as a research scientist—outwith Scotland, it has to be said. I could say to the minister that that is entirely because he wanted to take advantage of the better opportunities in Denmark to study renewable energy and that kind of thing, but that would be only partly true. His primary reason for moving was that he fell in love with a beautiful Danish girl, and they are very happy together. The message remains valid, however; if other countries are getting state-of-the-art equipment and offering higher salaries within an improved career structure, we must ensure that we are competitive and offer similar conditions.
A great deal of the focus of members' speeches will rightly draw attention to the need to get more young people of both sexes enthused about science at school and to get them to study science at higher level and beyond. From my family experience, I know that it is not easy to identify exactly what prompts that interest and I expect that the impetus varies from student to student, so addressing the problem of raising the numbers will remain a difficult one.
There is no doubt that we need to take action. Over the past seven years in Scotland there has—as has been made clear—been a massive reduction in the number of people choosing to study science, particularly at university. There are also concerns about the number of young people taking science at school.
One obvious encouragement, which was touched on by Sylvia Jackson, would be schools' having good up-to-date equipment. Schools need that to help them to make the science that they teach reflect the modern way that science is done. In this increasingly technological age, young people will not be impressed or enthused by old worn-out equipment and infrastructure. I appreciate the £8 million that has been allocated by the Executive for school equipment, infrastructure and training, but it is estimated that at least £50 million will be needed to bring our school laboratory facilities up to scratch and worthy of the 21st century. I will leave that thought with the minister.
As for teachers, it is critical that we are able to recruit sufficient high-quality staff for our science departments. It might be that having identified physics, chemistry and biology as priority subjects, we might need to be even more innovative and proactive in attracting trainee teachers to those subjects. Science is important to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the country. We in the Parliament must do all that we can to promote science's development.
I thank Sylvia Jackson for securing the debate. It is appropriately timed because it is European science week and 2002 is science year. As we know, science and the promotion of science and technology are vital for today's society and the future of Scotland's economy.
As Sylvia Jackson highlighted ably, we have much to be proud of here in Scotland. I will mention a few of the world-renowned institutes in my city of Aberdeen. The Rowett Research Institute is currently carrying out crucial work on obesity, which is a growing threat to people's health. Aberdeen residents will be familiar with adverts luring them into the Rowett Research Institute with offers of free food and lodgings while they are experimented on. There is also the Macaulay Institute, whose director was recently appointed to the new Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which is one of the outcomes of the new science strategy.
The University of Aberdeen has made use of proof-of-concept funding in commercialising science—researchers at the university are working on shark antibodies, which will apparently make us all much healthier—and the Robert Gordon University does immensely important work on renewables, particularly on tidal streams. We also have the scientists in the marine laboratory, whose work is accepted by the fishing industry, however much its conclusions are hotly disputed. All those people carry out vital research that contributes to the well-being of Scotland's people and its natural environment.
I want to mention the role of science and technology in the oil and gas industry. The development of the North sea has been underpinned by innovative solutions to complex problems that demand high levels of skill and expertise from scientists and engineers.
To continue to supply industry and academia with the people required, it is essential that we enthuse young people about science and technology. As Sylvia Jackson and Irene McGugan said, the recent fall in the number of school and university students who pursue studies in science, technology and engineering is worrying and will undoubtedly contribute to the developing skill shortage. There are great potential opportunities in what we hope will be a new industry in Scotland based around renewables. Even more than in the oil and gas industry, the skills that are required for renewables will be science and technology based. It is becoming more important that we ensure that enough young people are attracted to science.
A lot of good work is being done in the science centres throughout Scotland. Satrosphere in Aberdeen introduces children to science as fun. Such centres need better and more secure funding. Even more important is the work of organisations such as the Grampian science and technology network, whose activities are being rolled out throughout Scotland. The programme works with primary and secondary schools and has been developed in conjunction with private companies such as BP. The programme supports primary school teachers in teaching science and technology and often works with the youngest pupils. At a more senior level, the scheme provides mentoring for advanced technology students. For example, students are linked to BP engineers who work offshore. The scheme has been highly successful for the schools and companies that are involved.
