Science and the Parliament
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1840, in the name of Elaine Murray, on the science and the Parliament event that is being held today. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Science and the Parliament 2004 event being held on 10 November 2004, organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry in association with Scotland's leading science organisations; notes the contribution of Scotland's 40,000 scientists to our economic, environmental and social development; notes that Scotland is a world leader in many scientific disciplines; further notes the Scottish Executive's efforts to foster an environment that enhances pupil and student participation in science, to invest in the science infrastructure and equipment of our educational establishments, to increase investment in research along with supporting greater industrial research and assist in the practical application of our world-beating research, and welcomes the review of the Executive's A Science Strategy for Scotland.
I am pleased to lead this debate on the evening of an annual event in the Scottish parliamentary calendar: the science and the Parliament event, which is organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry. In previous years, the event was held in the Signet library but, following the opening of our new Parliament complex, it has moved to the particularly appropriate location of Our Dynamic Earth, across the road from here.
I thank the Royal Society of Chemistry and the other scientific organisations that bring together this increasingly successful event. In particular, I thank Willie Rennie for all his efforts. I welcome to the gallery a large number of participants in the event, which finished slightly early, who have come to listen to the debate. After the debate, the exhibition and reception at Our Dynamic Earth will recommence. I hope that as many MSPs as possible will be able to pop in to visit the exhibition and to attend the awards ceremony, which will start at about 6.15 pm.
As we know, Scotland has an extremely strong tradition in science and engineering, which were the foundation of much of the nation's wealth from the industrial revolution onwards. Although there are concerns nowadays about the number of young Scots who choose to study science at degree and higher level—a matter to which I will return—Scotland continues to punch above its weight in scientific achievement and science continues to be important in achieving the Executive's vision of a smart, successful Scotland. For example, Scottish universities, which comprise only 12 per cent of the United Kingdom's universities, outperform their counterparts in 38 per cent of science subjects, according to the 2001 research assessment exercise. Some 40 per cent more per head of population is invested in Scotland's science base compared with any other part of the UK. In 2003, Scotland's investment in university research was only $1 per head behind that of the United States of America.
However, Scottish business invests only 0.5 per cent of gross national product in research and development, which is much lower than in parts of England, Sweden and France. Consequently, the density of science-based jobs is lower in Scotland than it is in many other countries, including Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Norway. It is also worrying that the average share price of Scottish research and development companies fell between 1999 and 2003, and that it fell more steeply than did the average share price of companies in other sectors of the Scottish economy. That should be compared with what has happened in England, where research and development share performance rose over the same period, despite the downward trend in the wider economy. Save British Science, which is a lobbying organisation, has suggested that the Executive should finance a detailed study of why research-based industry in Scotland is not currently producing the same economic growth that seems to be possible elsewhere in the UK.
On a brighter note, Scottish universities are more successful in creating spin-out companies than are their English and Welsh counterparts, and the links between universities and the business community in Scotland are considered to be at least as good as they are elsewhere in the UK. Scottish pupils spend more time studying maths and science than do their European counterparts, and the scientific literacy of our 15-year-olds was ranked eighth out of 32 in a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey.
However, Scotland faces a demographic problem in relation to science teachers. Earlier today, I raised that issue with the Minister for Education and Young People. The Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which was set up by the Scottish Executive to provide independent advice to ministers, noted in its report "Why Science Education Matters: Supporting and Improving Science Education in Scottish Schools" that
"one third of all science teachers are over 50 years old and over half of all science teachers are over 45 years."
The report estimated that 357 new chemistry teachers, 210 new physics teachers and 127 new biology teachers required to be recruited in Scotland between 2001-02 and 2007-08. I would be interested to learn from ministers more about what progress is being made in attracting new teachers into those extremely important subjects, although the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning might not have the figures. The issue of continuing professional development for science teachers is also crucial in an area of knowledge that can develop and advance quickly. Teachers must be kept up to speed.
I was pleased to read in the Executive's document "ambitious, excellent schools", which was published last week, that the Executive intends that the science curriculum should be the first curriculum to be reviewed. That recognises that there are issues relating to attracting young people into science at the moment and it was, of course, one of the key recommendations of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee.
There are also concerns about the number of applications to study science at university, which are falling slightly faster in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK. If science is central to the Scottish economy, shortages of scientists, science graduates and science teachers are a matter of grave concern. The reasons why academically able young people are becoming less interested in a career in science need to be analysed and addressed.
