The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09963, in the name of Dr Alasdair Allan, on life sciences. If you are ready, Dr Allan, I invite you to speak to and move the motion. You have 13 minutes.
15:06
As the minister for science, I am proud to lead this debate on Scotland’s life sciences sector. As members will appreciate, the sector is extremely important to Scotland. It goes without saying—but I will say it anyway—that, as a nation, we have contributed significantly to the health sector, from penicillin to beta blockers.
Scotland’s life sciences community not only provides employment for thousands of highly qualified individuals but contributes billions to the Scottish economy. It is worth reflecting that, in 2011, for example, turnover was estimated at around £3.2 billion, with gross value added at around £1.6 billion.
However, we want to improve on those numbers and that is why in 2011 the Scottish life sciences industry developed its strategy, “Creating Wealth, Promoting Health”, which outlines its vision for the sector. A key aim of the strategy is to double the contribution that life sciences make to the Scottish economy by 2020. Achieving that will require a strong and co-ordinated effort from business, academia, the Government and the health sector, and it will depend in no small way on the talents and skills of those working in Scotland’s life sciences community.
We therefore must build on Scotland’s international reputation for excellence in life sciences by ensuring that our firms and universities have access to the best people with the best skills. We want to position Scotland as the destination of choice for talented individuals working and studying in life sciences. We want it to be a place where they can undertake globally important research and where they can work with companies at the leading edge of science developments. That is why we support life sciences skills through a range of mechanisms and initiatives that cover all ages and all educational levels and operate in our communities, our schools, our colleges and universities, and of course, in industry.
Last week, Skills Development Scotland launched its detailed skills investment plan for the sector. Created in full collaboration with the industry, through the life sciences industry leadership group and the academic sector, the plan has four key aims: building graduate work readiness; improving attractiveness to new entrants; attracting and anchoring key skills; and building an accessible and responsible skills system. Each of those themes has a range of actions attached to it, which are designed to deliver maximum benefit both to individuals’ careers and to businesses.
An example of all this is the lab skills programme, which Skills Development Scotland, in conjunction with the sector, will start to run next month. The programme is aimed at life sciences graduates and will provide them with hands-on support that will help them to secure a job in the life sciences community.
It involves a two-week training course delivered by Edinburgh Napier University at the state-of-the-art laboratories at BioCity Scotland and will focus on developing the strong technical laboratory skills and commercial awareness skills that life science companies need to compete in the highly competitive national and global marketplace.
Of course, when we talk about graduates, we should also talk about the importance of starting science education more broadly as early as possible. Support for biology and other sciences through the curriculum is perhaps the single most important element in encouraging young people to see a promising career for themselves in life sciences. However, we recognise that other factors can influence career choice, which is why, as well as providing support for teacher training and continuous professional development, and for school facilities and equipment, we fund a range of initiatives that bring science to life for young people, including science clubs, workshops and shows. Our support for science centres and science festivals across Scotland, which was worth a total of £2.8 million last year, makes all kinds of science accessible to more than 800,000 people of all ages.
The science centres work closely with teachers, Education Scotland and Skills Development Scotland to ensure that their work fits with the curriculum for excellence. One example is Glasgow science centre’s BodyWorks exhibition, which has been seen by more than 300,000 people since opening a year ago and which gives people of all ages a chance to find out more about health, exercise and the human body. Scientists are on hand every weekend to explain the research and bring the science to life. A touring version of the exhibition will support the Queen’s baton relay this summer and will visit schools and communities across Scotland. I am sure that it will contribute to a lasting Commonwealth games legacy of a healthier and more active Scotland.
In all this, the industry plays a key role in explaining the science and offering possible career paths. Scotland’s world-leading life sciences sector depends on a continuing flow of new recruits at all levels. The industry is engaging with young people in innovative ways. For several years, LifeScan Scotland in Inverness has been involved in the bridge to employment programme, and the company has developed a long-term relationship with several local secondary schools. A new group of about 60 secondary 4 pupils will join the programme in June and will undertake a range of science-related activities that support science learning as well as skills development. They will have the opportunity to be mentored and to learn business skills, which will help their eventual transition from school to further or higher education and into work.
As I said, it is important to get the basics right. The curriculum for excellence aims to raise standards, improve knowledge and develop skills by providing more coherent and flexible learning opportunities, from age three to 18. It is vital that all our young people are supported in their learning in the critical areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It is therefore encouraging that a recent Education Scotland science impact report noted that learning and teaching in the sciences in schools is “strong, effective and improving.” We must build on those successes.
That is why extensive support is available from Education Scotland for science teaching and learning. We are also investing £900,000 in this financial year to support a national programme of teacher and technician professional learning that is delivered by the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre in Rosyth.
Scotland has one of the strongest university research bases in the world. It produces 1.2 per cent of all new knowledge, and 15 per cent of the research that is done here is classed as world leading. In 2012-13, Scottish universities attracted almost £1 billion in research funding from a range of funding sources including Government, businesses, charities and the European Union, which reflects the excellence and global reputation of our universities and the quality of their research. In 2012, the Mobius Life Sciences start-up report listed Scotland as the leading location for life sciences start-up companies.
The Government recognises the value of research to Scotland’s society and economy, and we have demonstrated our commitment by increasing spend on research and knowledge exchange activities by 38 per cent since 2007, which represents an extra £100 million. As a result, our higher education research and development expenditure is the fourth highest among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
We have supported novel ideas such as the internationalisation of research pools and, more recently, the development of a network of innovation centres, in which life sciences have featured heavily. We have already launched centres for stratified medicine, digital health and industrial biotechnology, and other centres dealing with technologies such as sensors also have a cross-disciplinary connection with life sciences. It is also important to note that the innovation centres will be demand led.
Research, of course, knows no boundaries in terms of discipline or in terms of geography. Its success and future funding are predicated on excellence, not borders—and Scottish research has plenty of excellence. We can already point to our considerable successes in working across European boundaries, including, for example, the European lead factory for integrated medicine, other international centres such as the Fraunhofer centre for applied photonics and the first Max Planck international partnership in the UK, whose recent launch I was happy to be involved in and which is supporting collaboration across Scotland’s research pools.
Independence enables us to take decisions in Scotland’s best interests, and that applies in research as much as elsewhere.
If independence is so good, why is the minister proposing to keep the current United Kingdom system? Surely the best way of keeping that system would be to remain part of the UK.
The member will be well aware that research partnerships operate across international boundaries and that one of the leading members of Research Councils UK, Professor Paul Boyle, who is also chief executive of the Economic and Social Research Council, told MSPs that he would
“strongly support Scotland retaining its position in a single research ecosystem”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 March 2014; c 3891.]
in the very circumstances that Mr Bibby has just described.
The dual funding system has been successful; indeed, last week, evidence of that collaboration was made very clear with the news of the investment in Dundee. That kind of collaboration, both at home and abroad, typifies Scotland’s ability to be a leading player in the international research arena, and we are determined to continue collaboration across Scotland, with the rest of the UK, within Europe and across the wider world.
I think that I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say that the success of life sciences that the minister has just outlined has been phenomenal. However, does he acknowledge that that has been achieved with Scotland as part of a United Kingdom?
I am prepared to acknowledge that, at present, Scotland is part of the UK—I am not proposing to rewrite history. The member’s question reminds me a wee bit of those arguments in which someone asks, “Will the member acknowledge that trains rarely ran on time before the Act of Union?”
There were no trains then.
Indeed—that was my point. The member anticipated me.
I am not really sure how Ms Scanlon’s argument runs, but she will be aware that this very week more than 100 senior academics in Scotland wrote a letter to The Herald, pointing out that they were more than happy to have an independent Scotland and more than happy for its research function to operate across boundaries and for our international co-operation to continue.
One of the key tools for driving engagement is the Scottish health informatics programme, which is creating powerful new tools to link patient data for research—
Will the minister give way?
I have just taken two interventions. I will come back to the member in a moment.
Minister, you are in your final minute.
I should also mention the Farr Institute, which will be based in part at the biotechnology quarter in Edinburgh.
I could go on listing the many successes in our life sciences sector, but I want to conclude by saying that Scotland has every reason to celebrate the sector and every reason to plan actively for its future growth and success.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of the life sciences sector to the Scottish economy; notes the publication of the Skills Investment Plan for Scotland’s Life Sciences Sector by Skills Development Scotland on 29 April 2014, which has been developed in partnership with industry; welcomes the clear statement of the sector’s skills needs that this provides; agrees the importance of meeting the skills priorities in order to support the sector’s future growth, and further agrees that this provides a framework for aligning public and private sector investment to meet these needs.
Neil Bibby has up to nine minutes. We are very tight for time today.
15:19
Labour welcomes this opportunity to highlight the importance of the life sciences sector in Scotland, of research funding and of developing our expertise. Scotland has an outstanding reputation when it comes to life sciences. Our universities are among the best in the world, and our colleagues across the UK have a long, proud history of research, innovation and discovery.
In Labour, we have done our bit to help the good work of our scientists. It was Labour that introduced a science strategy for Scotland in 2001, which recognised the need to ensure an adequate supply of students with science qualifications and training from the education system, in order to meet the needs of an increasingly knowledge-based economy. It is fair to say that much of what the Scottish Government has done since 2007 has been a continuation of that approach.