As members have mentioned, one key way in which to ensure that young people engage in studying science is to give them hands-on experience, which means having enough fully equipped labs. I cannot end without mentioning a regular correspondent of mine who is desperately concerned about the inadequate funding of physics labs in schools. He is clear that the recent funding is welcome, but says that—as Sylvia Jackson mentioned—a lot more is required to bring labs up to scratch. I look forward to the minister addressing that point.
I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate. I also congratulate her on the tenacity that she shows on the subject all year round, not just once a year. We owe her a great debt for that.
Like other members, I took time out this afternoon to go to the Signet library to listen to the Royal Society of Chemistry conference. Unfortunately, I could not stay for as long as I wanted because of other duties. Many members were in the same situation. The conference was excellent and I am grateful to Willie Rennie for the detailed briefings that he made available to MSPs.
One of the contributors at the conference was Paula Hedley, who is 17 and who attends Buckie Community High School. Her confidence and ability to communicate and express her views were a joy to behold and are a great credit to her family, school and community. If she makes as much impact on the local community council—of which she must be the youngest member—and on the youngsters to whom she is a buddy reader as she did on many learned members of the society and other interested individuals, she will be a great asset to civic society in Scotland.
I shall concentrate on one of the points that she made, which registered strongly with me, about the lack of employment opportunities for young skilled scientists, especially in our rural communities. I am sure that the minister, who cut his political teeth in the constituency of Moray, will understand that employment opportunities are an important aspect of retaining and recruiting scientists. Paula Hedley said that it is a long way from Buckie to the central belt. She lives in Portknockie, which is even further from the central belt. If Paula were to follow a career in science, the only jobs that would come along would be in our distilleries or in the fish and food-processing plants. However, those jobs are few and far between.
That talented young lady has changed her career pattern. She is heading off to the University of Strathclyde to take a degree in tourism, business studies and languages. Of course, she will be an asset in that field. However, as legislators, we must consider how we can recruit and retain the skills of such people in the scientific sphere in our rural communities and our more remote areas, rather than just in Scotland as a whole.
Over the many years in which I have been involved with politics, one of the issues that has haunted us has been the so-called brain drain from Scotland. My colleague Irene McGugan spoke about her son falling in love with a young Dane but also finding opportunities in Denmark that we could not offer at home. All the statistics that we have heard—I will not repeat them, because those who have read Willie Rennie's briefings will be only too well aware of them—show that science seems to be becoming a less attractive option for our young people; that the number of science recruits is falling in schools, universities and colleges and that the number of science teachers is falling because many of the principal teachers are approaching retirement age.
Those are depressing omens for the future of the skills base in Scotland. They must be addressed over and above the strategy that the Scottish Executive has put before us and which has been endorsed by the Parliament. Additional resources will be required, but we must show the political will to ensure that our young people are not deprived of the facilities that they need to advance their careers in science.
I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing this important debate. All too often, science is ignored not only in Scotland but in the Parliament. We have an annual round, but it needs more than that, as Margaret Ewing said.
I come from a science background. During my first year at university, I studied chemistry, physics, botany and zoology, which also took me into brewing and other delightful arts that required visits to the various establishments up and down the Royal Mile. One point that has not yet been made in the debate is that good science has the power to help all humanity. Scotland has played a tremendous role in that respect, especially in medical sciences and technology.
Sylvia Jackson cited some statistics from answers to parliamentary questions. What amazes me is not who is applying for places at university but the fact that the figure for total acceptances to study chemistry has dropped by 34 per cent over the past five years. That is not sustainable. The equivalent figure for physics has dropped by 31 per cent, which is also not sustainable. The Foundation for Science and Technology recently held its annual debate at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The report of that debate states that it is necessary to
"encourage greater uptake among young people of scientific subjects by, for example, identifying good role models among members of the scientific community who had been commercially successful."
That is an important issue for the Scottish economy. We are beginning to see good signs in the commercialisation of biomedical science, which was mentioned earlier. That is essential. Another point to emerge from that debate is one that I have raised with ministers over the three years of the Parliament. The report states:
"Cross-disciplinary research should be encouraged: in its present form the Research Assessment Exercise could be an obstacle to such collaboration."
It is an even greater obstacle—I had a good dialogue with Wendy Alexander about this—when one is not allowed to mix the Government funding for higher education research with money from an industrial company. That is nonsense, because the two feed off each other. Clearly we must attack that issue.