I think that there are three main problems. One problem is that scientists—especially scientists in the public sector—are pretty badly paid compared with similarly qualified people in other professions. Save British Science has estimated that scientific salaries lag behind those for similarly qualified professions by around 25 per cent. The career structure is also relatively unattractive. In universities, it has revolved for a long time around fixed-term grants for research of between perhaps two and five years. That tendency to rely on fixed-term contracts has increased over the years. All of us in the chamber are on fixed-term contracts, which are perhaps more likely to be renewed for some than for others, but I am sure that we can all appreciate that a situation in which a researcher may have to change posts and uproot his or her family every few years becomes less attractive as people become older and more settled. That might deter young people from becoming scientists, and it certainly contributes to the trend of trained scientists leaving their profession.
The other problem that I perceive is the image that science seems to have developed in the media over the past few decades. Although the Scottish public still seem to feel positive about science—according to a recent survey, about 85 per cent of Scots still think that science and scientists can make a valuable contribution to society—some of the ways in which scientific matters are popularly described can be quite negative. The way in which subjects such as genetic modification, cloning, nuclear power and stem-cell research are reported in the media can often be melodramatic, implying that scientists are somehow without morals. It is a sad fact that people in the United Kingdom are now much less likely than they were a few decades ago to believe the information that scientists give them. There are undoubtedly moral dimensions to many of the topics that I have just mentioned, but there often seems to be a confusion between the science and the way in which scientific knowledge might be used. Too often, public debates, and indeed parliamentary debates, do not refer to the scientific facts, which ought to be underpinning the arguments.
Science is popularly thought to be very difficult. Unfortunately, although television programmes about science are very popular, 48 per cent of people, according to a recent survey, believe that they are not clever enough to understand science. That is a great shame. It is a pity that science is not viewed in the same way as other creative activities such as art, music and sport. Most of us can do those to an extent and, with help, we might be able to do them very much better than we expect at first. A few people can do those things very well indeed and the rest of us take great pleasure from observing their achievements. That should be, and can be, true with science, too. It is important that we recognise science for what is. It is a creative activity and we should treat it as such.
I will finish by stating the blindingly obvious: that science is crucial to Scotland's future success and that it presents many opportunities, as well as some significant challenges. If the contribution of our 40,000 scientists is to be sustained, those challenges need to be faced and met. I look forward to the rest of the debate. I know that many other members who are equally concerned about the future of science will make interesting speeches and I also greatly look forward to the minister's response to the points that will be made in the debate.
I congratulate Elaine Murray on securing tonight's debate. I can find nothing in her speech with which I disagree, which is unusual. Normally, we have party-political debates but, as far as science is concerned, I hope that we have a unity of vision about where we are going as a country and that we can try to tackle some of the current fundamental difficulties. If we have a unity of view, we are much more likely to be successful.
In the summer, I was privileged to be asked along to the chemistry department of the University of Aberdeen, where I studied for a short time, to present some of the prizes. It was interesting to see how many people are still studying chemistry. I know that there are some concerns about the number of science students in the country in general, and there is concern that some science courses—chemistry courses in particular—are closing. I believe that the applied course at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has had to close because of a lack of interest among students. Perhaps some more innovative thinking from universities in attracting students would offer a potential solution.
I am delighted that there is a very successful forensic science course at the Robert Gordon University, which covers the basics of chemistry, physics and biology, but I do not know how many of its students will go on to become applied forensic scientists. At least we will have people who have trained in the sciences as a consequence.
Would Brian Adam join me in hoping that the proposed merger of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the streamlining of articulation processes between further and higher education will lead to an increase in the number of young people choosing to study science, first in college and subsequently in university?
I suspect that what has to change before we can encourage youngsters to take an interest in science is not necessarily the mechanics of how they can move through from colleges to universities, but it is undoubtedly helpful to remove any barrier from that process.
This afternoon, I attended one of the break-out sessions, for at least some of the time. It is interesting to note how science sometimes goes back to go to the future. The question that was under discussion related to an applied problem that currently exists in our health services, to do with MRSA, the lack of microbiologists and the measures that we might take to develop a new range of antibiotics. One interesting contribution suggested that we should examine the importance of bacteriophages, as the Americans are doing. I remember the delights of the spring and early summer of 1970, when I struggled with my honours project on bacteriophages, little thinking that the subject would be fashionable in 35 years' time.
I wish the scientists well. We need to encourage folk to look in all sorts of odd places for the innovation and new ideas that will drive science forward. We must not be overly reliant on peer review to decide what is best. Peer review is about what is currently fashionable, but we need to think outside the box at times. If we are going to be successful, it will be with something that is different. We need to have that kind of challenge and the capacity to address such things.
