Science
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-6972, in the name of Bill Wilson, on science and the Parliament, Wednesday 10 November 2010.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Science and the Parliament event that is scheduled to be held on 10 November 2010 in Our Dynamic Earth and organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry in association with Scotland’s leading science organisations; notes the contribution of Scotland’s scientists to economic, environmental and social development through the University of the West of Scotland and James Watt College and companies such as BASF and Life Technologies in Paisley; considers that Scotland is a world leader in many scientific disciplines, and recognises the need to foster an environment that enhances pupil and student participation in science, to sustain science research along with supporting greater industrial research and to assist in the practical application of world-beating research.
18:13
I am delighted to welcome the science and the Parliament event, to welcome representatives of Scotland’s scientific community to the chamber, and to introduce my members’ business debate. I am sure that I speak for most of my colleagues when I express regret that important stage 3 proceedings have prevented us from participating in today’s events, but members can still nip across to Our Dynamic Earth and pick up lots of useful information. I am holding up some information on chemistry; I use it as an example because I was asked to and because I was biased towards biology in the panel session earlier, so I am cancelling that out.
I hope that I speak for everyone when I say that Scotland should be proud of its scientific community. I expect that we shall hear this evening about how far above its weight Scotland punches in its scientific output. I could go on to list the many achievements of Scottish science and guess at those yet to come, but I am confident that my colleagues who follow in the debate will give examples of the former, although I am sure that even when they are finished speaking, many achievements will remain undescribed, for such is the impressive scope of Scottish science today.
I am a fortunate individual. I grew up when there were student grants, no fees for university and the number of working class individuals like me in our university system was steadily increasing.
Under the Tories.
I will just ignore that.
I would like to say that I was the first of my line to attend university, but sadly—or not sadly—it is not true, because I was the second. My mother started her university studies just two years before I did. As far as I can recall, I did not hear any of my peers, on bumping into a fellow student on Byres Road, start the conversation with the greeting, “Hi, Mum.”
I and countless others from working-class backgrounds were indeed fortunate. We could choose our courses without fear of financial ruin and we could aim to build careers around what we actually wanted to do. We could dream of making a contribution to society even if the personal financial benefits were limited. Many did so. I have friends with two or three degrees who have spent their lives working for charities and environmental groups, who throughout their careers have never earned much more than the median income, but who work for the love of their work and who, having no great debts, did not fear to do so. Will charities and non-governmental organisations still find such people when individuals have to incur such debt at the outset?
Society, too, was fortunate, but as debts mount, what might society lose? If my colleagues were attending university today, would they make the same choices? Faced with horrendous debt, does a lifetime working for a better environment still appear to be a practical choice, however admirable it may be? What about future researchers? I recall an estimate in New Scientist that studying for an PhD costs one in excess of £100,000 in lifetime income when compared with those who seek employment on graduation. How many able researchers might we lose when people are faced with such a loss and in comparison with such debt?
However, I would argue that the loss to society will be rather greater than that. When athletics became amateur, the performances declined. Roger Bannister was not necessarily the first man to run a four-minute mile: he was just the first amateur to do it. James Parrott, who was a professional athlete, has been credited with breaking the so-called barrier in 1770. An athlete called Powell might well have done so in 1787, and one called Weller in 1796. After the Victorians excluded from athletics and other sports anyone who was not an amateur—in other words, anyone who was poor—it took a long time for performances to recover. Athletics became the exclusive preserve of the wealthy.
What will be the effect of increasing debt on working-class recruitment to universities? If the pool shrinks, what will be the effect on the quality of our research and innovative thinking? Gender inequality damages society because it limits the pool of talent. Financial inequality damages society for precisely the same reasons.
However, that is not the limit of my concerns. I have two more. The first is an increasing emphasis on education as a tool to prepare one for employment, at the cost of what I believe is a fundamental principle that was once held as a divine truth among the Scots. It is the very reason why we were the first in the world to introduce comprehensive education: namely, that education is of value in itself, that the broadening of the mind, the training in logical thought and the ability to question and dispute are important, and that the existence in our society of individuals who are so trained is of benefit to society as a whole.