The Government’s motion highlights the publication of the “Skills Investment Plan For Scotland’s life sciences sector” by Skills Development Scotland. I welcome the plan’s publication. As the minister outlined, the plan’s aim is for Scotland’s life sciences sector
“to double economic contribution ... by 2020”.
That is particularly welcome, because the previous Government strategy document required an updated action plan. That target is extremely ambitious, and we support it, but the real challenge is in how we turn that aim into reality.
Meeting the skills need of the sector is vital, and there are a number of things that we can do in that regard. The minister mentioned some of them. We can look at good practice in areas such as Renfrewshire, where the science and technology sector and Renfrewshire Council are working in partnership to raise awareness of the sector and to provide work experience for local students. We should look to build on the sterling work that has been done in further and higher education. In my region, West College Scotland and the University of the West of Scotland are educating skilled technical staff and graduates, who will find work and generate innovation in the sector.
Fundamentally, we need the Scottish Government to provide an education system that meets the needs of the Scottish economy. Last week’s statistics on numeracy should be a major wake-up call for the Scottish Government. Standards in numeracy are falling among primary school pupils, and there has been no improvement in numeracy standards in secondary schools. How can we properly meet the needs of the science sector when numeracy standards are falling under the present Government?
Will the member acknowledge that the curriculum for excellence considers the talents of each individual pupil, and that that is the vehicle and the pathway for the students of the future to excel?
Our students will excel if we have an education system that meets the needs of pupils in the country as a whole. I do not think that an education system where numeracy standards are falling is that education system. That is a major area of concern, which requires urgent action from the Scottish Government. I hope that the minister will respond on the issue of numeracy later.
It is also important to discuss and recognise the important contribution that funding from the UK research councils makes to our universities. That is a role that helps to maintain our reputation as a leader in life sciences. In addition to having a skilled workforce, key to our scientific standing in the world is the research funding that our universities receive. I am glad that the Scottish Government acknowledges the contribution that UK research funding makes to Scottish universities. I am pleased to see the Scottish National Party Government state, in its recent paper, the clear benefits to Scotland and the rest of the UK of maintaining shared research councils.
And no wonder. The facts speak for themselves. In 2012-13, Scottish higher education institutions secured £257 million of UK research council grants. That represents 13.1 per cent of the UK total, which is significantly more than our 8 per cent of UK gross domestic product or 8.4 per cent of the UK population.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I am happy to give way if one of the SNP members wishes to tell me why, if independence is so good, they are not preparing to set up an entirely independent research council?
I am sure that the member will acknowledge that UK Government spending, whether through the UK research councils or otherwise, is not an act of charity—the money comes from taxation—and that, where Scotland does better than its population share, it is because of Scottish excellence in research projects, which are awarded on the basis of excellence, not on a political or charitable basis?
Scottish universities are excellent and so are UK universities. Harvard and Yale are excellent universities, but they are not in the United Kingdom. There are great universities in Europe and throughout Asia, but they are not in the United Kingdom either. How much money do UK research councils give to those universities? If we want to maintain UK research council funding, we should stay in the United Kingdom.
The SNP’s obsession with independence is putting university research funding at severe risk. Professor Paul Boyle from Research Councils UK has said:
“We give all our funding to institutions that have been accredited to receive RCUK funding, which means that they are UK-based institutions.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 March 2012; c 3887.]
It is not only research councils that provide UK Government funding for research. UK Government departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health have significant research and development programmes.
In addition to public funding, the UK’s network of charitable organisations funds significant amounts of research. Those organisations invest approximately £1.1 billion per annum, 13 per cent of which was spent on research in Scotland. In 2012-13, Cancer Research UK spent £34 million in Scotland, including at the University of Stirling, which is home to Cancer Research UK’s centre for tobacco control research.
Sharmila Nebhrajani, chief executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities has expressed her worry, saying:
“It may be that going forward, people would then think twice about setting up an institute in what became an independent country.”
If that is not alarming enough, the Wellcome Trust, a leading charitable organisation that has invested more than £600 million in Scottish health research over the past decade, has said of the implications of independence:
“Our future commitment, and the eligibility of Scottish institutions for trust support, would need to be reviewed. There is no guarantee that our funding would be maintained at current levels.”
The Wellcome Trust is a UK organisation that has a requirement for match funding on institutions in Ireland but no such requirement on institutions in the United Kingdom.
In Scotland and throughout the UK, we have a brilliant system of research. If independence was so good, the SNP would be proposing an entirely independent system, but it is not. If we left the UK, there are no guarantees that we would keep UK research funding and there are no precedents. It is naive in the extreme for people to vote to leave the UK when they want to keep the benefits of being part of the UK. If we want to keep the benefits of being part of the UK, it is obviously common sense to be in the UK.
Essential to building the life sciences sector in Scotland and throughout the UK is developing the excellence and expertise that we already have, not only in our universities but in our companies. One such company is AstraZeneca, which has its global headquarters here in the UK and is currently the subject of a £63 billion takeover bid by the American company Pfizer. That is the subject of the Labour amendment, and I note that the minister did not even reference that in his 10-minute speech.
Members will be aware that the Labour Party is calling for a thorough assessment and for public interest tests to be applied to that type of takeover, not only because the proposed takeover is worth an estimated £63 billion but because we cannot overestimate how important AstraZeneca’s research and development programme is to the UK. As well as being home to its global headquarters, the UK is also home to AstraZeneca’s global research and development facility, and it invests more than £1 billion in research and development associated with its UK operations. It contributes around £3.8 billion gross value added annually to the UK economy and makes up around 2.3 per cent of the total UK export of goods, worth almost £7 billion. At both local and national level, AstraZeneca works closely with the national health service, including Grampian NHS Board, and it recently made a grant of £20,000 to the University of the West of Scotland.
There should be a public interest test on such takeovers. Many other western economies have such tests, and the UK should too. I hope that other parties across the chamber will support Labour’s call. It is all very well for us to talk about how important life sciences are, but we cannot ignore the impact that such a major takeover could have.
I move amendment S4M-09963.2, to insert at end:
“; notes the important contribution that Research Councils UK funding makes to scientific research at Scotland’s universities, and believes that the UK Government should carry out a thorough assessment of the potential economic and scientific impact of Pfizer’s proposed takeover of AstraZeneca”.
15:29
I doubt that there are many more important issues to discuss in connection with skills investment than the life sciences. Significant issues arise in this area, such as the impact on the economy, which has been mentioned, the clear need to better align public and private sector investment, the future of research funding, and the enormous difference that life sciences can make to people’s health. Quite rightly, much of the plan focuses on the crucial need to put in place a quality resource base that is fully funded and attractive to new investment. It needs to be innovative and intellectually coherent, but also thoroughly practical when it comes to the delivery of science.
I turn first to higher education funding, most especially because life sciences contribute 55 per cent. There is a great deal of debate on the subject in the referendum context, the reporting of which has not always been particularly well informed. For me, the central issue is not just about the scale of the financial funding that will be available in future, but about its qualitative edge and how best to secure the extraordinary level of the technical and financial economies of scale that have been such a key feature of the Scottish success to which the minister alluded. Would that be better maintained in an independent Scotland or in a Scotland that remains part of the UK? Interesting views have been expressed on both sides, as we saw on Tuesday’s “Newsnight”. However, in order to decide who is right, a very careful study is needed of the factors that have led to that success in Scotland and those that are likely to be the mainstay of future development.
I will first comment on the global position, because success in this field needs to be on the international scale. The technology behind life sciences is changing fast and all the time; so, too, are the relevant knowledge exchange and the interdependence of public and private investment across the world.
On page 452, the white paper is very clear that the Scottish Government believes that there are substantial benefits, as Neil Bibby mentioned, for the academic and business communities and for charities. It is even more interesting that the white paper says that it is clear that they benefit from
“maintaining long-term stability in research funding and systems that support initiatives of scale”.
Two words are important there: “stability” and “scale”.
I have no doubt that research funding would not dry up in an independent Scotland—it would be ludicrous to suggest that—but there is also no doubt that, whether one supports the UK model of research council funding or the subscription model, which I understand the SNP is promoting, if there was independence the funding formula would change. That is clear in the white paper. By its very nature, independence draws into question the issue of stability and how well received that significant change would be in a global context, particularly as, time after time, the big research councils identify the strength of the economies of scale that are promoted by being part of the UK as the basis for their strong investment in Scotland. They are very clear about that.
If we lose those economies of scale because of uncertainty—even if it was just a short-term uncertainty—we could lose some competitive advantage at a crucial time of international development. The fact that 15 per cent of UK bioscience research funding comes to Scotland is to do with those UK economies of scale; that is very clear in the minds of many of those who work in our medical schools in universities such as Aberdeen and Dundee. Economies of scale are also why the £20 million stratified medicine Scotland innovation centre, which I think the minister mentioned, is being created. It could bring in around £68 million for the Scottish economy.
The member mentions economies of scale. The economy of scale that is often referred to in this context is one that comes from being part of a common research area; it does not relate to being part of a common state.