I have great concern that those who are working in clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are being oppressed and that, as a society, we are not standing up to those animal rights activists who have taken things far too far in targeting scientists. If we do not protect our scientists—literally protect them—they will flee the country and the pharmaceutical giants that are major investors in our R and D, and key to the future of our science, will take their business elsewhere. That will not be good for the future of science, for the future of medicine or for the future of Scotland or the UK.
I begin by congratulating Elaine Murray both on obtaining the debate and on all the comments that she has made in it. I join her in welcoming the audience who have come here tonight from the science and the Parliament event over the road. I think that this is the biggest attendance at a members' business debate that we have had, certainly in this parliamentary building, and I thank those in the public gallery for attending.
It is often said that Scotland invented both the philosophical framework and the physical environment of the modern world, with the ideas of the Scottish enlightenment and the fertile contribution of our scientists, engineers and inventors. Even today, that tradition remains a potent force to inspire and motivate our young people and I understand that Scotland produces 1 per cent of globally produced research although we have only 0.1 per cent of the world's population. Scotland is also third in the world for the number of research publications published per head of population. I simply add those statistics to the total that the debate will no doubt bring to light. The Scottish Executive has, quite rightly, placed great emphasis on commercialisation and knowledge transfer of new ideas and processes.
Science education is central to the maintenance and expansion of that tradition. Elaine Murray has already mentioned the curriculum review, an important chunk of which relates to the updating, expanding and improving of the current science curriculum. We have lessons to learn from other countries. In Taiwan and Korea, there is a heavy emphasis on maths and science and it cannot be just coincidence that those countries have been so successful in recent years as part of the phenomenon of the Asian tiger economies.
In a previous debate, which was instigated by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton back in March, I pointed out that a vicious cycle had developed, where a decline in interest fed on itself. The proportion of pupils taking higher science subjects dropped from 10.8 per cent in 1993-94 to 9.2 per cent in 2001-02. I am told that more people are taking intermediate 1 and 2 now, which is good, but we cannot afford a continuing decline at the top. That is something that we must continue to keep our attention on.
Like Brian Adam, I had the great pleasure this afternoon—in my case as convener of the Parliament's Education Committee—of introducing a break-out session at the science and the Parliament event over the road. I was very pleased to hear that the investment made by the Executive since "A Science Strategy for Scotland" came out in 2001 was hitting the mark in providing support for equipment, for training, and for the informal sector, including for the science centres. Someone even said that it had put the fun back into science—that is not a usual accolade for political action in this or any other sphere.
As Elaine Murray mentioned, the Education Committee heard evidence this morning on the curriculum changes. The Minister for Education and Young People stressed in his evidence that the changes would be introduced very much in collaboration with teachers and it is vital that that should be the case. In this context, that should mean not only the council education officer or the head teacher but teachers at the chalkface who are teaching and engaging with classes.
Of course, all this raises the question of the purpose of science education. Like a programme for rebuilding the prospects of the national football team, it must begin with being accessible and giving encouragement to everyone so that the potential scientists, researchers and inspirational science teachers—the coaches, so to speak—can get their opportunity. However, most people should study science not in order to become scientists, but to enable them to be active citizens, to have a perspective on the modern world and to be able to contribute to the many ethical debates that affect them. Elaine Murray talked about some of the negative aspects of those issues; many of those ethical debates are often driven by science.
Science needs to be part of the main stream. Its concepts and idioms must be familiar to non-scientists, to those taking arts courses and to those who do not go on to higher education. The science for citizenship course suggested by the Scottish Science Advisory Committee seems to be well worth taking forward.
Science is a big part of the key to Scotland's future and it must be nurtured and encouraged. It must be made relevant and contemporary so that it can excite and enthuse and so that it can attract the best and most able students. Indeed, it should be one of the means by which we reignite the interest and aspiration of some of those who are currently disengaged from school.
I support this important motion in the name of Elaine Murray and commend it to the Parliament.
I start with two apologies. First, the Scottish Parliament business exchange board, of which I am a director, has called a meeting so I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate. My second apology is that because a Government policy announcement was being made I had to attend a debate in Parliament this afternoon and so could not chair a careers breakout session across the road.