While I am on the topic of we Scots being the first to introduce comprehensive education, let me remind members where that led. Let me quote Voltaire:
“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
Why could Voltaire say such a thing? It is because Scotland, for all that it is not a particularly large nation, led the world in so many fields. Why did we do so? We did so because we had comprehensive education, and that meant that our pool of talent was so much larger than that of any other nation. Consider that, politicians and principals, when arguing for ever-greater burdens of debt.
My second concern—my goodness, I am in a cheerful and uplifting mood tonight—is that alongside the emphasis on education not being of value in itself, but being valuable only as a means to finding employment, is the argument that research must be directly related to the business needs of today. It is argued that we need to tie our research and our business ever more closely, to encourage greater business investment in science, and to alter our financial world to build a stronger relationship.
Of course we need to encourage greater investment in research. There is no question about that. No one would dispute it. That is good. However, as a society, if that is the only way in which we fund our research, if we narrow our objectives to focus on tomorrow, next year or the year after, then caveat emptor—buyer beware. Short-termism in science does not bring the biggest rewards. Blue sky may look esoteric today—and pretty rare in the Scottish winter—but if we want to be leaders tomorrow, then unconstrained speculative exploration is a must. Of course, some blue-skies research might lead nowhere, but when we see no joy in knowledge for knowledge’s sake, we are all the poorer for it.
The point here is that we do not know where ideas might lead. Laser technology is an excellent example of what was initially—apparently—useless and curiosity-driven research. Who would have guessed what Albert Einstein’s description of stimulated emissions in 1917 and Kastler, Brossel and Winter’s work on optical pumping in the early 1950s would lead to? Would those who are calling for funding to be restricted to narrow, short-term and results-focused research like to hand back their DVD players, have their laser surgery reversed and return all the bar coded items that they own?
The pleasures of applied research to politicians are great. Look what jobs we generate. Look what trade balances we have. But those are the joys of today. What of tomorrow?
Now, wha this tale o’ truth shall read,
Ilka man and mither’s son, tak heed:
Whene’er to CUTS you are inclin’d,
Or APPLIED RESEARCH rins in yir min,
Think ye may buy the joys ower dear;
Remember Tam o Shanter’s mare.
I thought that we would finish on a lighter note.
Before we move to the open debate, I point out to members that Parliament has to finish at 7 o’clock—there is no possibility of altering that time. Therefore, members are strictly limited to four minutes. Even at that, I will not be able to get everyone in, so anyone who wishes to take less than four minutes is very welcome to do so.
18:20
I congratulate Bill Wilson on securing this debate to coincide with the science and the Parliament event at Our Dynamic Earth today. I welcome to the gallery all those who are attending from the north-east who have contacted me about today’s event and this debate, including Dr Janice Drew from the Rowett institute of nutrition and health and Gordon Doig from the Institute of Physics in Scotland.
At the beginning of this session of Parliament, the Scottish National Party Government identified life sciences and energy as two of the areas that could help to drive forward economic growth. Both those sectors rely on science and engineering; they rely on strong research and development in the companies in the sectors and they require our universities and colleges to come up with innovative solutions and to work together with industry to ensure that the sectors grow in our economy.
Bill Wilson mentions in his motion the good work of the higher and further education institutions in the West of Scotland. I would not stand here and not commend to the chamber the immensely innovative work of the University of Aberdeen and its institute of medical science, the Robert Gordon University, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, the Scottish Agricultural College, the University of Dundee’s college of life sciences and the University of Abertay Dundee’s computing science departments. In medical research, science and engineering and the environment, all those institutions play vital roles.
So, too, do our colleges, which provide us with many higher national certificate and higher national diploma students who might go on to further study. They also provide the practical and technical support in our higher education and research establishments. Many colleges also produce apprentices for our industries, such as for Score Energy Ltd in Peterhead, which has contracts all over the world.
That leads me to schools. I believe passionately that curriculum for excellence provides a marvellous opportunity for teachers to ignite in many more pupils the excitement of STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects. In some quarters, such subjects are seen as being dry and perhaps too difficult, but I believe that that view is based on ignorance and is not justifiable. Curriculum for excellence gives us an opportunity to instil in all our young people from an early age the relevance of, and a fascination for, science, which can be related to so many other subjects and can be taught in a collaborative way.