As I understand it, the SNP’s proposed subscription model is based on a per capita or geographical allocation. I think that the minister mentioned that one reason why Scotland has been so successful is that we have gained that success on merit. That merit has been absolutely derived from the UK’s economies of scale.
The white paper draws into question whether that certainty would remain in an independent Scotland—that is the concern. The minister referred to some comments from the academic community, but we must recognise that the majority opinion in that community is quite the opposite.
I will turn to the STEM subjects and the Scottish baccalaureate. If we are driving forward the baccalaureate, we must be a little concerned about its uptake. That concern applies not only to science subjects, but right across the board. The baccalaureate is failing to capture the imagination of anyone in education. For example, in 2013, only 142 pupils across Scotland took up the science baccalaureate, which is a reduction on the 2012 uptake. I say to the minister that we must address the attractiveness of the STEM subjects and the baccalaureate, because encouraging people to study life sciences is key.
We are happy to support the Government motion, but we need far more detail on aspects of how people are encouraged into the life sciences sector. We are also happy to support the Labour amendment.
I move amendment S4M-09963.1, to insert at end:
“; recognises that a robust Scottish life sciences sector is dependent on a strong research base; notes that Scotland has consistently received a greater proportion of UK research funding than its population share; welcomes the fact that the Association of Medical Research Charities invests so heavily in Scotland, and believes that the future development of the life sciences sector requires both a highly skilled workforce and for current levels of investment to be maintained”.
15:35
I want to cover a lot of issues that are local to Aberdeen, but first I cannot help but point out how interesting it is for Liz Smith to claim that she knows what the majority opinion is in the academic community. I do not know what it is, but I know that there was a letter in The Herald, signed by more than 100 academics, which spoke about the strength of research that would exist in an independent Scotland and suggested that bilateral agreements already exist between, for example, the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
Will Mark McDonald give way?
I will not take an intervention on that point.
For example, the University of Ulster and Queen’s University Belfast benefit from research funding from Ireland. It is not only the UK that giveth to other places; other cross-border funding exists. I fail to see any argument from either of the Opposition parties that suggests that that would somehow be threatened by an independent Scotland. If there is excellence, the research funding will follow it.
Aberdeen has a strong record, a proud history and an exciting future in relation to life sciences. Professor John Mallard and his team at the University of Aberdeen developed the first magnetic resonance imaging—MRI—scanner. The first chair of medicine in the English-speaking world was created in 1497 at the University of Aberdeen. The Nobel prize for the discovery of insulin went to J J R Macleod, who was a student at the university. The university is also in the world’s top 200 universities for teaching quality and research. In the city of Aberdeen, there are seven institutes that carry out life sciences research, including the renowned Rowett institute of nutrition and health and the James Hutton Institute, which was previously the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.
Colleagues and I visited a company based at Craibstone in my constituency called NovaBiotics, which is a clinically based spin-out company. I recently saw press coverage on the strength of spin-out companies from Scotland’s universities; NovaBiotics is one such company. It studies a technology that is based on peptides, which—for those of us who, like me, are not scientists—are small chains of amino acids, and is developing a range of drugs and treatments to tackle medical issues ranging from fungal nail infection to cystic fibrosis and bloodstream infections. It was encouraging to visit that company, see the range of work that is going on there and consider its future potential in Aberdeen.
The minister highlighted the need to produce greater numbers of science students and encourage greater interest in the sciences. A lot of good work is being done on that in Aberdeen.
On Monday, I will meet the University of Aberdeen’s public engagement with research unit—or PERU, as it is known for short. It does a range of work on encouraging young people to take a more active interest in the sciences. PERU works with the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Network. It also works through the techfest science festival in Aberdeen, which runs a family weekend each year and has events for primary and secondary schools that can connect pupils to STEM subjects. PERU is also involved in researcher-led science events for schools and families during the University of Aberdeen May festival and runs café sci junior events, in which researchers from the university go to schools to discuss particular issues of relevance and interest, which encourages discussion and debate with pupils.
Those are all things that are being done to try to encourage young people to get more involved and take more of an interest in science subjects.
The minister also spoke about science centres. Satrosphere in Aberdeen is a fantastic centre. I thoroughly recommend it to members, particularly if they want a good family day out, because the kids can be entertained for hours on end by some of the stuff that goes on there.
One of the things that we need to emphasise is that science can also be fun. It is fun, particularly for children, given some of the experiments that people can do along with children, in which they will take a great interest. With that in mind, has the minister had any discussions with his colleague, Aileen Campbell, regarding the possibility of linking science to the play strategy that the Scottish Government is promoting? That would encourage children, through play, to take more of an active interest in science.
Recently, my daughter’s nursery had a dress as what you want to be when you grow up day. My daughter chose to go as a doctor, so she had better hope that she gets her brains from her mother. It brought home to me the fact that there are issues around not only attracting women to study STEM subjects—I think that the trend in terms of female students is quite good—but the development of careers. A Westminster report on women in science highlighted the fact that, for example, early academic STEM careers are often characterised by short-term contracts that coincide with the period when many women are considering the possibility of starting a family, which means that it is difficult for them to get a foothold in a career at that stage. It also highlighted the fact that taking a career break can often have an impact on research grant availability later in someone’s career. That is an issue that seems to disproportionately affect women in STEM subjects.
Those issues need to be challenged, and I would like the minister to tell us what the Scottish Government is doing to address them, so that, when women graduate with STEM subject degrees, they have an opportunity to have a full career in a STEM subject area, should that be the choice that they make.
15:41
I have been interested in the life sciences for quite a few years. A year or two ago, I used to go around saying how wonderful the life sciences were in Dundee, but I had better leave that subject to my colleague Jenny Marra today. More recently, obviously, I have been able to say what a great flagship life sciences centre we have here in Edinburgh.
I have been interested in this area not only because of the intrinsically interesting subject matter but because of how important life sciences are for the Scottish economy. The area is a success story that contributes about £3 billion to the Scottish economy, with 650 organisations employing more than 33,000 people.
The Scottish Lifesciences Association comprises many of those employers. In its statement of intent for innovation, it emphasised the importance of partnership working in the life sciences, saying that
“Scotland is a world leading centre for innovation in health through partnership working between Government”—
by which it means both Governments—
“NHSScotland, industry and the research community.”
The Scottish life sciences strategy of 2011 also had partnership as a key theme. For example, it said:
“Our National Health Service (NHS) moves centre stage as a key customer for Scottish Life Sciences businesses and a pivotal stimulator of innovative products”.
The skills investment plan that was launched two weeks ago again includes quite an emphasis on the NHS, and the stratified medicine Scotland innovation centre at the Southern general hospital is featured in it.
I was concerned by the information in the skills investment plan about the number of students who are participating in life sciences at further education colleges, which it says
“fell by more than a quarter ... from 2007-08 to 2011-12.”
There seems to be no explanation in the document for why that happened. That is clearly a matter of concern.
I suppose that there seems to be some good news in the document, because it says that two thirds of the FE students in life sciences are women. That is obviously positive, but we must bear in mind the wider issues around gender and STEM subjects and remind ourselves of the recent report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which said that, although quite a lot of women are trained in STEM subjects, the majority of them do not work in those areas. That is, clearly, an issue that needs to be considered.
As I said, the research community is one of the key partners. In the debate, we have already heard quite a lot about Research Councils UK and independence. Neil Bibby quoted the well-known figure that Scotland gets 13.1 per cent of UK research spend when we have only 8 per cent of the population.
The minister quoted one leading member of Research Councils UK, but the fact is that Research Councils UK has said that it is misleading to suggest that it would support an independent Scotland remaining part of UK research councils. Liz Smith reminded us that the majority opinion in the academic community in Scotland is that there are serious grounds for concern.
That is just one of the matters of doubt and uncertainty that surround the independence debate, but surely Scottish National Party members can at least admit that the current system is benefiting Scotland. I can never get SNP members to agree that there is one positive feature of being part of the UK, but surely they can at least say in the debate that, as far as research funding goes, it is positive for Scotland to remain part of the UK.
Another partner is industry. Neil Bibby was right to raise the Pfizer issue and Ed Miliband has written to the Prime Minister to call for a change in the law to ensure that a public interest test is applied to such corporate deals. The issue is whether the takeover is good for jobs and growth, whether it will protect knowledge, skills and the research base and whether it will support long-term investment in the UK.
I think that Neil Bibby—perhaps it was someone else—talked about AstraZeneca’s record on research and development. Pfizer says that it is committed to investing in R and D, but I am afraid that, although it gave similar assurances when it acquired companies in the US and Sweden, research facilities were shut down and thousands of highly skilled research jobs were lost. Ed Miliband is right to raise the issue.
The final partners are the two Governments. I am reminded that the £24 million in funding for the Edinburgh BioQuarter was made up of £12 million from Scottish Enterprise and £12 million from the UK strategic investment fund in 2009. It was interesting to read the report of the UK strategic investment fund in that year, because who was there in the preface but Lord Mandelson. He was the relevant minister at the time and he said that the fund would support
“areas where targeted intervention by government can unlock viable technological development”.
We have benefited from that UK funding.