I am a scientist by background. As I am a pharmacist I have experienced a fairly wide spread of various sciences. Five years ago, I was delighted when the Save British Science Society held an informal dinner, which I think Elaine Murray also attended—Brian Adam is nodding and Robin Harper was also there—to find out whether there was an appetite for promoting science among parliamentarians who had science backgrounds. The most important point was that the scientists who had us to dinner were talking about seeking new champions for science at all levels. We all know about the David Bellamys of the world who have done wonderful television programmes that have captured the minds of many people—dozens of such people have done such programmes. It is a shame that the terrestrial television channels do not show more of those programmes and make science more fun for our children.
I have said before that we must make science sexy. We must help parents to interest their children in the world around them, in how it works and in what makes it tick. I know that children can find that tedious. I experienced that with my family and was like that with my father.
The same thing must happen in pre-school education. We must make science fun and we must encourage children to be inquisitive. That would be the start that might mean that we capture the mind and spirit of a child. I am concerned—this fact came across last week when I hosted a meeting in Parliament for the Medical Research Council—that there is a lack of support for training in science. The problem has come upon us gradually, but we in Parliament have a responsibility to try to turn the situation round, not only for the good of the economy but, as members have said, for the benefit of the world.
Why are fewer pupils taking science subjects at school? Why are there fewer science teachers? Why are we producing fewer science teachers at university level and at postgraduate level? Unless we change the situation, we will lose the critical mass.
I support Brian Adam's comments about safety in science. The media have been, if anything, less than helpful in always looking for negativity and not giving the good news stories enough support. Plenty of good news stories are coming out of the science community in Scotland.
I have often questioned the Scottish Executive—I did so this week—about support for the chief scientist office, which always seems to receive the same budget, but cut into smaller and smaller pieces. If we want science to take off in Scotland, we must educate people and we must give research and researchers the respect and support that they need. We must ensure that we engage with the wider world in relation to career prospects. The commercialisation of science is one of Scotland's greatest successes, but that success is beginning to drift, as has been mentioned. We must stem that tide.
I hope that with the help of colleagues from the scientific community—I welcome their attendance today—members of the Scottish Parliament can get the tools that they need to sell the cause and to become champions of science. There is a huge issue about how politicians regard science. We all know about the benefits of medical science, but what about the other aspects of science that make our world liveable and provide us with jobs and creative activities?
I am passionate about science. Science should not be wrapped up in prissy language; it should be part and parcel of our education and our being. I congratulate Elaine Murray on bringing the debate, which has my thorough support, to Parliament.
I, too, congratulate Elaine Murray on securing this important debate. I welcome the initiative that Scotland's scientific community has taken in engaging with Parliament through the event that is taking place today. I also welcome the initiative that is going on to try to inform parliamentarians about current scientific issues.
In the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster, a range of political issues need to be informed by science. Scientific evidence informs many of the most important issues that society and humanity in general face: climate change; power generation and the right balance to be struck between nuclear, fossil-fuel and renewable energies; medical matters; fish stocks in the North sea, which have often been debated in the Scottish Parliament; and food safety. All those issues have been the subject of debates in which the Scottish Parliament or Westminster have recently engaged or will engage. Members have mentioned some of the major ethical and controversial issues of our time, which are hugely informed by scientific research. Such issues include stem-cell research, which featured significantly in the recent elections in the United States of America, and GM foods.
It is important that Parliament re-engage with scientific issues and that we and the media do not alarm people by misusing scientific information. On occasions there will be no clear scientific consensus on an issue, so it is proper that we debate such issues, but we must do so in a responsible and informed way.
I agree with comments that members made about the importance of science in schools. It is important that we encourage some of our most able young people to study science. With due respect to members who are lawyers, some of whom are present, it is more important that such young people study science than that they study law. We must drive forward that issue, as Elaine Murray said. Our approach should be partly about rewards and partly about ensuring that young people regard science as an interesting and rewarding, rather than just difficult, option—I do not think that it is difficult.
It is also important that we ensure that even the young people who do not go on to study science at university or have scientific careers are informed about how the modern world works and can take an active part in ethical debates and debates about the right way forward for society. I agree with Robert Brown's comments in that context. Last week, I attended a conference at which the rate of change in scientific knowledge was brought home to me. I learned that computing power doubles roughly every 18 months and that knowledge about the human genome doubles about every 16 months. Those facts have enormous implications for how society will be shaped in the decades to come; parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that young people who are currently going through the education system can engage with and discuss such issues.
The final issue is the importance of science and technology to the economy. It is widely recognised in Parliament that the future of the Scottish economy depends on its being a knowledge-based economy rather than a lowest-cost economy.
