“Science for Scotland”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3728, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on "Science for Scotland". I call Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move the motion.
Scotland has a tremendous scientific past that we can rightly be proud of and celebrate. However, the excellence of our scientific present is something that we should be more aware of, and that we should shout about. Our current scientific achievement is remarkable for a nation of our size. We are first in the world for the number of research citations in relation to our gross domestic product. Our market share of science funding in the United Kingdom grew faster—to 14.2 per cent, which was up nearly 2.5 per cent—than the market share in any other part of the UK last year. In the recent UK research assessment exercise, more than half the assessed research in Scotland was rated as being either internationally excellent or world-leading.
Furthermore, we are increasingly successful in attracting a wealth of new international talent, largely as a result of our investment in research pooling. We also have some world-class infrastructure. For instance, the high-end computing terascale resource—HECTOR—at the University of Edinburgh is the UK's largest computer and is among the largest in the world. In addition, we heard only today of a breakthrough by Edinburgh and Manchester scientists that will bring superfast quantum computers a step closer.
We have recently seen new international investment in science-based businesses. For instance, last month, Schering-Plough Ltd announced a $30 million investment in drug discovery at its Newhouse facility. In many areas of science, we are among the world leaders in terms of quality—in life sciences, energy and computational science to name just three. The recent announcement by Professor Sir Ian Wilmut on stem cell research, which offers the prospect of using non-embryonic stem cell lines, is another fantastic example of our contribution to world science.
In January, the energy research partnership, a consortium of Scottish universities, won £20 million of funding from the UK's Energy Technologies Institute for research into wave and wind power technologies. There is already much that we can build on, but we cannot afford to stand still. Yesterday's developing nations are becoming today's knowledge economy nations, so we must be ambitious for Scotland. We must be ready for the economic upturn when it comes, and "Science for Scotland" sets out how we can do that.
A debate on the science framework is also very timely. The global economic position has worsened, so we must consider even more urgently how science can contribute to economic recovery, as is being recognised by many countries. In January, we set out our economic recovery plan, which includes support for several investments in the science base, such as increased investment in the Edinburgh BioQuarter. The science framework supports the economic recovery plan and will help Scotland to get into better economic shape so that it is ready to take advantage of better times.
In this debate, we have an opportunity for the whole Parliament to send out a clear statement of its support for science. I know that many people in Scotland will be listening to how Parliament discusses the issues today.
The science framework sets out a clear and ambitious vision of where we think Scotland should be. It states:
"Our vision is of a nation of world-class scientific achievement, a magnet for talent and for investment, a powerhouse of technology innovation and enterprise, increasing sustainable economic growth."
We need to set our sights high, and that vision is not a castle in the sky, but something that Scotland is already a long way towards achieving.
I acknowledge the work of the previous Executive, whose science strategy, which was published in 2001, ensured that science was given a higher profile, and laid good foundations for the current science framework. The science community will be looking to see how politicians use the debate and will note how Labour members want to use it as a constitutional political football.
"Science for Scotland" is a common reference point for the science base. It sets out a common vision and enables our public agencies to pull together. I will comment briefly on the plans in "Science for Scotland", which appear under five main headings, and the progress that we are making on them.
Under the first heading—"Developing Individuals"—the framework recognises that we need a good supply of trained individuals that matches the demands of the economy if growth is not to be held back. Given that science-related sectors are projected to grow more than others are over the next 10 years, parents and teachers need to consider promoting science-related careers. We also need to challenge commonly held perceptions about such careers, which is why I launched a new campaign—do something creative, do science—that will run for three months. Today I met pupils of Lenzie academy, who won a UK science challenge competition by designing a superaccurate ping-pong ball firer.
On the Conservative amendment, members might wish to know that entries for higher and advanced higher science subjects increased across the board in 2008. Reports that Govan high school has abandoned all science subjects are simply inaccurate: the school is offering higher chemistry this year and plans to offer higher physics in 2009-10. We had some disappointing news on school science in the recent trends in international mathematics and science study—TIMSS—which showed a worrying weakening in our performance against international benchmarks for the period 2003 to 2007. Therefore, we will take no lectures on science education from Labour—the party that presided over the period when Scotland was overtaken by others. To tackle those challenges in school education, I will convene a summit on science education chaired by Sir Andrew Cubie in May to discuss how we can improve our performance.