I have only one minute left, so I will briefly mention some of the great work that is being done in Edinburgh BioQuarter. The first company there was Fios Genomics—I do not know how to pronounce some of the companies’ names—which provides biomarker analysis services through interpreting data that is produced by gene sequencing. Biomarkers also feature in the work of Mölnlycke Health Care, which is a Swedish company that detects antibiotic-resistant bacteria through biomarkers. Two other companies there are i2eye Diagnostics, which is commercialising innovative field analysers that particularly benefit sight tests on children and frail elderly people, and R Biomedical, which deals with the research into and development and commercialisation of regenerative medicine.
That work is fascinating. It is crucial to the development of services and care for people who have various healthcare needs and it is vital for the Scottish economy.
15:47
I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that is fundamentally important to Scotland’s economy and to the direction of our health and social care system. I very much welcome last week’s publication of the life sciences skills investment plan.
As the minister said, Scotland starts from a strong research base, having established an impressive reputation for excellence in our life sciences. As others have pointed out, there have been substantial investments in research and development—in, for example, the network of three innovation centres for stratified medicine, for sensors and imaging systems and for digital health, which the First Minister announced last April. Those are pioneering projects. By bringing together academia, industry and other key partners—the triple helix, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has described them—the centres will provide Scotland with a platform for delivering practical solutions to shared health and care challenges on a local, national and global scale.
If we add to that the £100 million investment in the partnership between BioCity Scotland and the University of Dundee, which places Scotland at the heart of international efforts to discover new drug treatments as part of the European innovative medicines initiative, and last week’s £8 million investment by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council in the new national phenotypic screening centre, we have to conclude that Scotland is already a major destination for investment in life sciences research and development.
As the minister said, the skills investment plan sets out the useful steps that we need to take to build graduate readiness, improve the sector’s attractiveness to new entrants, attract and anchor key skills and build an accessible and responsive skill system.
Building up our life sciences capabilities will enable us to create and retain a talent pool of researchers and skilled workers who are able to meet their professional aspirations in Scotland. We want to attract highly skilled young people to Scotland and we want them to stay in Scotland, and, of course, to nurture our own home-grown talent.
The “Scottish Life Sciences Strategy 2011: Creating Wealth, Promoting Health” set out the vision and strategic direction, which, in turn, informed the skills investment plan. It has a 2020 mission
“to double the economic contribution made by Scotland’s Life Sciences Industry”
and
“to establish Scotland as the location of choice for Life Sciences companies”.
As Malcolm Chisholm quite rightly highlighted, the strategy also talks about the demographic challenge that faces health and social care as well as the opportunities that demographics presents in areas such as assisted living, digital health and m-health and personalised medicine, whereby we can better target treatments to individual patients.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress.
That, in turn, links to the NHS 2020 vision for health and care in Scotland and its associated route map. We know that innovation is key to achieving that vision, and we need the life sciences not only for their substantial contribution to the nation’s economy but because, as a society, we stand to benefit enormously from the research and innovation that will help us to care for our ageing population.
Colleagues will have heard me talk about the fantastic opportunity that Scotland has to take its world-leading digi-health technology to the next level through the international consortium bid that is being led by the University of Edinburgh to establish a European Institute of Innovation and Technology knowledge and innovation community in the area of healthy living and active ageing, called LifeKIC. If the bid is successful, it will attract significant funding from the new European Union horizon 2020 programme.
I have previously outlined in the chamber the benefits of the Scottish-led UK LifeKIC bid. The KIC would enable us to pool excellent academic, clinical and industry expertise across Europe in a way that seeks to transform the future delivery of health and social care and improve public health. It would also emphasise the point that knowledge knows no boundaries and that research crosses borders. If Scotland can—as it does—demonstrate excellence in the field of life sciences, the investment will surely follow. If it is well positioned—as we are—to undertake research and innovation that will be of fundamental importance to our European partners, which face similar health and social care challenges—
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me finish my point.
If Scotland is well positioned to do that, the resources will still come to it.
There is, of course, more that we can do to expand this growth sector in Scotland’s economy, and that is very much what the skills investment plan is about. We have huge opportunities, through the KIC bid for example, to use our unique combination of resources and knowledge to undertake work of international significance. With the economic levers at our disposal that only independence will deliver, we can use the advantages of being a small, agile European country to collaborate across boundaries and borders. We will continue to promote the Scottish higher education brand on the world stage to give us a competitive edge in attracting talented academics to Scotland and increase the ways in which research can be translated into sustainable economic growth.
We should be confident that Scotland already has a strong research base on which to build for the future and an enviable international reputation in this field. I am confident that both will absolutely flourish in an independent Scotland.
I support Alasdair Allan’s motion.
Members should note that if they are not immediately called to make an intervention, they should resume their seat. If the member who is speaking wishes to call them, they will do so.
15:53
As we have already heard, Scotland and the UK have a proud joint heritage of discovery in life sciences—for example, Sir Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin and the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure by Crick and Watson. As we heard earlier from Mark McDonald, Professor John Macleod from Aberdeen discovered insulin in 1922.
I would like to focus on the health implications of the life sciences, with particular reference to diabetes, as I am co-convener of the cross-party group on diabetes.
The debate is important, as the life sciences industry is innovative, dynamic and growing faster than the economy as a whole. There are, of course, major implications for improvements to quality of life and for step changes in health, agriculture and medicine.
As we have already heard, the industry is highly integrated in the UK. It has a track record that goes back over 40 years and the UK hub of life sciences is one of the most successful hubs globally.
One of the largest life science operations in Scotland is LifeScan Scotland in Inverness, which is a Johnson & Johnson company. The original company was set up in 1995 to design and manufacture glucose test strips and to design electronic meters for the global diabetes market. More than 1,000 highly skilled and talented staff are employed at the Inverness facility, which I had the pleasure of visiting a few short months ago. It is highly regarded as a centre of excellence for those working in the field of diabetes.
With a focus on future development, LifeScan Scotland is committed to
“Creating a world without limits for people with diabetes.”
LifeScan Scotland’s main product range includes the popular OneTouch brand of blood glucose monitoring systems, which are available globally. The company has also developed diabetes management software, control solutions and lancing devices; in addition, it produces the specialist test strips that work with many of the meters in the OneTouch brand line.
The original company started with just a handful of employees and it is now one of the largest private sector employers in the Highlands and Islands. It gives a snapshot of the growth potential of the life sciences industry in Scotland.
It is also important to note that the company funds a senior academic post in the University of the Highlands and Islands in the shape of Professor Ian Megson. That is a good example of the excellent collaboration between industry and the academic community.
Life sciences research does not mean obscure, little-read academic tomes; it means real step changes in quality of life for patients. Last year, for example, life science researcher Dr Roman Hovorka created a historic diabetes landmark by developing home use of the artificial pancreas. That step offers real hope of a future in which people with type 1 diabetes no longer have to monitor blood glucose levels and have a better chance of living a long and healthier life. The artificial pancreas is a closed-loop system that monitors blood glucose levels and uses the information to adjust the amount of insulin being administered by an insulin pump, which ensures that the person always gets the right amount.
Life sciences researchers have talked about the idea for a long time, but they have had to proceed with the system cautiously: having too much or too little insulin is potentially harmful, so malfunctions of the technology must be avoided. However, in 2011, researchers completed a trial in which people with type 1 diabetes used the artificial pancreas in a hospital setting, which cleared the way for a new trial of the prototype device at home.
As we heard earlier, Scotland punches above its weight in research, securing £247 million in research council grants, which is 13.1 per cent of the total, and gaining 13 per cent of the €1.1 billion UK charities research pot.
Life sciences do very well out of such funds, and as the Skills Development Scotland report highlights:
“The university sector also plays an important role as an employer: life sciences account for 55% of total Scottish University research funding, attracting 15% of UK academic bioscience research funding.”
In my region of the Highland and Islands, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has recently provided £3 million funding for a life sciences unit that will be part of the new Inverness campus. The whole project could support 6,000 jobs over the next 30 years and generate about £38 million for the regional economy. That type of investment is vital to provide the facilities needed for the life sciences sector and to ensure that training and skills development are available to young people so that they can exploit the job opportunities that the sector will offer in future.
Life sciences is an exciting industry. There has been breathtaking and groundbreaking work on diabetes and regenerative medicine. There has been a convergence of digital and healthcare technology. The future will present demands for skills development.
More widely, there are huge barriers to entry. For example, it takes an average of $1 billion and 20 years to develop new drugs. Other western nations, such as the United States of America and Germany, have developed simpler regulatory processes to approve new drugs, so there is competition on the horizon.
HIE’s “Building our Future” report makes a clear commitment to growing life sciences in the Highlands and Islands. Key projects such as the European marine science park in Argyll and the Alexander Graham Bell centre in Elgin will make the area more attractive for inward investment. At the Scottish level, the Health Science Scotland partnership between science, academia and business will provide a single point of contact for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop research programmes.
Scotland is well placed to become part of a global hub of life sciences that is a key contributor to sustained economic growth and provides a step change in quality of life for patients.
15:59
I am pleased to speak in the debate and I join other members in welcoming the skills investment plan, which seems to follow on from the 2011 life sciences strategy. The plan is welcome, because support for innovation in the life sciences is critical to Scotland’s future economic success, as the motion says. We should also remember the importance of developing strategies for the practical application of innovation, which can improve the lives of millions of people around the globe.