If we combine learning that Scotland has produced so many renowned scientists and innovators with delving in some depth into what they studied, produced and invented, I am positive that many more youngsters, including females, would choose STEM subjects. If my teachers had explained that angles in geometry related to the aerodynamics and design of sports cars, a spark might have been lit in me and I might have chosen a completely different career path. That work must be done in primary schools. In my view, it is too late to do it when youngsters are making subject choices in secondary school. That is why the work of the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology is so important, as are the facilities that are offered by places such as the Satrosphere science centre in Aberdeen and Dundee Science Centre for visiting school groups and family days out. Techfest, which is supported by so many of our businesses located in the north-east, is eagerly awaited each year by our schools.
I am sorry. Your time is up.
18:24
Given the time pressure, I will try to be brief. I congratulate Bill Wilson on securing the debate. The annual science and the Parliament event has been a great success over many years. It is always well attended by the scientific community but, unfortunately, external events such as by-elections and stage 3 debates have in some years inhibited MSPs’ attendance. Sadly, that has been the case this year.
I have been happy to be associated with the event as a sponsor for several years. As always, I thank the Royal Society of Chemistry for initiating this celebration of Scottish science and organising the event effectively every year.
The contribution of Scotland’s scientists—James Clerk Maxwell, James Watt, John Logie Baird and Alexander Fleming, to mention just a few—to the nation’s international reputation is well known. It is important that we celebrate and widely recognise the fact that that success continues. In 2008, Scottish universities’ research in biological and clinical sciences was assessed as being world class. We were also assessed as having significant strength in the physical sciences sector.
Those successes have fuelled the contribution of Scotland’s life sciences sector to the Scottish economy, for example. I say to Maureen Watt that I know that the Government recognises the importance of the life sciences; so did the previous Government, which identified the life sciences as a key sector when Wendy Alexander was the minister with responsibility for enterprise. The physics-based science sector also contributes significantly to the Scottish economy—about £8 billion annually.
The economic climate and the cuts that the comprehensive spending review has imposed present considerable problems for maintaining and expanding on those successes. It is unsurprising that Scottish universities anxiously await details of how the ever-widening funding gap between Scottish and English universities is to be addressed.
Funding shortages could present a particular problem for the sciences in Scotland. Science and engineering degrees are more expensive to provide than those in many other subjects. Universities compensate for the comparatively low level of investment in research and development by business, which carries a significant cost to universities. We need to consider how we will continue to enable funding to be provided for science and engineering degrees and for postgraduate research. Funding is probably the key pressure that Scotland’s universities face.
If continuity of funding is necessary to maintain our science expertise, so is the supply of scientists in the future. Scotland is among the top four countries in the world for research output in physics—I believe that that is because of the significant contribution from the Scottish universities physics alliance, which gets universities to work together—yet the Institute of Physics in Scotland remains concerned that the number of young people who choose to study physics to higher level has fallen over a period of years.
Much good work is being done to stimulate the interest of primary-age pupils in science. That needs to be sustained over their school careers, and I hope that the curriculum for excellence will succeed in achieving that. I thank the cabinet secretary for organising for me a meeting with the principal scientific officer to discuss that in the summer.
Girls often perform better than boys in science subjects at school, but young women continue to be underrepresented in science and engineering at university. Women scientists are more likely to leave science than are their male counterparts. More than two thirds of the women who are qualified in science, engineering and technology do not work in that sector. The reasons for that are many and complex, but if we want the highest-quality scientists to be available in Scotland we must address the gender inequality issues, as well as the attractiveness of science overall.
18:28
I, too, thank Bill Wilson for promoting and securing the discussion. I say “discussion” because a great division between members is unlikely. I felt the sincerity and commitment that informed his speech—I hope that he does not find that comment in any way patronising. His speech was thoughtful and thought provoking. I might not accept the speech in total, but it was fascinating in the round.
I congratulate the Royal Society of Chemistry on its further success—I gather that today’s event is the 10th—and on its reception, from which I have just come. The event had a remarkable collection of speakers, including members such as my colleague Alex Johnstone, who was involved earlier today, and—most agreeably—a number of award winners, who were pupils with excellent performance grades in physics, advanced physics, biology, chemistry and advanced chemistry.