The Liberal Democrats' amendment makes a point that has been consistently pushed by them. I acknowledge that, as in many walks of life, debate on the importance of science tends to focus on traditional measures of success, existing references and rigid power structures. I agree with the amendment that such measures do not always work for women. After Margaret Smith raised the same point in committee recently, I responded by raising the issues both in person and in writing with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. I should also point out that we have some great women scientists, who have produced some of the RAE's most exciting results in chemistry. I was lucky enough last year to meet one of the University of Edinburgh's rising stars, Dr Polly Arnold, who is recognised as one of Britain's most creative chemists and who has built a growing reputation for her research into heavy metals.
"Scientific Research" is the second heading in the framework. When the UK minister, John Denham, told me at a recent meeting that Scotland receives a disproportionate amount of UK research council allocations, I told him that our share was perfectly in proportion to our talents. I have recently discussed the issue with the chair of Research Councils UK, Professor Ian Diamond, and I will have a meeting with the UK science minister, Lord Drayson.
Science research cuts across national and international boundaries, so let me come to Labour's amendment. Despite the importance of science, Labour has tried to hijack the debate to promote a constitutional argument for party means. [Laughter.] If Labour acknowledges that knowledge and research know no boundaries, why on earth should not Scotland be strengthened, either now or through independence, by the rest of the UK science base, as happens in the Nordic Council arrangement? Why stop there? Scotland is strengthened by the European science base, given the £20 million in funding that has been provided for the Energy Technologies Institute. Next month, I will go to China to advance Scotland's interests as part of the global science base.
The third heading in the framework is "Economic and Business Demand". Business demand for science is a real challenge because it remains very weak. In Scotland, business expenditure on research and development runs at less than half the UK rate which is, in turn, lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. OECD studies confirm that R and D is the optimum driver of economic growth, but in the current economic climate, the pressures on R and D budgets will become even greater. We are determined to do what we can to help businesses with their research and development.
The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has recently launched an innovation voucher scheme, which will help small and medium-sized businesses to draw on the expertise within Scotland's world-class universities. The scheme will offer vouchers of up to £5,000 to meet up to 50 per cent of the cost of any collaboration between a university and an SME. That will contribute to our on-going efforts to secure the future of such business in order to safeguard jobs and contribute to the economic recovery of Scotland's local and national economies.
It is generally recognised that scientific research should support our industries and our economy, but does the cabinet secretary agree that it is also critical that there is room for supporting open-ended, blue-skies research in our universities?
Absolutely. It is essential that we become proficient at operational science in the short term for economic gain, but we cannot make the big discoveries and progress knowledge and understanding unless we do blue-skies research, so I agree with Robin Harper's comments.
We are also looking forward to proposals from Universities Scotland to establish a unified consortium approach for all available intellectual property. That approach should significantly enhance the way in which intellectual property is managed in Scotland's universities and it will help to streamline and accelerate the commercialisation process, which has been of variable quality and effectiveness for too long.
Can the minister explain to Parliament why the science strategy has been separated from the innovation strategy? Are not the two inextricably linked? What is the point of having two separate strategies?
That is a reasonable question and one that I asked when I became a minister, given the work that had been done previously. It was scientists themselves who were keen to have a distinct science strategy. I assure Rhona Brankin that the science strategy and the forthcoming innovation strategy will sit together and will be harnessed as far as delivery is concerned.
The fourth element of the framework deals with international connections. The broader international strategies that we are drawing up for key economies regard science as a key element that helps to forge links between countries. We are making progress on that and are increasing our funding for international scholarships through the British Council. That relates specifically to businesses.
I am delighted to tell Parliament that the international triple helix conference has been attracted to Glasgow in June, and I have been asked to represent Scotland. That will give us an opportunity to explain triple helix concepts—[Laughter.]
Will the member take an intervention?
I need to move on. [Laughter.] The conference will also give us an opportunity to promote Scottish science on the world stage.
The final theme of the framework is about playing to our strengths and connectivity. Research pooling has been extremely effective.
Any country that is serious about science wants a serious science framework. We have one. In a time of recession, what the world outside Parliament wants is a constructive and co-operative consensus on science in Scotland. We have the opportunity to create that in today's debate.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Scottish Government's strategic framework for science, Science for Scotland, on 27 November 2008; agrees with its vision for Scotland as a nation of world-class scientific achievement, a magnet for talent and for investment and a powerhouse of technology, innovation, enterprise and increasing sustainable economic growth; supports the strong message that Science for Scotland sends out to Scotland and the world about this vision; agrees that maintaining a strong science base in Scotland is vital because it will underpin economic growth, help improve public services, enhance quality of life and help solve the world's most pressing problems; notes the detailed ambitions and commitments made around the five themes of Science for Scotland about developing individuals, scientific research, economic and business demand, international profile and connections in Scotland and government; further notes that Science for Scotland calls to action many bodies and sectors of the economy and asks them to work with the Scottish Government to help progress the aspirations of Science for Scotland, and asks the Scottish Government to monitor and report to the Parliament on the progress being made.