The Scottish Enterprise life sciences source book records more than 230 companies in the west of Scotland, which employ more than 10,000 people. That means that the west of Scotland is home to about 36 per cent of Scottish life science companies. East Kilbride, the town that I represent, has a vital role. The town hosts the Scottish Enterprise technology park and we have a range of small and medium-sized science enterprises, as well as multinational companies and academic organisations. I hope that if I mention a few of them, I will entice the minister to spend the day visiting companies at the science park, to learn about the great innovations in East Kilbride and their practical applications.
The Mentholatum Company is a supplier of high-quality healthcare products—I bet there is no one in the chamber who does not have a tube of Deep Heat in their bathroom cabinet. Let me tell members that it was made in East Kilbride—so there you are. We also have the multi-award-winning Ferring Controlled Therapeutics, which is growing at an estimated rate of 10 per cent a year or more, even in the current economic climate. The company is growing in our town, through capital investment and growing staff numbers. I understand that it will soon unveil a new product, so members should watch out for that.
The brilliant academics who work in the field and the brilliant employees of Ferring Controlled Therapeutics, the Mentholatum Company and many other companies are recognised as innovative and sector leading. They work across borders, all over the world. That is why Scotland generally gets more than its population share of research funding.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
We get that research funding not because funders are being nice but because our universities are world class and our research is some of the best and most cited in the world.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
In East Kilbride, we have the Scottish universities environmental research centre, which I have mentioned many times. SUERC is an excellent academic research unit, with output in the fields of physics, earth sciences and biomedical sciences. It is interdisciplinary, inter-institutional and international in its collaborations. I think that I read on its website that SUERC covers everything from outer space to the outer Hebrides. That is another reason for the minister to come along to East Kilbride and visit our wonderful facilities.
I have only a couple of minutes left. The investment plan is good, but when I look into such plans and read about everything that is happening—or perhaps all the ambitions for what should happen—I worry that we sometimes fall down on the practical application side of things. I hope that the minister will think about the possibility of reviewing progress and will respond to me on that—not necessarily today. I want to be reassured that the formal review of the action plan in 18 months’ time does not mean that what we do during those 18 months will not be constantly reviewed and monitored.
It is crucial that we learn from the experiences of those who are already doing a great deal to enhance the curriculum for excellence work that the minister talked about, to enhance the idea of joint research involving industry and academia and to support graduates who want to stay in Scotland and work in the life sciences.
It is great that we are considering expanding the Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable throughout Scotland. It is great, too, that we are trying to have more industry and school engagement. Organisations such as SUERC are already taking in local school leavers as interns. SUERC has links with fifth and sixth year pupils, offers summer internships and carries out workshops in schools throughout the area. I would like reassurance that that kind of thing is being taken on board and that we are tapping into the expertise of those organisations and not just trying to start all over again. The expertise is there. Let us use it and move forward.
16:06
The life sciences sector is one of the keystones of Scotland’s economy and one of the jewels in Scotland’s research crown. It is fair to say that the support given to the sector by successive Scottish Governments has helped Scotland to emerge as a world leader in life sciences.
As we know, the life sciences sector is a central reason that Scotland punches above its weight in the UK-wide competition for research council grants. It is why we have the most citations worldwide per unit of gross domestic product and why we are second only to Switzerland—another small, independent country—in the number of citations per paper published.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Knowledge knows no boundaries and research crosses borders. I do not want to labour this point, but a single UK research area with shared research councils is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. As we know, and as the minister has indicated, that position is supported by Professor Paul Boyle of Research Councils UK and others. By its very nature, science is an international and collaborative effort and it would be absurd to suggest that that would stop upon independence. Notwithstanding what Opposition members have said, I see no reason why we cannot have, to coin a phrase, the best of both worlds with independence.
The inclusion of the life sciences as a key sector in the Scottish Government’s economic strategy is not a surprise. It is a sector with a high growth potential and the capacity to boost economic productivity. That is, of course, why our Government has established life sciences enterprise areas in several locations throughout the country.
The support provided by the Government through the incentives available has encouraged and will continue to encourage businesses to bring forward their investment decisions. It provides the necessary support for business start-ups to become established and to compete internationally. That innovative approach is helping to build on the momentum generated by the life sciences sector.
In 2007, the universities of St Andrews, Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde came together to pool their expertise in the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance, or SULSA. The pooling enhances research, training and global credibility, and it connects the Scottish life sciences community. SULSA has helped our universities to equip themselves to face the challenges of global research competition head on. It is clear that the creation of a large, integrated academic research community in the life sciences has immensely benefited Scotland. By coming together and investing in key research themes of cell biology, systems biology and translational biology, SULSA has ensured that it will build on and advance Scotland’s global position in the life sciences field.
With a backdrop like that, it is unsurprising that a study by Elsevier, commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, revealed that the life sciences sector is efficiently and effectively converting world-class peer-reviewed research and patents.
In addition, the research excellence within SULSA has helped Scotland to secure a central role in the European Commission’s innovative medicines initiative programme, which aims to discover new drugs. At the BioCity site in Newhouse, for example, we are seeing the establishment of a state-of-the-art drug screening facility, supported by global pharmaceutical companies. That facility will provide researchers from SULSA, industry and patient organisations throughout Europe an unprecedented opportunity to advance medical research and develop new medicines.
SULSA has also helped to ensure that Scotland’s record on university spin-outs is rather better than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In recent years, Scotland has been the only nation in the UK that has increased the number of life science spin-outs from its universities, which Mobius Life Sciences said in its report was linked to the increased public sector support in Scotland for innovation in the life sciences.
Collaboration does not stop at SULSA. The life sciences sector effectively collaborates with colleagues across the NHS, academia, banking, government and industry. Another example of effective collaboration is generation Scotland, which is a bioresource of human biological samples that are available for medical research. It is a unique partnership—unrivalled in Europe—between our medical schools, our NHS and the people of Scotland. More than 30,000 people throughout Scotland have helped to create that world-class biomedical resource for research into a wide variety of diseases, including heart disease, diabetes—which David Stewart mentioned—and mental health problems.
Our pride in the life sciences sector in Scotland does not mean that it does not have challenges ahead. One key challenge is developing and retaining a talent pool of international calibre in order to support the continued growth of the sector. The Skills Development Scotland report highlights that the sector’s main test in the future will be training and retaining its future talent pool.
The report sets out challenging but achievable objectives, such as
“Raising awareness of ... career opportunities”
and refreshing research to ensure that employer demand is met. It sets out an ambitious action plan that is aimed at
“Improving ... attractiveness ... to new entrants”
and at
“Attracting and anchoring key skills”.
It is important that we work with the sector to ensure that the action plan’s goals are met, so that by 2020 we will start to see the fruits of its labour. We need to ensure that Scotland will continue to be a world-leading research hub for the life sciences, and to ensure—if possible—that the sector’s economic contribution is doubled by 2020.
The skills investment plan will, I hope, help us in expanding that talent pool and position Scotland as the top destination for a career in the sector. We are incredibly fortunate that Scotland is a world-class centre for life sciences, but we can and must do more to harness the sector’s potential. We need to enhance the representation and role of women, as Mark McDonald suggested, and we must continue to work to create an environment that will help the life sciences sector to create significant growth in or out of the UK.
16:12
I am pleased to participate in the debate to highlight the importance of the life sciences sector to the Scottish economy and the contribution that it is already making to improving health here and abroad.
Scotland’s track record in life sciences stretches back to when the discipline was first established: King’s College in Aberdeen was the world’s first medical school. Throughout the centuries since, we have enhanced our collective scientific understanding and pioneered many of the greatest advances, from the use of anaesthesia to the remarkable creation of Dolly the sheep.
In my region, Dundee has emerged as an internationally renowned centre of excellence. According to the University of Dundee, life sciences account for 16 per cent of the Tayside economy, and the university’s college of life sciences alone employs 900 staff from 60 countries. It attracts £100 million in research income each year, and it has helped to cultivate a cluster of local biomedical and biotech businesses.
Liberal Democrats in Government worked hard to develop the life sciences industry—indeed, it was the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister Jim Wallace who established the life sciences industry advisory group. Nearly a decade after the group’s first strategy was published, aspects such as focus, collaboration and the right resources and people are still central to achieving growth.
Skills Development Scotland’s report is dedicated to the last of those factors. Obtaining the right people is crucial for a research-intensive industry that relies on furthering knowledge, incubating intellectual ingenuity and nurturing technical expertise. That requires the sector to attract new entrants, retain talent and ensure that graduates have the skills they need to make the transition to the workplace.
The STEM subjects underpin the interdisciplinary skills that the industry tells us that it needs, but I, like other members in the chamber, have long been concerned that the talent of many of the women who pursue those subjects is lost.
Approximately two thirds of those studying life sciences in further, higher and postgraduate education are women, but that uptake is not reflected in the gender balance in the workplace, where just 46 per cent of employees are female. At board level, fewer than one in five directors of life science companies in Scotland in 2010 were female. The report acknowledges that that is
“a lower share than any of the other Government key sectors”,
and it reveals that a wealth of female talent is not retained or properly recognised; it is diverted elsewhere or overlooked.