When I was over at Our Dynamic Earth, I was drawn to an experiment in which my colleague John Lamont—among others in the course of the day—was set on fire. That is something that many members may want to be able to do. He entrusted his jacket and specs to me when the exercise was undertaken, but he was slightly more circumspect about giving over his wallet.
Given the emphasis on young people, I was particularly drawn to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry sponsorship of the young engineers and science clubs in which many schools around the country participate. On this occasion I was particularly delighted, because the young people had been involved in constructing a full working model of a Dalek. I have to confess that I am the owner of a fully operational Dalek—a full-sized, talking model. The minister smiles, but when I hear some of his colleagues talking in a very staccato manner during debates, I am immediately drawn to the idea that I am facing the Daleks of the front bench. I do not accuse the minister of that; clearly, he is more of a Master than a Dalek.
The young people to whom I refer are worth celebrating, although it has to be said that, of themselves, they do not offer the required response to the challenge that Scottish employers are articulating, which is that of encouraging Government to use all available levers to encourage pupils to continue their science and mathematics studies through school and into further and higher education. In short, we must reverse the apparent dearth of science, technology, engineering and mathematics students.
Given the recession and the potential for rising youth unemployment, it is inarguable that we need to encourage students in this field. Why? Because, as the Royal Society of Chemistry says in its excellent briefing, chemistry research generates 21 per cent of our gross domestic product and supports 20 per cent of jobs, thereby generating some £3.5 billion of manufacturing exports and a revenue stream that is worth some £9.3 billion. That is supported by some 150 Scottish chemical companies, all of which are punching above their weight—an expression that Bill Wilson himself used. As the RSC points out rather tellingly, we need this new research not least because the Scottish Parliament has adopted legislatively enforceable targets for carbon emission reductions. We have set the ambitious target for renewable generation of 80 per cent by 2020. Thus far, I am not persuaded that we know how we will achieve that. We will have to rely to an extent on new science developments in future years. Indeed, we will have to do that sooner rather than later if we want to avoid some of the unpalatable and politically unsupportable options that we will have to canvass and potentially progress. We should encourage at every level the development of science and research in Scotland.
Again, I congratulate Bill Wilson. As we debate the subject of science in Parliament and schools, I know that he will have at the forefront of his mind those who entered our trade from a science background, most notably Margaret Thatcher, a woman who clearly understood all of Bill Wilson’s many educational needs. What better role model could we cite tonight?
18:32
I, too, congratulate Bill Wilson on securing this members’ business debate.
In his motion, Bill Wilson
“recognises the need to foster an environment that enhances pupil and student participation in science”.
Of course, those students will be both male and female. I think that it is generally recognised that it is somewhat difficult to get many young female students to go into science and technology. I will therefore use the time that I have this afternoon to highlight a group that is based at Edinburgh Napier University: the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology, which is referred to as the SRC. The SRC works to create sustainable change in the participation of women in science, engineering, technology and the built environment sectors in Scotland. It does that by campaigning to change employment practices and workplace cultures to support gender equality. I think that we all agree that women are particularly underrepresented in this area of the economy. Other members have referred to that in their speeches. Many women leave the workplace to have a family. The SRC is trying to support the recruitment, retention and success of women and their return to the workplace in order to address that underrepresentation.
As I said, the SRC is based at Edinburgh Napier University where it works with employers to increase family-friendly opportunities for women who work in the fields of science, engineering and technology. In addition, it encourages students and apprenticeships in construction and delivers equality and diversity training to change workplace cultures. The SRC encourages women who have SET qualifications and supports them in progressing in the science, engineering and technology sectors of the economy. It also encourages women students to try to develop networks in SET that will support their career development.
The SRC believes that change is necessary to ensure that Scotland makes full use of its available talent. An increase in female pupils and student participation in science would impact on future levels of women in senior scientific, academic and industrial roles. It seems incredible, but currently 68 per cent of women who have qualified in science, engineering or technology are not employed in those areas. The loss to the United Kingdom economy of all of the women who have such qualifications and are not working in their area of qualification, have become unemployed or who remain inactive has been estimated at the considerable sum of £2 billion a year. We in Scotland need to do more.