For so many industries, whether it is petrochemicals, medical science, pharmaceuticals, power generation or biotechnology, it is important to ensure that we invest in research and development and to ensure that our young people get a proper education and the chance to develop their skills.
Although we have a strong university sector, we face major challenges in ensuring that our universities are able to complete in the United Kingdom context and internationally. I hope that the minister will say how the Executive can ensure that the Scottish universities continue to maintain their strong role in competing internationally for the best scientists and the best research funding.
I join members in thanking Elaine Murray for securing this debate again this year. I also thank the Royal Society of Chemistry for holding its event, which is now in its fourth year, and for all the other excellent work that it does to promote science. I thank Holyrood magazine for the excellent supplement that it has produced in conjunction with the society.
Given that I have only four minutes, I will concentrate on the economic aspects of science. That said, I recognise the breadth of the impact that science policy has on health, education, food, energy, the environment and a wide range of other aspects of government and parliamentary policy.
I understand that tomorrow we will get the update on "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks". I hope that our scientific strategy is at the heart of it. When we consider the history of the Scottish economy, we can see that we have been at our most successful when we have been innovative and when we have given our scientists free rein to produce the new ideas, products and processes that we have needed down the years. That is true not only in terms of what it does for Scotland but in terms of the role that we have played internationally. We have only to think of television, the telephone and many other products that are of worldwide significance and which were invented in Scotland.
That said, we face three major challenges, the first of which is the level of spend on research and development, particularly in the private sector in Scotland. The latest yearly figures that are available show that the private sector spent £600 million on research and development in Scotland. If we are to achieve the same level of private sector spend per head or as a percentage of our gross domestic product as other countries, we need to more than double the annual spend. We will need to spend an additional £750 million a year in the private sector in order to achieve the average R and D spend for Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. If we are to compete in tomorrow's world—indeed, we need to compete in it—we must work with the private sector to get it to more than double its spend in the years ahead.
Without the private sector, we will not be able to meet the second major challenge, which is to reap the downstream benefit of our scientific research. Other members have referred to commercialisation and the tremendous success of our university sector in working with the private sector on commercialisation. When we look at the telephone and the television and many other Scottish inventions, we can see that we have been excellent at research but poor at development. We need to spend time and money on getting development right as well as on getting research right.
The final key challenge relates to some of the moral and ethical issues that the development of science requires us to face up to. I will mention only one: stem-cell research. I am at one with John Kerry and Superman on the need to encourage, finance and develop stem-cell research, albeit in a regulated fashion. Anything that has the potential to unlock the answers to so many of our medical and health problems, not only in Scotland but worldwide, has to be encouraged. Indeed, stem-cell research should not only be encouraged, we should be prepared to invest in it.
Those are the three key challenges. If we face them and meet them, we can achieve what I believe should be our objective, which is to make Scotland the science capital of Europe.
I am more than happy to endorse the bulk of Elaine Murray's motion, in particular the reference to scientific education. Children and young people are naturally curious about the world around them, and we must harness that curiosity. However, we should not forget the need to increase wider scientific understanding throughout society and the media. Almost every week I read a story one day in New Scientist, hear it slightly distorted on the radio the next day, and see another version later on television; by the time that the story reaches the printed press, it seems that almost no fact is reported accurately.
I acknowledge—as does the motion—the hard work that is done by Scotland's 40,000 scientists. There is a common perception of the Greens as anti-science, but that perception annoys me because we always endeavour to be informed by scientific evidence. Our position on climate change, for example, has developed alongside the work of the scientific community, right back to John Tyndall in the 1860s. We are opposed to genetically modified organisms because we believe that scientific and economic dangers outweigh the known advantages. If the balance swings back the other way, we will revisit our position. When the facts change, we change our view.
Whatever the state of scientific understanding on those questions, we must always view them in the light of social, moral, ethical and legal considerations. Unfortunately, many scientists feel unable to focus on those issues, particularly these days, when much of their work is corporately funded. To reply to Elaine Murray's comment in her opening remarks, no one would imply that scientists act without reference to moral values but, after a debate on smoking, we must recognise that large corporations often appear to, and that they can distort or conceal the science to suit themselves.
When we take those considerations seriously, we have to draw a distinction between what those 40,000 scientists are doing for the economy and what they are doing for the common good—for society and for the environment that we depend upon. Are the geophysicists who sniff out oil deposits really helping the environment in the long run? Are the biotechnologists whose work may result—whatever their own hopes and motives—in greater corporate control of our food chain benefiting society?