Reports such as “Tapping all our Talents - Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: a strategy for Scotland”, published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh a couple of years ago, have documented how nearly three quarters of women with STEM qualifications do not work in STEM industries. It concluded that that wasted talent
“is a serious loss across the whole economy”.
That is why more needs to be done to ensure that that talent is retained, valued and recognised in the life sciences sector.
To reduce the attrition rate at all levels of scientific employment, there needs to be a change in workplace policies and practices—indeed, in workplace cultures generally—to make them fair places for everyone to work in. I am pleased that a major life sciences company in my region—GlaxoSmithKline—has signed the WISE chief executive officer charter. By signing the charter, the CEO and senior management commit to actively supporting the aim of increasing the participation of women at all levels in STEM and to developing clearly defined strategies and implementing practices to support the recruitment, retention and development of female talent in STEM.
GSK has introduced gender-targeted coaching and sponsorship as part of its commitment to promote inclusion and diversity. I urge other companies to follow its lead. The RSE report suggested a number of ways in which Government, industry and education establishments could improve the situation. The Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages responded to the RSE report by saying that
“we know that there is more we have to do and I can reassure the RSE that this issue will continue to be a key priority for us.”
Why is it, then, that the skills investment plan only hints at responding to the problem through a staff-supply mapping exercise? Why is retaining and promoting female talent and ensuring a diverse workforce not identified as a key challenge or priority? Regrettably, the action plan is also silent on the issue. I ask the minister to undertake to rectify that problem.
The proposed amendments to the motion are right to highlight the dividend that life sciences draw down from Scotland being part of the UK. The strength of our home-grown talent enables us to punch above our weight. Parkinson’s UK has told us that medical research charities currently spend a disproportionate amount of their total funding on research in Scotland: £130 million, or 13 per cent of the UK total, which as others have said is considerably more than our 8 per cent population share of the UK. Similarly, NUS Scotland tells us that our universities receive £257 million in grant funding from UK research councils, which again amounts to 13 per cent of the UK total.
The best way to build on our success is through further collaboration. However, the necessity to negotiate cross-border arrangements for research funding in the event of a yes vote would put that further collaboration at risk. It would be a real challenge to maintain the same level of support for our research base if our relationships with research councils, Government departments and businesses elsewhere in the UK were eroded. The universities are clear that they wish to remain part of the UK pool, but there is scant detail in the white paper as to how that would be achieved. There are no guarantees and there is no acknowledgement that separation risks affecting our unrestricted access to a substantial research infrastructure.
With Scotland as part of the UK, our universities benefit from being part of a wider, thriving research community. In a sector where collaboration is key, we have the best of both worlds: a strong Scottish Parliament supporting our world-class universities, backed by the strength of UK research resources. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to ensure that we continue to host one of the most extensive and advanced life sciences communities in Europe. In that sector, as in so many others, we are indeed better together.
16:18
It is fair to say that, since identifying life sciences as one of the key sectors of the Scottish economy where there was potential for growth, we have actually seen that occur.
Most people associate the north-east with the oil and gas industry, but Aberdeen has a very vibrant life sciences sector, too. Perhaps it is helped by the oil and gas industries playing a large part in promoting STEM subjects in schools and showing how science is important not just in the oil and gas industry but across other sectors, with teachers who have been involved in the many events that the oil and gas companies put on broadening their pupils’ awareness of the opportunities that exist in other STEM areas. That is the cross-disciplinary approach that the minister mentioned.
Aberdeen is home to one of the life sciences incubation facilities. I have learned today that that is full, and I believe that the Edinburgh BioQuarter is almost full, too. The key thing to recognise is that companies want to be close to both universities and hospitals, for the cross-fertilisation of ideas.
I think that the member is on record in the past few days expanding on some of those ideas of cross-border negotiations and how the north of England would relate to the north of Scotland. Will the member explain why subscription for university research funding would be better than the current way of funding through Research Councils UK?
I will come on to that.
In previous debates on life sciences, my Aberdeen colleagues and I have praised the small innovative companies on the Craibstone campus, which Mark McDonald mentioned. There is also the Rowett institute, which does a huge amount of research into food and drink and diet, and the James Hutton Institute, which carries out research in the environmental field, both here and overseas, including in Malawi.
One of the most pleasing aspects of the companies on the Craibstone campus is the number that are run by women. As Mark McDonald said, they do very valuable work. Where women are able to be in charge of their companies and their own work, there can be long-term opportunities and retention of women in STEM positions—an issue that Alison McInnes raised and one which we have debated many times in the chamber.
Given the number of opportunities that there are in science and technology throughout Scotland, it is important that youngsters are made aware of and are excited by the wonders of science from an early age. That is why parents as well as teachers should take every opportunity to visit science centres such as Satrosphere Science Centre in Aberdeen and Our Dynamic Earth and to attend science events that run for weeks, such as techfest in Aberdeen.
Not everybody will be a science graduate or postgraduate or a research scientist, but higher education institutions and companies also require staff at technician level. I was pleased to read in the skills investment plan that Skills Development Scotland will work with the life sciences advisory board to increase awareness and uptake of the modern apprenticeship in life sciences across the sector.
Throughout the debate, Opposition members have continued their project fear approach to research funding. Let us be clear: public funding of university research in Scotland and across the UK is currently delivered by a dual support system comprising a block grant given by the funding council of each country, funded from devolved budgets, and competitively awarded grants from the UK-wide Research Councils UK, funded through the tax base, which—remember folks—Scottish citizens contribute to through their taxes. As others have said, those grants are awarded on merit and, increasingly, they are awarded not to a single institution but to collaborative research across UK and international institutions. With independence, Scotland will have the opportunity to enhance internationally the profile of our institutions and their expertise and to encourage investment from pharmaceutical companies and charities alike.
Neil Bibby mentioned charities and seemed to imply that they will not spend research money in Scotland. Mr Bibby, charities will invest where the best research is, regardless of location. They would be reckless to do otherwise, so stop that scaremongering aspect of the debate. Why do you not also recognise that UK immigration policy is a big threat to research? The collaboration that is required cannot take place because of immigration policy.
Professor Tim O’Shea said:
“There is no reason why any form of constitutional change should preclude participation in higher order research councils.”
Professor Sir Ian Diamond of the University of Aberdeen said:
“I can’t see it’s in the interests of anyone in the rest of the UK to want to exclude Scotland, nor is it in the interest of Scotland to be excluded from collaboration.”
I support the motion in the name of the minister.
I ask members please to remember to address their remarks through the Presiding Officer.
16:25
I rise to speak about life sciences simply because they are very important to the city of Dundee, but I will start by addressing a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. Maureen Watt has just accused my colleagues and members of the other Opposition parties of continuing project fear throughout the debate. It is rather ironic that she said that, because none of the SNP speakers has been prepared to take an intervention on the subject of taxes.
Maureen Watt said that awards will be made on merit. I gently remind her and the SNP that awards cannot be made on merit if we do not contribute to the tax base. Alasdair Allan looks at me with incredulity, as if I am talking nonsense. If he wants to intervene, I will be happy to answer his point.
Forgive me if I looked incredulous, but the reason why that expression was on my face was that, as numerous members on all sides have acknowledged, a common research area implies a subscription model—it does not imply getting something for free.
We will come on to that in a minute. I suggest that, if we do not pay taxes into the pot from which we then look to take funding, that will become very difficult. That view is shared by many researchers across the length and breadth of Scotland.
I will talk a little about Dundee. In recent months, scientists in my home city have delivered a candidate drug for malaria; set up a centre of excellence for tuberculosis drug discovery with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust; identified new ways to tackle Parkinson’s disease; been recognised for their groundbreaking research in genetic skin diseases and inflammation; and have undertaken a wide variety of community engagement in schools. It is important to engage schoolchildren in science. Furthermore, over the next few months, a £26 million laboratory complex will be opened, leveraging £7 million of public sector investment, which will lead to 180 new externally funded and high-value jobs for Scotland’s life sciences sector.
It is concerning that the skills investment plan report says that the number of students participating in life sciences-related courses in further education has fallen every year since 2008-09. Given the skills requirements for this important sector, will the minister write to each college principal in Scotland to ask them the specific reasons for that year-on-year decline in participation in life sciences courses? I am sure that the minister will agree that that needs to be addressed urgently, given the skills requirements that are outlined in the report. I hope that the minister, in his closing remarks, will undertake to do that.
I am pleased to note that the report shows that the participation of women in life sciences courses is healthy, as is the ratio of male to female employees in the sector. However, we again find an issue in more promoted positions. Just four years ago in 2010, only 18.7 per cent of directors of Scottish life sciences businesses were female, which, as the report points out, was a lower share than that in any of the Government’s other key sectors. Alison McInnes said that she, too, is concerned about that. Given Angela Constance’s new remit for female employment, perhaps the minister will undertake to do a bit of investigation with his colleague on that.
A big theme of the debate has been funding and the impact on it of the referendum. On Tuesday evening, I was in the University of Dundee, training in the gym, and was approached by a researcher whom I train with. He asked me how the referendum campaign was going and said, “Please make sure it’s a no vote, because our funding is under threat.” [Interruption.] I see that Mark McDonald disagrees with me, but those were not my words; they were the words of a researcher whom I did not know and who approached me in the university.