The Scottish resource centre for women in SET is asking the Scottish Government to do a number of things. I will highlight just one or two of them. First, the SRC wants the Scottish Government to encourage Scottish universities to participate in the Athena SWAN programme, which is aimed at bringing more women into SET. The SRC says that science cannot reach its full potential unless it can benefit from the talents of the whole population and until women and men can benefit equally from the opportunities that it affords. Secondly, it asks that all modern apprenticeships be promoted equally to men and women of all ages. Careers advice services need to do more to increase equality and diversity when they give advice. Finally, it asks the Scottish Government to encourage employers to introduce flexible working for staff at all levels, to provide quality part-time employment opportunities and to reduce the long working hours culture that is prevalent in science.
I am sure that the minister will be aware of most of those issues. However, as in other areas of our economy and culture, we need to ensure that women get the same opportunities as men in the important field of science, engineering and technology.
18:36
I add my congratulations to Bill Wilson, not only on bringing the debate to the chamber but also on his speech, especially his comments on the value of free education and public investment in pure science. Both of those important areas will be under increasing attack. Today, London has seen one expression of the justified anger against that attack; I am sure that it will not be the last.
I want to make two broad points. The first concerns evidence-based policy, which has become a catchphrase that is a little bit too easy to use. Just today, we saw a debate in which the two largest parties brought to the Parliament new ideas for policy measures on alcohol but in which each attacked the other based on thin evidence. Evidence-based policy is important, but it is only one factor. We should not be afraid of testing a new idea simply on the basis that it has not yet been tried. Anything that has not yet been tried will be subject to criticism that there is not enough evidence, but if we argue that evidence-based policy is the only requirement, we will end up with inherently conservative approaches to every subject.
However, if evidence-based policy were given the status that we say it should be given, in each of our political parties, right across the spectrum, we would have reached for our copy of “The Spirit Level”, looked at the objective evidence for more economic equality and social solidarity, and brought those concepts front and centre in our political response to the unprecedented free- market failure of recent years. That has not happened. We must ask what the place of objective, evidence-based policy is if we have failed to listen to the arguments that are outlined in “The Spirit Level”.
My second point concerns the
“pupil and student participation in science”
to which the motion refers. Currently, there is a threat to the participation of pupils, in particular, in science. The place of a scientific world view is generally agreed by all, yet that fundamental world view is under attack.
I congratulate the bloggers of “The Twenty-first Floor” for drawing attention to the fact that, recently, an organisation called the Centre for Intelligent Design opened in Glasgow. The group’s director is quoted in The Herald as saying that
“it was ‘inevitable’ that the debate would make its way into schools”
and
“that he had already been asked to speak in Scottish schools, and agreed to do so.”
In the same article, a Scottish Government spokesman is quoted as stating only that
“we do not recognise the teaching of intelligent design in a scientific context”.
In their responses, neither the Government nor Learning and Teaching Scotland give any indication that they have in place measures to prevent that material from entering schools.
It is some 85 years since the Scopes monkey trial in the US. In that country, the politics of wilful stupidity and ignorance have a modern vehicle in the tea party movement. We must not allow those kinds of ideas to gain a foothold in this country. There is a clear need for ministers to go further than they have gone so far and to tell us—I hope that the minister will do so today—how they intend to prevent the use in schools of materials of that sort, which promote the absurd nonsense of intelligent design and creationism, with the intention of undermining the scientific world view and keeping our children stupid. [Applause.]
Order. No interventions from the public gallery, please.
18:40
It is nice to get a clap before starting.
This is a spontaneous contribution. It is many years since I did my highers in physics and chemistry, but it is not so long since my son’s MSc in chemistry and a PhD in a physics-related subject. His experiences in research and development are not the subject of a special pleading; they reflect much of what is going on in research and development, which I will address.
The last three lines of Bill Wilson’s excellent motion, on which I congratulate him, read:
“to sustain science research along with supporting greater industrial research and to assist in the practical application of world-beating research.”
Judging from the experience of my son and his university colleagues—which I think is repeated elsewhere—it is extremely difficult for people working in research and development to obtain funding and support for pure research with no industrial connection, or even to find support to go into contracts for practical applications of technology.