As politicians faced with challenging technical issues and complex scientific theories, it is often tempting for us to defer to scientific experts and save ourselves a bit of homework but, as Einstein pointed out more than half a century ago,
"we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems … we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves".
I think he meant that scientists should advise and inform our debate, but not dictate the direction in which that debate leads.
It is understandable that scientists are often too focused on the objective facts as they see them to recognise that there are legitimate subjective judgments to be made. The clearest example of that for me was the BSE debate. On television interview after television interview, a politician would say, "Beef is safe to eat." Another politician would say, "Beef isn't safe to eat". An interviewer would turn to a scientist at some point in the programme and say, "Well, is it? Is beef safe to eat?" as though that was an objective fact. The reality, as the responsible scientist would always say, is that determining what is safe enough is a subjective judgment for us all to make.
Ultimately, what might be called scientific fundamentalism is as unattractive as any other kind of fundamentalism. We have to recognise that there are other factors—philosophical, cultural, ethical, economic and political—to consider. Science, and supporting scientists to do the work of science, is a big part of the picture, but it is only one part.
I warmly congratulate Dr Elaine Murray on her success in securing the debate. I mention, by way of passing, that Britain has had many chemists of the utmost distinction. Interestingly enough, one of them was Margaret Thatcher. Of course, Dr Elaine Murray herself is a chemist, but she would not want me to draw any closer comparison, and I will not do so.
I am glad to support Elaine Murray's motion, especially given that I had a debate on 3 March this year in support of science education. I argued that the Executive should give maximum support for science education in Scotland, in view of the fact that the National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching in England had agreed that the Institute for Science Education in Scotland should be the body through which its links with Scotland would be managed. It is my distinct impression that, in this case, the Executive has been helpful and I will be most grateful if the minister will confirm that impression and give us the up-to-date position on funding.
Robert Brown mentioned the Scottish enlightenment. The role of Scots science education undoubtedly merits total commitment, given that the Scots have traditionally had an absolutely outstanding record in science, in creating items such as marmalade, Macintosh raincoats, Wellington boots and even that most astonishing creation, the late Dolly the sheep. Whether we talk about James Watt, who invented the steam engine; Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the telephone; John Logie Baird, who invented television; Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin; Joseph Lister, who invented antiseptic; James Simpson, who invented anaesthetic; or Professor Reg Jones, who bent the Knickebein beam, the reality is absolutely clear—with only about 10 per cent of Britain's population, the Scots have produced about a quarter of Britain's greatest inventions and, in so doing, they have contributed enormously to world civilization.
We must not forget James Arnot Hamilton, who invented the wings of Concorde. Perhaps the minister will say what plans are in place for school parties to visit Concorde at the Museum of Flight in East Fortune. If I may say so, Dr Elaine Murray will always have a place in the history of the National Museums of Scotland. During the most recent election, I wrote to the First Minister to ask him to support the campaign for Concorde. For a long time, there was silence and then Dr Elaine Murray, on behalf of the First Minister, committed the Administration for all time coming to bring Concorde to Scotland. For that, we are all extremely grateful.
Inventiveness and creativity are an integral part of our national heritage. Our commitment to science education and sustainable development in the best interests of humanity should be absolute. As Louis Pasteur said:
"Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world."
I hope that the minister will remind ministers at Westminster about the long-term threat to Scotland as a result of global warming and the reluctance of major industrialised nations to recognise that reality. Patrick Harvie mentioned Albert Einstein, who said that those who know the truth have a duty to impart it.
I am delighted to endorse Dr Elaine Murray's enlightened motion, the aims of which should be supported whole-heartedly.
I, too, congratulate Elaine Murray on securing the debate. I look forward to attending the reception and awards ceremony this evening. I understand from my researcher, who has a PhD in geophysics—he normally blinds me with science—and who attended the workshops this afternoon, that there has been a great discussion between academics, advisers and parliamentary people. I look forward to joining that this evening.
I welcome the visitors in the public gallery. As my colleague Robert Brown said, the gallery has never been so full for a members' business debate. It is a privilege for me to have the University of Edinburgh's King's Buildings, the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh and Napier University's Merchiston campus in my constituency. I have tried for a number of years to build up links between politicians and scientists. I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the new centre for extreme conditions at King's Buildings. It was great to see that funding is being poured into research in such areas.