Elaine Thomson referred to Satrosphere in Aberdeen and there are other places, such as Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh and Sensation in Dundee. It is important that we engage and enthuse young people at an early age. I remember David Bellamy and Magnus Pyke, who gave tremendously exciting theatrical performances on television that made science come alive. We need more enthusiasm and good advocates, but we must start children early.
Basic science can be taught in nursery and primary schools and does not require a huge degree of input because it excites children to find out how the world works, what reactions are and how things operate. It is important that we get people to become investigative at a younger age—that point applies to all education but particularly to subjects that lead on to science.
I am sure that Alex Neil and others will refer to the entrepreneurial advantage that we have in Scotland and its value to the economy. Commercialisation is essential, but—to quote the five Es at members—the most important thing is that early on we must engage, excite and enthuse, as Irene McGugan said, and then we must educate and encourage.
I welcome the members of the Royal Society of Chemistry who are in the public gallery. This is the second speech that they have heard from me in 90 minutes, so either they are gluttons for punishment or they know a good thing when they are on to it. I suspect that it is the latter, of course.
I will concentrate on two aspects that go together: the commercialisation of research, and science education. I will refer back to the report that was published by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about this time last year on university research and teaching.
Four things need to be done if we are serious about commercialisation. First, we need to overhaul the research assessment exercise in the way that David Davidson mentioned and make it much simpler. The current system is crazy. For example, an academic who published four articles in prestigious journals would get the maximum brownie points through the RAE. However, if he or she took out a patent, they would get few brownie points. If they set up a spin-out company, they would get no brownie points whatever.
Things should be the other way round. The situation is particularly ridiculous because many of our foreign industrial competitors would use the four articles in the prestigious journals to get the intellectual property required for them to patent a product and would get all the commercial benefit from that. Therefore, a total overhaul of the RAE is required.
Secondly, we need to learn from the University of Cambridge model of encouraging the commercialisation of its academics' research. The tight funding of Scottish universities means that they are totally reliant on what is essentially marginal revenue from the sale of intellectual property and patents that result from research. However, the University of Cambridge makes no claim to any of its academics' research work. They retain the rights over it. Therefore, they have access to the intellectual property rights, the patent rights and so on. The spin-out rate around Cambridge has exploded because of that, creating new wealth and jobs on an unprecedented scale. In addition, those people to whom the university gave a chance are voluntarily donating to the university through endowments and all the rest of it. We need to consider doing a deal with our universities to repeat the Cambridge model.
My third point is that the Executive's budget, under the heading of enterprise and lifelong learning, rightly sets a long-term target of getting the level of business spend on research and development up to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. We currently spend 0.53 per cent of our gross domestic product on business research and development. To get to the OECD average, that figure needs to rise to 1.54 per cent. That means an additional spend, year on year, of £750 million on business research and development. We have to try to get to that level if we are to remain a modern, industrial and competitive nation.
To the minister, I say, "For God's sake, get ahead with the intermediate technology institutes!" It is taking for ever to set them up and a wee bit of energy, innovation and dynamism might help them to become a reality before we are all dead.
I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate. For the benefit of our welcome guests in the gallery, I point out that these 5 o'clock debates were recently described as being rather similar to tutorials. I commend that description to our guests as it nicely brings out the thoughtful style in which we conduct these debates.
Many excellent points have been made on the issue of getting young people to study science at school and university. However, what does a first-class honours graduate who is deciding what to do next and who turns to the job advertisements in the back pages of the New Scientist discover? That the money on offer is rubbish. If someone is offered the choice of going into academia as a research chemist or joining the Charlotte Square mafia of fund managers, it is clear which way they will go if filthy lucre is what appeals to them—although I admit that there is a small possibility that what is happening in the stock market might alter that.
I want to fly a kite for a moment. I might be wrong, but I think that there is an impression that, if someone joins a British company as a chemist—or any other sort of science graduate—in 10 or 20 years' time, they might still be a chemist. The career progression from newly employed scientist to board member is not always evident. I am prepared to be shot down on that point, but it is worth considering. We must remember that there is a nasty snobbery about arts degrees being better than science degrees. I need that career progression to be explained to me.