My son’s area of research and development is very attractive, as it is in the green development of sustainable energy, but his colleagues find things extremely difficult. They have to prepare business cases, the process is fraught, projects become mired in difficulty and they have to battle for funding while protecting their intellectual property. They tend to work on short-term contracts. Therefore, there is a great temptation for many of them to quit the shores of Scotland and go elsewhere—to Canada, New Zealand or Australia, where research and development for their own sake, as well as their practical applications, are valued.
That is the only issue that I wished to bring to the Parliament’s attention in this spur-of-the-moment speech—it is rather like a long intervention—but I would like the minister to comment on it. It is an issue that has been raised many times. With the failure of the business community to understand the language of the science community and those in the science community having to prepare business cases without support, people are deserting our shores for elsewhere.
18:42
I congratulate the Royal Society of Chemistry on hosting today’s popular event. I extend a warm welcome to the representatives of Scotland’s scientific community who are here this evening.
I am not a scientist—I studied humanities—but one of my first jobs was at the Royal Greenwich observatory in Sussex. Despite being a member of the administrative staff, I was encouraged to attend lectures by the scientists, and it was there, not at school, where I discovered the fascinating worlds of astronomy and physics.
I did study science at school, but I was cursed to have a physics teacher who refused to answer any questions from the two girls in his higher class. He thought that girls were not suited to studying physics. On reflection, I do not think that he was suited to teaching.
My daughter assures me that it is all different nowadays and that she owes a lot to the physics department at Ellon academy, which supported and encouraged her interest in physics. I am glad to hear it.
Events such as science and the Parliament provide useful reminders to politicians that scientific understanding and innovation are central to our country’s progress. If we are to develop technical, sustainable solutions for tomorrow’s world, we must not lose sight of that message in these difficult times. We must sustain and develop our science base. Our role as politicians is surely to demonstrate that we understand that need, to show that we value our scientists and to do all that we can to support investment in science. We need sustained investment in our people, in our universities and in our research establishments, and we need to foster collaboration with the private sector.
There are so many areas in which science plays a role in society, including energy, food, climate change, human health, the management of finite resources and even the infrastructure of our cities. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on climate change, I am acutely aware that if we are to tackle the world’s most pressing problem, we will need to rely on the brightest scientific minds.
As an MSP for North East Scotland, I am privileged to represent a region that contributes so much to scientific knowledge. The world’s first medical school was established in Aberdeen in the 15th century, at King’s College, and the four universities in Aberdeen and Dundee, alongside institutes such as the SAC, the Macaulay Institute, the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the Rowett institute, have all continued that tradition of scientific excellence.
In Dundee, scientists from more than 52 countries are employed in biotechnology and more than 4,000 people work in the sector—that is 16 per cent of the local economy. If we add the pharmaceuticals industry in Montrose and the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen—city and shire—we can see that many of my constituents are employed in science, engineering and technology.
All is not well in the scientific community, as we have heard. I will use the little time that I have to focus on the gender imbalance that still exists. As women who have chosen to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduate and progress in their careers, they are far more likely to leave the science and technology sectors than are men. Their leaving represents a loss of return on the investment in their education, a loss of talent for the sector and a loss of individuals’ personal investment in their science and technology education. The effect is to create a gender-segregated workforce, which does not represent the general population or draw in diverse talents and is not attractive and welcoming to women.
Many factors contribute to the underrepresentation of women in SET. We have heard about such factors during the debate. I commend the work of the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology. The Institute of Physics also has a good record in the area.
I lay down a challenge to Universities Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Each of those institutions can make a real difference, but if they work together they can bring about a sea change and ensure that young women scientists have a fair chance to play their part in the scientific advances of the future. I hope that they take up the challenge.
18:46
I congratulate Bill Wilson on his motion and on his excellent speech. Rarely do we get such good-quality philosophy in the Parliament—we would be a great deal better off if we did. If we work out why we are doing things, it is much easier to get the right answer. I welcome the large number of visitors to the gallery. I will address my final remarks to them.
Like Alison McInnes, I represent the north-east. The area has a wonderful academic record, but I cannot but reflect on the fact that its record was once even better. Members will have to look in the history books—there is a challenge. Once upon a time, the two universities in Aberdeen and the one in Fraserburgh meant that there were more universities in north-east Scotland than there were in the whole of England. Members should feel free to go and look that up.