It is well documented that Scotland punches far above its weight on the international stage in terms of globally published research. With only 0.1 per cent of the world's population, we produce 1 per cent of research. That may not seem much, but it is one of the best figures globally. Winston Churchill once said:
"of all the small nations on the earth only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind."
That was true 80 years ago and it still applies today, thanks to the men and women who work in our universities and in the companies that put the research into commercial applications.
Some 95 per cent of science and engineering staff at Edinburgh are in units that were given a 5 rating in the 2001 research assessment exercise, which indicates research of national or international excellence. Tonight, I want to single out the departments of electronics and electrical engineering, pure maths, informatics and geography, which achieved an extra 5* accolade to highlight the fact that they are conducting research of international importance.
The Scottish Executive has played its part. In our 2003 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats committed to work towards intermediary technology institutes, which are now up and running in the areas of life sciences, energy and techmedia.
Does the member agree that, when the ITIs engage in the high-risk activities that we are encouraging them to engage in and they fail in one or two projects, there is an onus on politicians not to use the media to criticise them heavily?
I agree entirely with that comment.
The Executive has committed £450 million to the ITIs over the next ten years. The ITIs will build on Scotland's science research strengths and help to develop further the commercialisation of research to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the advances. Moreover, the provisions in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill will protect and ensure the future of science research in many of our great universities.
Sadly, the news is not all good. The take-up in science at school is still in decline. I was disappointed to find that only one Lothians primary school attended a recent science outreach event that was organised by the chemistry department at Edinburgh University. That said, an extra £18 million will be spent on science education by 2006 and the science curriculum will be redesigned by 2007 for all three to 18-year-olds. I hope that that will attract more pupils into science.
Such measures might result in something, but I believe that we must keep focusing our attention on this area. That might involve the academics reaching out more to the public or further action from the Executive, but I will continue to push this issue over the coming year. There are a great many projects out there such as SCI-FUN, which is attached to Edinburgh University, and Our Dynamic Earth across the road, but we need to get that best practice into all schools throughout Scotland. I hope that, with the science and the Parliament event 2005, more progress will be made on this issue.
Once again I congratulate all those who are involved in the event. In particular, I join Elaine Murray in congratulating Willie Rennie, who works tirelessly on the event every year. I look forward to a brighter future for science in Scotland.
Yet again, we have had an informative and interesting debate and I join members in congratulating Elaine Murray on securing it. As members who know me will testify—certainly my party colleagues Elaine Murray, Bristow Muldoon and Christine May will confirm this—I have a lifelong interest in science. Indeed, it is a family interest, and I said as much at the recent biotechnology industry dinner.
For me, responding to a parliamentary debate on the science agenda as part of the annual science and the Parliament event is as good as it gets. The Deputy First Minister will shortly address the event at Our Dynamic Earth and members are cordially invited to go along and hear more about the recent achievements of Scotland's scientists and to take the opportunity to meet leading members of the scientific community. Elaine Murray, Bristow Muldoon and I used to discuss these matters into the early hours of the morning, but it is fair to say that we have never had such a distinguished and erudite audience as we have for tonight's debate.
The science and the Parliament event is now firmly established in the parliamentary calendar. As members have pointed out, Scotland has a wonderful scientific tradition and it is right and proper that we continue to celebrate our successes, raise the profile of science, and provide a forum for scientists and MSPs to come together in this way. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was right to say that science is
"the torch which illuminates the world."
On a more parochial level, science is crucial to our future success as a knowledge economy. Increased investment is essential to achieve that aim, but we need to get that investment working as effectively as possible and to encourage funding from the private sector. Alex Neil was absolutely correct to point that out.
The UK Government's 10-year investment framework for science and innovation committed the Government to sustained and strong growth in science investment, which is of course welcome.
I am delighted that the minister acknowledges that we have a deficit in R and D investment in the private sector. What steps does he think the Executive can take to encourage such investment, especially given that Scotland tends to have a branch-factory type economy, which does not rely heavily on R and D and we therefore lose out in relation to the productivity gains, the science and the knowledge-based economy?
It is not all doom and gloom. It is certainly true that Scottish businesses spend proportionately less on R and D than do businesses in the rest of the UK, but the value of that investment almost doubled over the five years from 1997 to 2002. That is not to say that we do not want that value to increase even further in cash terms. One of the ways to achieve that is to increase R and D—and, dare I say it, headquartering more businesses here in Scotland is another means by which we might promote that sort of activity. With our impressive track record of winning research council funding, Scotland can be expected to gain disproportionately from that process.