As an example of the problems that can be caused by the impression that I am talking about, I will mention my son, who got good highers in science but, for many reasons, decided that science was not the way forward and has chosen to read economics at the University of Edinburgh next year. That might link back to what was said during this afternoon's debate on education.
A couple of weeks ago, I and some other members attended a good get-together that was organised by the Foundation for Science and Technology. The subject was, more or less, "Whither science in Scotland?" and much good stuff was said. However, I was struck by the fact that the vast majority of people there were academics and eminent professors. There were some politicians but, despite the fact that invitations had been issued, hardly anybody was there from the world of commerce. In the past, the dialogue between scientists and politicians has not been as good as it should be—which is why Sylvia Jackson is to be doubly congratulated for bringing this debate to the chamber today—and, as Alex Neil has said on previous occasions, the dialogue between scientists and commerce must be improved as well.
There are still three members who wish to speak. In order to accommodate everyone, I would be willing to take a motion without notice to extend business by 15 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 15 minutes.—[Mr David Davidson.]
Motion agreed to.
I speak as a former principal teacher of physics and chemistry at a small junior secondary school in Kenya and as the current rector of the University of Edinburgh.
David Davidson spoke about the reduction in the number of people being recruited into physics and chemistry. That, of course, has a knock-on effect. I am reliably informed that, two years ago, the number of students who were recruited into engineering departments—I think that this is general, rather than just at the University of Edinburgh—fell by 50 per cent and has remained at that low level for the past two years. Physics and chemistry are crucial background subjects for those who wish to continue from school into engineering.
Elaine Thomson talked about the contribution that the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen will make to the development of renewables and the hope that it will become a centre of excellence for renewables development in Scotland. Above everything else, we need engineers to enable us to capitalise on the huge success in renewables that beckons Scottish universities and manufacturing. That success is there for the asking if we are prepared for it. However, all the signs are that we will not be as well prepared for it as we could and should be.
Elaine Thomson also mentioned the project in Aberdeen to interest young people in science. We need to raise the status of craft, design and technology—otherwise known as CDT—in Scottish schools. There are ways in which that could be done. Schools should be encouraged to have big competitions and exhibitions of students' craftwork at the end of the year with prizes to be awarded to raise the status of CDT and to involve parents. The status of a subject in a school can be raised in many ways. That could be done for CDT.
Sylvia Jackson talked about centres of excellence for physics and chemistry. Perhaps we should include engineering and CDT in those centres of excellence, as we have a need for people who are skilled in those subjects.
By the by, our colleges of veterinary science, such as the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies—the Dick vet—in Edinburgh, require students to have five As, including as many sciences as possible. The courses are oversubscribed by a ratio of 8:1. What an appalling waste of talent it is that seven out of eight or eight out of nine young people who made up their minds to do veterinary medicine were not encouraged along the way by the school careers service to think about having some other scientific career in their back pocket, because veterinary science is not the only career and entry to it is so competitive. There is a discontinuity in the way in which we encourage young people along scientific pathways.
In the debate on education this afternoon, we talked about flexibility. The Executive should investigate the ways in which schools generally get students out of school into engineering projects. Safety—hard hats and so on—gets in the way of such activities. However, that kind of hands-on experience is important. I am thinking not only about the provision of equipment in school, but about getting pupils out of school. We must do everything that we can through the careers service to upgrade science as a career.
I am grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for giving me the opportunity again this year to talk about science and in particular for the brief that it provided.
A number of members asked questions during the year highlighting the shortfall in applications for and acceptances on science and engineering courses. That shortfall must be a matter of great concern.
As someone with a couple of science degrees—the first from the 1960s and the second from considerably later—I have some understanding of why people are interested in science. I was enthused about it. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, I wanted to be a scientist. Clearly, young people today do not have that kind of enthusiasm. I do not know why that is. The professional bodies are doing their level best to interest people in science.
It is noticeable that, if a university course is given an appropriate label, folk will be attracted to it. Nowadays, not only are medicine and veterinary science oversubscribed, but forensic science is, too. The attraction exists because forensic science is portrayed on television as an exciting, sexy profession. Having spent a large part of my life as a forensic scientist, dealing with forensic toxicology, I am not sure whether I recognise what is on television. However, forensic science excited me. It was not a deadly dull, dreary drudge of a job, but I do not know how we can convey that to young people.