It has been suggested this afternoon that scientific awards would be made on merit. I have checked with the Wellcome Trust, which is one of the biggest funders of the life sciences sector in Dundee, and according to the latest figures on its website it made 37 investigator awards to UK institutions last year and only two to overseas institutions. I think that the SNP would be very well advised to get in touch with key funders such as the Wellcome Trust that are so important to my city and to Scotland’s economy and find out their criteria for allocating funding. From the figures on the Wellcome Trust website, it is clear that the preference is for the money to stay in the UK, and I would be interested to know whether the minister has any evidence that suggests otherwise.
I understand that the proposal in the white paper is for a Scandinavian-style funding pot, but I gently remind the minister that the total Scandinavian research funding pot is worth less than one single research grant that has been given to Dundee university.
You must close, please.
The Scandinavian research pot is less than £14 million, and, as I have said, a grant larger than that is currently being used at Dundee university. I ask the minister to think long and hard about the points that I have made.
16:31
I am grateful to my friends and colleagues Maureen Watt and Mark McDonald for mentioning the many areas of life sciences that can be found in Aberdeen, but I have had to rethink a couple of my opening remarks as a result. A wealth of life sciences can be found in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire; we have fantastic universities and, as Mark McDonald and Maureen Watt have pointed out, we also have the Rowett Institute and the James Hutton Institute.
This debate reminds me of a debate on life sciences that we had not so long ago, in which Liz Smith asked how we not only engage younger people but retain their interest in science; indeed, it also reminded me of the time that my colleagues and I went on a visit organised by Scottish Enterprise to NCIMB in Aberdeen. The people there were handing out badges that said, “We love bugs”, and I remember my friend and colleague Kevin Stewart telling the chamber during another debate how, after that visit, he loved both bugs and life sciences. I started to think that that might be how we engage our younger people; perhaps we have to get them at a very young age and teach them the elements of science—and, as Mark McDonald made clear in his speech, fun.
Recently, I visited a primary school in Dunecht where the pupils were taking the produce from their market garden into the kitchen, and I was reminded of a book launched by the Rowett Institute called “Stovies Reloaded: Traditional Scottish Recipes Made Healthier”. The book is about a subject close to my waistline, in that it looks at Scotch pies, Forfar bridies and so on, but it gives much healthier options that use leaner cuts of meat, do not use salt and use vegetable spread rather than suet. That is the sort of thing we need to introduce to our younger children and ensure that they are aware of. This is not just about what happens at this or that institute or in this or that science centre, but about taking what happens there into our own homes, our own kitchens, our own schools and, indeed, our children’s school dinners.
My visit certainly made me think about what the other schools in my constituency were doing. I know that at the Gordon schools in Huntly, the pupils have what is called Wednesday in the woods. It is fantastic, because it is all about learning. Neil Bibby mentioned innumeracy; while out in the woods, those pupils learn all about numeracy, writing, science and so on, and things are made real to them. The question is how we retain that interest from the early years and ensure that it is carried forward.
That reminded me of one of the schools doing a project through the James Hutton Institute, on eco pets. I had never heard of eco pets, but it involved a wormery. The James Hutton Institute was looking into what happens to the soil in a wormery with earthworms. The children were investigating the various aspects and elements of the soil, and what was in it that would help with the growing of fresh vegetables, for example.
We are rich with the wealth that is within our children. That is our resource for the future. We have heard a lot about future funding, with some debate around how our funding might dry up if we leave the UK. That is nonsense. Our richness and our resources of the future are within our young children—their merit and the merit of our universities and institutes will bring continued funding into our research in Scotland.
We have a difficult task ahead of us around how to engage our young people and retain their interest. The curriculum for excellence is a pathway to engage that. When we take the lab in a lorry round our schools, it is exciting for the young people to get a hands-on experience of science at its basic level. That is about hearing, seeing and feeling what is going on. People get the opportunities to do that within a scientific laboratory.
We have a bright future with our life sciences, and for our young people. I commend the motion.
16:37
This has been a good debate on the “Skills Investment Plan For Scotland’s life sciences sector”—the latest plan, following those for information and communication technology and digital technologies, finance, tourism, food and drink and energy. I appreciate that life sciences are not all about health, but I was drawn to a particular quote in the plan. The plan says:
“It is estimated that only 30-70% of patients respond positively to any particular drug.”
I was quite shocked at that figure. Research
“to deliver the right treatment to the right patient at the right time”
is therefore to be hugely welcomed. That sums it all up. If that is where we are going with this sector, it is immensely exciting, although we should also remember that life sciences are not all about health, as David Stewart and other members have said.
The life sciences sector is well established in many parts of Scotland. I will again mention LifeScan Scotland—the minister and David Stewart both mentioned it. LifeScan is a model for employment, and I should also mention how it links into and works with schools, providing work experience, and how it links into the UHI, through the chair that David Stewart highlighted.
I remember when LifeScan came to Inverness. It was then called Inverness Medical, and was a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. We were promised that there would be 300 jobs eventually. First it was 40, then it was 60 and then it was 80. There was a lot of scepticism about it. People asked, “Life sciences coming to Inverness? Really?” Now, as David Stewart said and the minister acknowledged, for the past 15 to 17 years, LifeScan has regularly employed, and still employs, well over 1,000 people. As David Stewart also mentioned, it is a major private sector employer.
I notice from the plan that many life sciences companies employ one or two people. We should not say that those are not worth having because they are small; this is such an exciting sector that we should welcome everyone who comes along with a good idea.
I should also say that, apart from the schools and the UHI, LifeScan Scotland is famous for its football sponsorship, but I will not mention the team.
It is important for us to ensure that skills and training are matched with employer demand, so that local people have the opportunity to gain sustainable employment and build a career. In the Highlands, we want graduates and others to stay in the Highlands, not just in Scotland, and we want the opportunities to be there for them.
The recent Audit Scotland report on modern apprenticeships stated that
“performance measures do not focus on long-term outcomes, such as sustainable employment.”
It also noted that
“there were fewer apprenticeships in the Scottish Government’s key economic growth sectors”,
and stressed the need to align modern apprenticeships more closely with growth areas.
We have heard today how important life sciences are to economic growth, jobs and investment in Scotland, yet, last year, out of 25,000 modern apprenticeships, only 21 were in life sciences. That does not look to me like aligning modern apprenticeships with an exciting area for economic growth. It is a shocking figure, given that life sciences have been identified by the Government as a key sector with high growth potential and the capacity to boost productivity. I note that the report recommends that modern apprenticeships be reviewed, and I trust that the minister will acknowledge that in his summing up.
Although I welcome the 25 per cent increase in the number of undergraduates in higher education since 2007, the number of further education students participating in life sciences has fallen by 27 per cent in the same period, as Jenny Marra and Malcolm Chisholm mentioned. In fact, as the plan that we are debating today states, student numbers in FE life sciences are now at pre-recession levels. That does not sound like the big priority growth sector that it really ought to be.
I would like to mention something that no one else has raised, because it is important. I welcome the fact that the plan identifies the need to develop soft skills, given that
“employers have commented that new graduates need to build their ‘soft skills’, including: commercial awareness; team work; attitudes to deadlines; work ethic and communication skills”.
Those skills are essential not just for life sciences but in all sectors, and they highlight the benefits of work experience prior to entering the workplace.
Alison McInnes and others have mentioned the fact that, out of 56,000 female STEM graduates, 15,000 continued to work in the sector. I will not say more, other than to stress that that is a significant issue.
Finally, we also need to look at the attainment gap. The figure of 2.9 per cent of children—266—from Scotland’s most deprived areas earning three A grades at higher, compared with 20 per cent of children from the most affluent areas, is of great concern. Life sciences are a sector with high wages and wonderful opportunities, and it should be accessible to people from all backgrounds, including the most deprived and poorer backgrounds.
16:43
As several members have said, both Scotland and the UK have long had a good reputation in science. The University of Edinburgh, for example, has had an internationally acclaimed reputation for medicine for many decades. I do not think that politicians should try to take too much credit for the success of life sciences, and nobody has tried to do that this afternoon. Governments can make a difference in facilitating the links between academic institutions and business and in encouraging commercialisation, but it is down to the scientists and researchers to produce the work.
Neil Bibby, Roddy Campbell and others acknowledged the success of the policies of successive Scottish Governments. Way back in August 2001, Wendy Alexander, then the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, launched Scotland’s first ever science strategy. Among its aims were the promotion of Scotland as an international centre for scientific expertise and the establishment of a pipeline of support to enable the creation of global companies from the scientific output of Scottish laboratories. It also created the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which was at that time under the umbrella of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which used specialist fellowships and proof-of-concept funding to link up science policy with investment decisions.
The success of life sciences is a success, first, of the scientists and researchers who are in it and, secondly, of devolution. Scottish science does well under devolution. Many members have mentioned that we were awarded 13 per cent of research and development grants and that publications and citations per capita in Scottish universities and institutes are among the highest in the world. A total of 15 per cent of the UK’s life sciences companies are based in Scotland. I agree that Scottish institutions get more than Scotland’s population’s share from the UK Research Councils because of the quality of their research.