I begin with an apology. I will have to leave the chamber shortly after my speech as I have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing about an urgent constituency matter. I am sorry that I will miss some of the speeches in the debate and I assure members that no discourtesy is intended to them.
The Nobel prize-winning physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi once said:
"Science is a great game … The playing field is the universe itself."
Scotland has supplied many of the great players on that field, including James Watt, Alexander Fleming, John Logie Baird and James Clerk Maxwell. Just as science has played a hugely important part in shaping Scotland's past, it will play a big part in shaping Scotland's future. We all know that we are going through challenging economic times, yet the world economy is projected to double in size in the next 20 years. That growth will be driven by people in countries such as China and India becoming consumers for the first time. When the economic outlook improves, the big winners will be the industrialised countries that create high-value-added products and services, and which train people to have the best possible skills. Our science sector is key to that. Science, engineering and technology-related products and services account for 70 per cent of Scotland's exports—we can expect that to grow even further in the decades ahead.
Beyond the hugely important role that science plays in our economy, it is the biggest weapon in our arsenal for improving health, wellbeing and quality of life and tackling the challenges that not just Scotland but the world faces, including tackling climate change, eliminating poverty, fighting disease and hunger, and preserving our environment for future generations. Science must play a major role in tackling those challenges.
In my Midlothian constituency alone, the cluster that comprises Pentlands Science Park, Edinburgh Technopole and Roslin BioCentre—the birthplace of Dolly the sheep—provides more than 1,500 highly skilled jobs in world-class research institutes, universities and cutting-edge companies, but there is potential for the science sector to employ thousands more people there and throughout Scotland.
The Scottish National Party Government needs to demonstrate leadership if Scotland is to continue to punch above its weight in the science sector.
Labour finds much to agree with in the SNP Government's "Science for Scotland" strategic framework paper, perhaps because much of it has drawn together existing commitments as opposed to setting out a longer-term policy agenda, but we are still no clearer about how the SNP will resource its science strategy. We know that universities are vital to securing the future of our science base, but the SNP appears to take them for granted. Last year, we saw cuts in real terms in funding for Scottish universities. I will give one example. The University of Dundee, which is one of the most respected centres for biomedical research in the UK, had to cut more than 100 staff. The principal of that university, Sir Alan Langlands, directly attributed that decision to the SNP Government's insufficient funding for higher education.
The member may want to revisit her comments, bearing in mind what Sir Alan Langlands has said subsequently. Does she accept that the universities' share of the Scottish budget under this Government is higher than it was under previous Administrations?
I do not accept that. In fact, there was a cut in real terms last year. Of course, university principals are saying that there are real fears for the future and about how Scotland will remain competitive, depending on what happens south of the border.
The Government's motion says that Scotland should be
"a magnet for talent and for investment and a powerhouse of technology, innovation, enterprise".
That aim appears to be borne out by the fact that our higher education institutions receive around 12 per cent of UK research spending—we all know about that—but that could decrease if some of the English universities succeed with their calls for higher university fees south of the border. Scottish university principals have very real fears that world-class scientists will potentially be attracted to better-funded universities south of the border. There is nothing in the motion and there was nothing in the cabinet secretary's speech that indicates how the Government would match any increase in resources that English universities might receive. I hope that the minister will address that point in summing up. Is it any wonder that a former principal of the University of St Andrews, Dr Brian Lang, stated last week in this building:
"Higher education is not a priority for this government"?
I turn to science in schools. The cabinet secretary has made much of the proposed science baccalaureate, but a recent TIMSS report indicates that Scotland is falling behind other countries, particularly in the primary 5 to secondary 2 age range. The baccalaureate will do nothing to address that. It has been heralded as something that will be special for science, but the minister has since announced, rather to the surprise of the science sector, that other subjects will also have a baccalaureate.
The Scottish Government's marketing campaign to encourage young people to study science subjects is well intentioned, but it comes at a time when some schools are reducing science options to save money as a result of the appalling local government settlement from the SNP Government. Even the slickest marketing campaign will do nothing to address the fact that many primary teachers are simply not confident about teaching maths and science—the TIMSS report identified that major concern. If our teachers do not have the confidence to teach, or the enthusiasm for, science subjects, what hope is there of enthusing a generation of young people? The Government must come up with a plan to tackle that problem.