There is no doubt that we are producing science graduates of quality and that the future of industry and of the economy will rely on them. We are no longer going to be the screwdriver economy; we must drive up standards and attract much better quality jobs. We have attracted developments in biotechnology industries in particular, for which we need graduates. It is noticeable that the uptake in biological sciences reflects that need, although there has been a small decline even in that field, if not the severe decline that has taken place in physics and engineering.
The issue is not just the financial rewards, although they are important. People need job satisfaction and intellectual stimulation; they need to feel that they are doing something of worth to society. That is what is required to attract young people to become the scientists and engineers that our society needs.
I do not have an instant answer to the problem. We should certainly focus on the kinds of courses that I have mentioned and, regardless of whether they are given the necessary veneer to attract an oversubscription of scientists—not that many courses achieve that—we should try to make the professions more attractive to young people.
It worries me that my children have not chosen to do science, even though my wife and I are both science graduates. Although one of my sons is doing computing science, my other children were not attracted to the subject and have gone down different routes. What is the difference between now and the last century? What is wrong with science and how we are portraying it?
Other issues, relating to the way in which scientists who are training at universities are treated, have attracted the attention of my colleague, Mr Neil. In particular, short-term contracts for research scientists need to be considered. I am delighted that one of the universities in my area, the Robert Gordon University, has addressed that issue, to its great credit.
We need to continue to attract young people to science. Scientists are trained to ask questions and to answer them. That is what society needs. We need those forensic skills in science and engineering and not just on the more intellectual side. We also need them in politics, law and economics.
And timekeeping.
Those skills are needed here and now. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Although I agree with some of what Brian Adam said, we have to avoid the temptation to engage in a great level of dourness or glumness—that might be due to the influence of where we meet—about where we stand in relation to the sciences and research. There are a lot of exciting, innovative features to what is going on in Scotland. We have a disproportionate influence on the United Kingdom science base, and we should celebrate that, recognising the role that our scientists and those entering the sciences play, not only in our economy, but in our national life.
I am weary of politicians opining too much on the sciences. Until recently, our interaction as a class with the sciences was not very auspicious. The false attempts that were made to shove eggs or hamburgers down our children's throats in order to establish our dubious credentials are good reasons for avoiding such behaviour.
Many members have spoken about getting in on the ground floor. Much progress has been made on promoting science at school level as an interest and a career. Sylvia Jackson was right to mention the improvements that have been made in the school estate and how important those are. I echo Elaine Thomson's concerns, having visited secondary schools in my constituency that have not yet been replaced or refurbished. One comes across teachers and kids who are performing ferociously well, but struggling with inappropriate and outdated facilities. It is not an exaggeration to say that when I walk into science labs in St Ninian's High School in my constituency—as opposed to St Ninian's High School in my colleague Ken Macintosh's constituency—I recognise them, as they are similar to the labs in which I was taught. I left school just as someone else was entering number 10—the two events are not unconnected.
It is important to get our youngsters interested in a career in the sciences. Some excellent work is being done in schools. The role of inspirational science teachers must not be underestimated. Finding ways of getting children excited about what it means to be involved in the sciences is important. The young engineers club at Lenzie Academy in my constituency is doing that in a very innovative and exciting way. Such initiatives can be complemented by settings such as Glasgow Science Centre, to which I take my children regularly. The venue has attracted unfair criticism. If anyone wants to make it clear to their children that the sciences are not as dull as the science teaching to which we were subjected, they should take them to explore venues such as the Glasgow Science Centre.
We must match resources to our rhetoric. Britain must not make the mistakes in science education in the next generation that we made in the previous one. I welcome the funding that has been made available to a new generation of young British scientists and look forward to the implementation of the Roberts report. That will mean an average rise of £4,000 in science post-doctoral research council pay. The average stipend for research council PhD students will rise to more than £13,000 by 2005-06—twice what it was in 1997, even after inflation.
Alex Neil recognised, grudgingly, the significant shift of resources that has taken place and, most important, the strategic lead that has been given to the intermediate technology institutes. By anyone's reckoning, £50 million is not to be sniffed at.