There is one point that I want to make before I leave the floor to other members, so that they can talk about issues that concern them. I went through the biographies of the 129 members of the Scottish Parliament, to find out how many of us have a scientific background. I was happy to use a wide definition of science. In the list of engineers I was happy to include members who are skilled with the tools. In the list of people who studied science I included people who had studied psychology, of course. I also included our three medical doctors, who are well known to us all. However, I was able to find only 19 members out of 129 who have any kind of post-school experience in science.
I do not hold members’ lack of experience of science against them. In no sense do I want to disparage members who have studied other subjects, which are important. However, the level of understanding of science is probably less than the Parliament could sensibly use. It is probably fair to say that we have more lawyers than scientists.
Hooray!
I have nothing whatever against lawyers, or members who studied law but never became lawyers, but I wonder whether we could do with a few more members who have experience of science.
My challenge, not just to the scientists in the gallery but to those who might be listening in another medium, is this: “Why are not some of you here? Your Parliament needs you.”
18:49
We have not managed to cover in the debate many issues that were aired during this afternoon’s panel discussion at Our Dynamic Earth. One of the most important of those is the relationship between Government policy for science, as stated, and what the Government can do to push its policy forward.
The Government needs to think about how it can push its policy forward. From debates such as this and from the panel discussion that we had this afternoon, the Government can see clearly what needs to be done but finds that it does not have all the tools to push investment in the right direction. I am talking about not only the present Government but Governments in general—the next Government and the one after that.
Councils have complete control over education—we do not have a nationally set curriculum—so how do we get schools and education departments in local councils to finance the teaching of science in schools to the levels that we would like?
We heard this afternoon about a shortage of technicians in schools. If we do not have technicians, we cannot have the number of live experiments—which are the best way of learning any science—that the children should be engaged in. My contribution to this afternoon’s discussion was that I had learned recently that, in a risk-averse society, experimentation in science is actually discouraged in some schools. Fume cupboards cannot be used and even Bunsen burners have to be used under close supervision.
How do we get local councils to see how important science teaching is and how important it is to support it? One view that I hold—I am not talking about my party’s position—is that we should introduce ring fencing, or at least provide a lump of money that schools can bid for, to improve the teaching of science in schools. If schools see that money is available, they will bid for it.
It is the same with the universities. The funding for them goes through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and—quite rightly, in a sense—the Government does not interfere too much in that. However, if we want to support science in universities and colleges, one way that we can do so is to make sums of money available as—
I am afraid that the member’s time is up.
18:52
I congratulate Bill Wilson on securing the debate and thank every member for contributing to it in an interesting fashion.
I found out only one startling thing this evening. I already knew that Jackson Carlaw admired Margaret Thatcher; I did not know that he had a full-scale, working Dalek. Strangely, those two seem to go together rather well.
This annual science in the Parliament event is a welcome opportunity for the science community to come together with parliamentarians and policy makers to consider the role of science in our economy. I am grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for its work in orchestrating the event so effectively, and I am pleased that many people who were at the event—and, I presume, are going back for a drink later on—are present this evening.
I am sorry that no minister could be present this afternoon, but there was pressing parliamentary business. It was nothing quite so pressing as the prospect of setting other MSPs on fire, but I was not told that that was one of the options available to me. Nonetheless, I am glad that people are here.
I will address briefly some of the remarks that other members made before I make one or two points myself.
Nigel Don did not demonstrate good scientific method in his research. He looked only at the post-school careers the individual members have followed; he did not delve into the details of their qualifications. In my first year at university, I took a course in sciences and found it absolutely fascinating. It built on the work that I had done at school in physics and biology. Indeed, I found it so fascinating that I was tempted for a while to become a meteorologist, which might have changed my career trajectory completely.
I find myself in the position of holding the science portfolio in the Scottish Government. I wanted to reply to this debate because that portfolio is an important part of the work that I do and I am keen to support, encourage and assist science in Scotland, even in times of difficulty. I will illustrate in a minute or two some of the things that we are doing.
The points that Elaine Murray, Mike Pringle and Alison McInnes made about the gender difficulties are well taken. The chief scientific adviser, Professor Anne Glover, raises the matter with me regularly. Discussion took place with Elaine Murray during the summer, and I am keen that other members be involved in that, because there is a genuine recruitment and retention issue to address.