Liz Smith asked a number of SNP members about the subscription model, but no one seemed to be terribly keen to answer her question on that. This is project reality, not project fear. We want to know how the subscription model works and how much that subscription is. If that is based on population share, the chances are that the institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom would not be too keen on taxpayers’ money being paid out on top of that to Scottish universities. If it is based on the historic funding and the Scottish Government is charged for what the Scottish universities get, the Scottish Government would be financially penalised for the success of Scottish research. In that case, as Neil Bibby said, Scotland might as well have its own separate research council.
Several members were keen to talk about the successes in their areas. Malcolm Chisholm spoke about the Edinburgh BioQuarter and pointed out that it was set up with funding that came 50:50 from Scottish Enterprise and the UK strategic investment fund. That was a good investment, given that there are 900 hospital beds and 1,200 researchers on the campus and, in the next couple of years, those figures are expected to rise to 1,500 beds and 2,000 researchers. Its specialist facilities have made it a leading European centre for translational medical research.
Jenny Marra and Alison McInnes mentioned the College of Life Sciences in Dundee. The college has just received £8 million of Scottish Government funding towards the development of a phenotypic drugs screening laboratory. It, too, has an international reputation as a productive research institute; it also has the highest number of citations per paper for biological sciences in the whole of Europe. As Alison McInnes said, life sciences account for 16 per cent of the Tayside economy, which is a great achievement.
David Stewart and Mary Scanlon mentioned the important development in the Highlands with the establishment of the centre for health science at Raigmore hospital in Inverness and the adjacent Inverness campus of the University of the Highlands and Islands. As they said, the centre is home to Johnson & Johnson’s LifeScan Scotland, which, two years ago, announced its decision to locate its global diabetes research centre in Inverness. I am aware of David Stewart’s long-standing interest in the testing and treatment of diabetes, so I am sure that he must be particularly gratified by the fact that that is happening on his doorstep.
Linda Fabiani mentioned research in East Kilbride; Mark McDonald, Maureen Watt and Dennis Robertson stressed the importance of the Rowett institute of nutrition and health and the James Hutton Institute up in Aberdeen. It is quite clear that good scientific research is going on throughout Scotland.
As Malcolm Chisholm, Alison McInnes, Jenny Marra and Mark McDonald said, although we congratulate the sector for its remarkable success and expansion, we should not forget that we do not retain enough of our female scientists. The Royal Society of Edinburgh report “Tapping all our talents. Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: a strategy for Scotland”, which was produced by a working group chaired by a very eminent astrophysicist, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, cites the statistic that 73 per cent of women trained in STEM subjects leave the profession compared with 48 per cent of men. Think about how much greater success Scottish science might have if we increased female participation levels up to male levels in the long term. It is still the case that concerns such as childcare, attitudes towards people taking maternity leave, the difficulty in taking maternity leave when a researcher is on a fixed-term contract and problems with work-life balance for women with caring responsibilities are driving women out of sciences. That is very depressing, because those were the issues that were driving women out of science when I left and things do not seem to have got much better for women since.
The Labour motion also mentions the possible takeover of AstraZenica by Pfizer, but that issue was not reflected in the debate. That is unfortunate because, although AstraZenica is headquartered elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that potential takeover should be of concern to us, as AstraZenica is a major supplier to the NHS and it works with health boards such as Grampian, as Neil Bibby said. I hope that the Scottish Government will support Ed Miliband’s call for a public interest test in corporate deals such as this potential takeover.
It is good to celebrate the success of life sciences, but many members have mentioned concerns that we must address. Neil Bibby spoke about numeracy levels in schools: if pupils do not have numeracy skills, they will not be able to do science. Malcolm Chisholm and Jenny Marra talked about student numbers in further education and life sciences decreasing. Liz Smith talked about the take-up of science subjects in schools and the Scottish baccalaureate. Mary Scanlon mentioned the number of modern apprenticeships in life sciences.
There is a general concern about the curriculum for excellence: will it be sufficiently rigorous to prepare students to study sciences at university? Science is a rigorous discipline and they need to acquire the necessary learning skills at school to be able to go on to succeed at university. Do not even get me started on access to laboratories. I agree with what Dennis Robertson said about the lab in a lorry, but science is an experimental vocational subject and, to do science, children and young people need the opportunity to get out and learn from doing experiments. Unfortunately, not enough of that goes on in our schools nowadays.
16:50
This has been a positive debate in the main. It focused on life sciences as one of the many reasons that we can be proud of Scotland’s academic and economic achievements. Scotland clearly excels in life sciences. Many speakers referred to that. It is appropriate for us to think about not only our contribution to global research in that area, but what we can do to exceed it in the future.
There were many considered and thoughtful speeches in the debate. Alas, there was no speech from Stewart Stevenson. I had been looking forward to one following his Van de Graaff generator speech, which has entered into parliamentary folklore since the last science debate.
Mr Bibby made important points about numeracy in schools. There have been a number of measures of that and we are far from complacent. The programme for international student assessment statistics indicated that good things are happening on that front. I entirely appreciate the point that was made about the need for regular and constant improvement in numeracy. However, Mr Bibby more than once used the phrase “failing education system” and I take the greatest possible exception to it being used in the context of Scotland’s schools.
Liz Smith made a number of points on STEM subjects in schools and the work that we all acknowledge needs to be done to promote the science baccalaureate.
The Scottish baccalaureate was presented as an added-value qualification because it had a crucial mix of higher and advanced higher, but it is not being taken up. Can the minister suggest why it is not being taken up and will he say what the Scottish Government will do to address that? It is a key issue.
In the context of the new qualifications, the baccalaureate is one of many options that students can take to add value to their qualifications. However, as I indicated, we constantly encourage not only the baccalaureate for science but the baccalaureate for languages.
Mr McDonald mentioned many examples of international co-operation in research to which I could add the fact that the UK co-operates directly with countries that include Switzerland, Luxembourg and the USA.
Mr Chisholm made a thoughtful speech about the research partnership that exists between the research community and Scotland’s NHS. It is also worth saying that Edinburgh College does great work on the promotion of STEM subjects with a STEM academy promoting links with schools.
Aileen McLeod spoke about key science sectors and an emerging science that other speakers mentioned: personalised medicine, which holds out some truly amazing opportunities for understanding and practising medicine in the future.
Was the minister as shocked as I was to find that out of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships, 21 were in life sciences? How does he plan to address that, given that life sciences is one of the Government’s key sectors?
I would certainly argue for the importance of modern apprenticeships, which are, of course, far from the only means of engaging young people in science and science careers. We constantly advocate for the development of young people’s skills. For example, at the other end of the equation, we are working to improve people’s lab skills, which were referred to earlier, and people’s employability as scientists.
David Stewart rightly referred to some of Scotland’s past scientific achievements, including those of Fleming, which I take to be an endorsement of my personal practice of not cleaning my kitchen sink. Like others, he mentioned the importance of the science sector to the Highlands and Islands, and the new campus in Inverness is relevant in that respect.
Linda Fabiani reminded us of the importance of the application of life sciences, not least in East Kilbride, and was right to say that we need to be ambitious in that respect.
Roderick Campbell made the important point that the future structure of research in Scotland will be, to a large degree, in the hands of academics themselves, and pointed to the success of academic-driven initiatives, such as research pools and SULSA.
Alison McInnes rightly mentioned the sector’s importance to Dundee. She said that it relied on 60 nationalities and 60 countries, although I think that that was immediately followed by an argument that the whole thing relied on one country.
Many speakers, including Alison McInnes, Mark McDonald and Elaine Murray made an important argument about ensuring that every encouragement and opportunity is given to women in science. I entirely accept that we have to do much, much more in that respect, but it should be said that, in the life sciences, we have something nearer equality in that respect than we do in other areas of science.
Will the member give way?
I must make some progress.
A number of speakers pointed out that research and science are not just about traditional categories of scientist, and that technicians are also important.
Will the member give way?
I must make some progress. I am about to end my speech.
I am happy to accept both amendments because, despite some of the arguments that were built on their inoffensive text, they are positive. For example, it is entirely reasonable for Liz Smith’s amendment to point to the successes of the research sector. Mr Bibby’s amendment notes the important contribution of UK research councils, which, again, I am happy to acknowledge, despite the fact that we take different views about what the future should be.
Mr Bibby rightly mentions the issue of Pfizer’s proposed takeover of AstraZeneca. Although neither company has a major base in Scotland, it is, obviously, a matter of interest. To pick up on a point that was made around that, the NHS in Scotland has indicated that it has no concerns about its future relationship with either company, but it is entirely legitimate for us to ask today whether the UK Government intends to make any further inquiries about the issue.
This debate has occasionally wandered into, let us say, articles of faith and has, therefore, changed its character. That was perhaps predictable. However, I will end as I began, and say that, as it provides employment for 35,000 people in Scotland, with 650 companies, and constitutes one of the great successes of Scottish science, our life sciences sector is something of which everyone in this Parliament, across all partisan boundaries, should be particularly proud. It is particularly useful that we have chosen to debate it today.
Previous
Care and Caring