I am not making a party-political point, because that would be wholly inappropriate. I accept that £50 million is a great deal of money. However, it is nothing compared with what is being invested in parallel institutes in Sweden and Singapore. We need to recognise the scale of investment that we must make if we are to compete.
I hope that Alex Neil will find time to join me in welcoming the average annual rise of more than 10 per cent in spending on the sciences that will take place over the coming years.
Robin Harper mentioned the future opportunities—as well as challenges—to protect and safeguard our environment. The exacting tests that we have set ourselves to meet our 2010 targets are an opportunity for science and research. Robin Harper made a very important point.
We are in danger of being on the receiving end of reverse treating. Politicians are always reminded to avoid treating, but I understand that there is to be a reception. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend, but I am sure that those who have sat through tonight's debate will enjoy it.
I, too, congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing a very worthwhile debate. I also congratulate the Royal Society of Chemistry and its partners on organising today's science in the Parliament event, which I was able to attend—albeit briefly—this afternoon and which my colleague Iain Gray will address later this evening.
I agree with those who have said that we do not focus often enough on science in the Parliament. I know that many of my colleagues will take the opportunity this evening to talk to scientists and hear about their successes and concerns first hand. I believe that the event will help to highlight to the Parliament the vital contribution that our science community is making.
It is important that we raise the profile of the science agenda and celebrate the enormous contribution that science makes to our economy and to our quality of life. Let us not forget that Scotland has a wonderful tradition in science. There are a number of indicators of that, such as the number of Nobel prizes that Scots or people who have studied in Scotland have accumulated over the years, which at the latest count was around 20, and the groundbreaking discoveries and inventions.
Science today is still thriving. Elaine Thomson talked about the centres of excellence in Aberdeen and there are many others throughout the country. Scotland consistently wins 12 per cent of the funding from UK research councils, which is above the average. We rank third in the world in citations per head of population and research shows that our existing spin-out process at universities is as efficient as that of the United States of America. The 2001 research assessment exercise found that half of our researchers work in departments that produce internationally competitive research. We now have 19 departments that have achieved the highest rating in research, which is around double the figure for the previous assessment exercise.
I accept all the figures that the minister has just given and they are to be celebrated. One area in which we are way behind is our share of defence research expenditure, for which there is a huge budget. Although I would not wish some aspects of defence research to come to Scotland, will the minister give an undertaking that he will talk to the Ministry of Defence and the appropriate agencies about increasing Scotland's share of defence research?
No. I have tried to indicate today that the higher education sector in Scotland is perfectly capable of making its own case and it does not require any special treatment in its relations with the Ministry of Defence, or anybody else, because of the excellence that has been achieved. Alex Neil might have ambitions for our universities to enter other areas of research, but I think that we should build on the excellence that is already in place.
There are many good stories to tell, but we have heard tonight from Sylvia Jackson and others about the concerns that interest in science and technology in schools and universities might be on the wane. We acknowledge the importance of those indicators. That is why our science strategy, which was published in August last year, committed the Executive to ensuring that enough people study science to meet the needs of our country. More broadly, we see science and skills as the main drivers of the modern knowledge economy. For that reason we are concerned about any decline in interest in those subjects within the education system.
The UK-wide Roberts report investigated those concerns and concluded that significant issues were at stake. We will certainly wish to address those. The question was asked about comparators outside Scotland. The Roberts report considered that the problems in Scotland were fewer because of the higher participation rates in post-school education compared with those south of the border. There is encouragement in that.
There is encouragement in the fact that half of all children leaving school with highers have achieved at least one science higher and a quarter of all children have achieved at least two. It remains the case that, after English and Mathematics, the most popular individual subjects include a number of science subjects. The situation with technological studies is less happy at standard grade, but at higher level the situation has remained fairly steady.
There is a mixed picture in higher education. As has been said in recent years, students have been taking pure physics and chemistry in smaller numbers. At the same time, the number of students who are taking biological studies and information technology courses has been on the increase. Many students now take a mixture of disciplines and so comparisons over time have become difficult. It is worth noting that between 2000 and 2001, the most recent year for which figures are available, the number of students who were accepted to take up science and engineering courses increased by 4 per cent to a current total of more than 9,000.