I think that some of the answers lie in curriculum for excellence and the work that we are doing in schools. Drawing together subjects in a much more interrelated approach to education will assist, as will the much more exciting and interesting courses to which that will lead. I am hopeful that that will make a difference.
I say to Patrick Harvie that I can and will distinguish between belief and scientific fact; that is absolutely what I should do. However, I will not be a censor or forbid people from holding opinions or beliefs. I recognise where the lines lie, but I felt that Patrick Harvie moved rather far towards condemning people for their beliefs. I am clear that belief is not to be confused with scientific fact—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I want to make progress, and I do not have much time.
I just wanted to make that point, because it is important.
In response to Christine Grahame’s speech, I accept that the work of the Scottish funding council is germane in this regard. We should bring together business and science, and encourage an interrelationship. I accept the strictures that Bill Wilson mentioned with regard to focusing only on applicable research, but there should be a better combination.
This year I have had the privilege of visiting a number of companies that have had assistance from the Scottish funding council and from universities to work with PhD and post-doctoral students. Two of those companies in particular stick in my mind. One is Flextricity, which is a company that is a virtual power station. If members do not understand that concept—as I did not until I went—they should go and see the work that a number of PhD students from the University of Edinburgh are doing with that most exciting technological company. The second company is Toshiba Medical Visualization Systems Europe, which has an international centre based in Edinburgh. It has a very close business relationship with universities in Scotland, which is very encouraging and works extremely well.
It is clear that there will be concern in the scientific community—as there is throughout Scotland—about the outcomes of the United Kingdom spending review. That review froze resource spending in the UK’s science budget, which was not as bad as had been feared, but which nonetheless amounts to a real-terms cut of 10 per cent over the spending review period. The impact of that will be felt everywhere in the United Kingdom, and certainly in Scotland, given that we secured 12 per cent of UK research council funding.
The cuts on capital spending will be severe and could translate into a cost of around £25 million in Scotland, in that one area alone. I discussed those issues with the deans of science—whom I meet regularly—just last week, and I am focused on ensuring that we get the best deal that we can for science and technology in Scotland.
We will publish our own draft budget next week. I cannot go into any detail on it now, but there are some very hard choices to make and everyone will be touched. Those choices are forced on us as a result of the 11 per cent cut in the Scottish budget in real terms during the next four years. In making our choices, members can be sure that ministers will recognise that the science base in Scotland is a very valuable asset to our economy. I take Bill Wilson’s point that it is also valuable to our wider intellectual life. We will therefore aim to maximise the contribution of Scotland’s world-class science base to economic recovery.
Our research base, like any other sector, must face up to the challenge of becoming more efficient and delivering best value for money. However, as a responsible minister, I recognise how important it is.
We set out our strategic framework for science in 2008, which contained our vision of a Scotland that is a magnet for talent and investment and a powerhouse of technology, innovation, enterprise and—yes—ideas. I think that our science base is achieving that.
An independent study that was published earlier this year showed that we continue to lead the world on many indicators, particularly in research quality. Scotland’s research is number 1 in the world in terms of its citations per gross domestic product. That thought is so good that I will express it in another way just to repeat it: we are ahead of all other nations of the world in our research quality in relation to GDP. It perhaps comes as a slight let-down to say that we are only second in the world in terms of citations per paper.
Those are astonishing achievements for this country, and they have been sustained over a considerable period of time. However, they are not the only indicators of success. We are forming highly influential partnerships with world research leaders. The link-up last week between the University of Glasgow and New York’s Columbia University is an example of that. The University of Strathclyde has a hugely important science link with Caltech and Stanford University, and we have more than 40 of our fundamental physicists working at CERN. Next month, a group of teachers and schoolchildren will visit that model of high-tech activity to be inspired and, I hope, provide inspiration.
That brings me to the next generation. We have our action plan on science and engineering education and, through our science centres and other science engagement programmes, we focus on supporting others. The uptake of science in our universities is on an upward trend. There has been an overall growth of 14 per cent and a growth of 40 per cent in physical sciences and 60 per cent in biological sciences.
I could go on, but the clock has caught me. That great scientific invention means that I must sit down. Science is taken seriously by this Government and, on the evidence of this evening’s debate, by the chamber, too.
Meeting closed at 19:00.