We should not see private sector funding and R and D in isolation from state funding. In our spending review, we have provided what I think everyone will agree is a significant increase in funding to the higher education sector—it will be up by 23 per cent in real terms. We have to look at research funding as a whole and not simply in the silos of private sector versus public sector.
We can also report considerable progress on many aspects of our science strategy. The strategy overall sets out our clear and firm commitment that science matters. However, the strategy is now three years old and we need to take stock of how far we have met our ambitions. We therefore plan to publish a report on progress on the strategy in the spring, which will also set out where we are headed.
The science strategy covers all aspects of the way the Scottish Executive uses and manages science, including strengthening and promoting our research base, increasing commercialisation activity, improving science education and public awareness and ensuring that all our policies on science across the board are joined up.
Our science base is well funded, but it needs to operate more strategically. We need to grow more centres of research excellence and bring parts of the science base together to work on joint endeavours. That is of course one of the issues that the Scottish Science Advisory Committee is tackling. Also relevant is the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's initiative on research pooling, which I am pleased to report is making encouraging progress.
We need to build up our international profile on science and develop better research links. Ministers recognise their key role in promoting Scotland's capabilities beyond its borders, and opportunities to do so were exploited during recent visits by the First Minister to China and the Deputy First Minister to the United States of America.
We need to encourage greater investment in innovation and R and D. In the past year we have also provided increased funding for commercialisation and knowledge transfer through schemes such as our proof of concept fund, which was recognised in the "Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration" as a leading scheme within the UK. Annual surveys continue to show that, on many measures of commercialisation activity, Scotland continues to perform excellently, particularly in the biotechnology sector. However, that is not to say that we should be complacent: Robert Brown and Alex Neil are right.
We welcome the Scottish Science Advisory Committee's recent report on knowledge transfer, which notes that although investment by business in R and D has improved greatly in recent years, it continues to be relatively weak in Scotland. Global competition is intensifying, particularly from the far east, and Scotland needs to be more ready and willing to grow its knowledge base and, in turn, its knowledge economy.
We must encourage businesses and the higher education sector to take advantage of the opportunities. That requires—dare I say it—even greater collaboration between the two sectors. A number of bodies, including the Scottish Institute for Enterprise, the intermediary technology institutes, SHEFC and Scottish Enterprise, are working hard to promote that agenda. We intend to consider that agenda in more detail in our response to the recommendations of the Lambert review.
The Scottish Science Advisory Committee has now completed its first phase of operation and I wish it well as it enters a new phase, concentrating on the strategies required to reshape and prioritise funding and activity in the Scottish science base.
In the Further Education and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, there is a statutory requirement for the newly merged council to set up a research committee. I do not expect the minister to answer in detail tonight, but I ask him whether he will consider the division of responsibility and the relationship between the research committee and the Scottish Science Advisory Committee.
Yes. In the relatively short time in which I have been in this post, we have identified that as something that we want to examine.
The SSAC's report, "Why Science Education Matters", which was published last year, highlighted many of the continuing issues in this area. As part of the strategy, we have already provided £18 million to provide modern science education equipment in schools, to upskill teachers, and to boost continuing professional development provision.
The Education Department has been developing sophisticated work force planning arrangements to ensure that we have the right number of teachers for each and every subject. Those arrangements consider, among other things, the age profiles of teachers, which enables the rate of retirement of teachers to be considered so that the supply of training places can be increased. That applies as much to science as it does to any other area of teaching. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring members.
I assure Robert Brown that we will also examine all aspects of the science curriculum in the early stages of the curriculum review that was announced by Peter Peacock earlier this month. The review is part of a move to create a coherent curriculum that covers ages three to 18. Of course, science is the only subject area that is specifically targeted in this way.
Informal science education is a vital means of generating enthusiasm and interest in science. It is crucial if we are to turn science into the sort of attraction that it ought to be for our younger generation. We have therefore established, in our spending review, long-term funding to help our four science centres provide that service.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about a particular form of procurement. I am happy to report that we are actively seeking tenders in that regard and will shortly be in a position to make an announcement. I have no idea what provision is made to take children to see Concorde, but it sounds an extremely useful proposition that is worthy of further consideration. I will be happy to consider the issue in consort with colleagues in other departments.
We believe that our science strategy is on track to enable science to make a full contribution to our economic, social and environmental development in the years to come. However, this is a constantly evolving agenda and our efforts need to be sustained over the long term. The robust funding that we have provided in our recent spending review is a measure of the importance we attach to this agenda and the promotion of science more generally.
Meeting closed at 17:59.