Although I acknowledge that there are issues and concerns to be addressed, I do not believe that we are facing an insoluble crisis in the study of science. I acknowledge that there will be areas of both growth and loss.
I am a non-scientist and a non-physicist, so the minister must excuse my ignorance. China was mentioned earlier. I am sure that that was correct, but one cannot compare China with western Europe, for obvious reasons. Are the various qualifications that one can obtain in such subjects in this country recognised in most west European countries? In other words, are such qualifications interchangeable?
I can see that John Young is following a European project this evening. I will be happy to respond in writing to his earlier query to Sylvia Jackson and to his latest query about recognition of qualifications. That will give him the full picture.
We acknowledge that science will play an important part in contributing to our economic future, both in a European context and in a global context. We seek growth in areas of science that are strategically and economically important, as well as in those areas that are fashionable. That is why the independent science advisory committee that we have recently established will give us advice on those issues.
We have been working on a range of initiatives to promote science in schools. As has been mentioned, we have injected additional funding of £8 million into the school science infrastructure and have provided £1 billion of additional funding for school infrastructure in general. We have established the improving science education five-to-14 project, which is a major programme that has been designed to improve the image of science education in Scottish schools. In March, we will hold a major conference on science education over the next 20 years, to stimulate innovative thinking on the teaching of science. We must lift the teaching of science and make it more relevant to young people.
The attitudes of young people are influenced by many pressures and by many role models. Many people in the gallery would acknowledge that scientists have an important role to play in projecting a positive image of science. Tackling public perceptions of science can be a long process that requires patience. The scientific community, above all, can work with Government in seeking to achieve that outcome.
Our science strategy sets out a firm statement of intent on the importance of science within our wider strategies. We will continue to take every opportunity to assist the universities in getting out the good stories on science and in celebrating their achievements and aspirations. The science strategy played an important role in shaping the spending review, which was set out only a few weeks ago. We will increase investment in science and research in universities by nearly 20 per cent during the next three years. That represents an increase of £45 million.
Sylvia Jackson and others made specific suggestions, to which I wish to respond. We are aware of the proposals for a national centre of excellence in science teaching that have been introduced south of the border. Although there are no plans for such a centre in Scotland, we recognise the issues that the Roberts report identified. We are working with the Wellcome Trust on various ways in which those issues could be addressed. The science advisory committee will advise us on that and on other issues, such as continuous professional development for science teachers.
We have made the recruitment of physics teachers a priority for education colleges, which has resulted in an increased take-up. If the need arises to do the same in other areas of science teaching, we will take the necessary action.
Science centres were mentioned. As Sylvia Jackson knows, we have occasionally provided short-term funding to address specific problems with science centres. We will develop our future policy on where science centres fit into our overall strategy in the context of the on-going joint review with UK ministers.
Margaret Ewing referred to Paula Hedley's experience. The promotion of science and technology will work only if the rising generation becomes confident of gaining well-paid and well-supported jobs in which to use scientific skills.
There is an issue about the relative lack of research and development in industry in Scotland. We acknowledge that, in many respects, we lag behind. We need Government action to tackle the situation and we need a push from the science base, through the commercialisation of scientific research.
I assure Alex Neil that significant energy and dynamism are being applied to introducing proposals for intermediate technology institutes. We consider them a vital part of commercialisation and of making industry provide role models, as well as scientists. The Government will provide a push in that direction. I agree that it is important to proceed with the institutes quickly, but it is also important to get them right, which we will seek to do.
The centres of excellence, which are about to become intermediate technology institutes, have been in gestation for three years. Will the minister give members an idea of when we will see the institutes?
The minister is four minutes over his allotted time.
That is a scientific assessment of the position, to which I will respond.
We are keen to make progress on the institutes quickly, as Mr Adam and others know from previous debates. Members should rest assured that we will introduce proposals as early as we can, when they are ready to be taken to the next stage.
Much activity is being undertaken in the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. At Scottish Enterprise, the ITIs are an example of how we can achieve commercialisation. As members know, we are undertaking a review of higher education, which will cover that matter. That will present us with a major opportunity to ensure a better strategic fit between the research base and our economic future.
I welcome the debate and the motion. I assure Parliament that we will continue to do all that we can to promote the role of science in education, in the economy and in our overall strategic approach.
Meeting closed at 18:16.