We need more science graduates to go into primary teaching. The uncertain economic climate presents an opportunity to attract into teaching science graduates who have been lost to the financial sector. We may need to encourage more such people to come into teaching. Down south, specific plans have been announced to attract into teaching science graduates who have been made redundant. Primary pupils should also be benefiting more from the expertise of science departments in local high schools. I hope that the minister will talk about that in detail in summing up.
There is work to be done on continuing professional development for science teachers. While the Scottish Government has provided a £2.1 million grant for continuing professional development in science, it has rolled up £13.5 million of ring-fenced CPD money into the local government settlement. It is clear that the £2.1 million is not enough to meet demand for the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre's training. All its courses in 2008-09 have been fully subscribed; indeed, most courses have been oversubscribed by more than 50 per cent, so there is clearly unmet demand. What does the minister plan to do to address that?
Members may be aware that Gordon Brown announced on 27 February that UK Government spending on science will be ring fenced until 2014. That will safeguard long-term investment in science despite the obvious short-term funding pressures. The Prime Minister is also committed to boosting investment levels to keep them at least in line with economic growth for the next five years. Gordon Brown is putting science at the heart of the UK's economic growth strategy.
The motion contains warm words, as did the cabinet secretary's speech, but there is not an awful lot of beef. Will she put her money where her mouth is and make the same pledge that Gordon Brown has made, to ensure that science funding in Scotland is ring fenced and is not squeezed?
I turn now to my amendment to the motion. I talked earlier about how Scotland punches above its weight in research funding, as part of the UK. Some might suggest that it is in the SNP's political interests to allow the union dividend to diminish, as that would make it easier for the party to argue the case for the increasingly unpopular independence policy. The cabinet secretary smiled wryly when she accused us of making political capital out of constitutional issues. Of course, that is a joke—given that we consistently attack the SNP for doing just that. However, this is not a joke. There is genuine concern among Scotland's scientific community about the dangers of any move towards loosening the ties between Scottish institutions and the rest of the UK's science base.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry. I am finishing.
Project-based funding at Scottish universities comes largely from UK research councils; and our Scottish institutions play important roles in UK-wide consortia. If SNP members want to do more than pay lip service to Scotland's science sector, I ask them to put their constitutional dogma to one side and support Scottish expertise and Scottish jobs, and to join other members in supporting the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-3728.1, to insert after "problems":
"; agrees with the comments of the Royal Society of Edinburgh that "It is vital that Scotland remains an integral part of the UK science base", that the "integration offsets one of the problems of small countries in research, that they cannot be internationally competitive in all sectors of research and the businesses that rely on it" and that, consequently, "an attempt to devolve Research Council functions would be a seriously retrograde step"".
Both the cabinet secretary and Ms Brankin are absolutely right to say that Scotland should be proud of a very successful history of scientific invention and innovation, and I am sure that we all share the desire to see that tradition continue. Science is profoundly important, both in its level of academic inquiry and in its ability to help us to extend the frontiers of our understanding of a complex world. We should be under no illusion about the increasing importance of science subjects to our economy and wellbeing.
On this side of the chamber, we warmly welcome the strategic approach. I am sure that we also look forward to the cabinet secretary explaining the triple helix and reporting back on her trip to China. However, I want to use the debate to point out why we believe that the strategy cannot be fully successful until the Scottish Government's line of thinking is more consistent.
First, there is the basic question of the science curriculum in schools. I say to the cabinet secretary that I do not want to scaremonger on this issue, which would be inappropriate to both staff and pupils, but it is a matter of considerable concern that there are signs in a growing number of schools that higher and advanced higher science courses are being cut or are undersubscribed, although I accept that some schools are reversing that.
On 22 February, The Sunday Times highlighted quite a serious situation in Glasgow. I await the full results of a freedom of information inquiry—they will arrive on 30 March—but results so far indicate some cuts in advanced higher science subjects in Midlothian and the city of Edinburgh. I regret to add that a result came in today that suggests that the picture for highers will be bad, as well.
If we consider the period from 2001 to 2008, we see that although the total number of presentations for highers rose by 10 per cent in Scotland, the total number for science subjects fell by 6 per cent. Physics and technology suffered most. I have the statistics in front of me; I went through them extremely carefully and they are worrying.
Does the member acknowledge that The Sunday Times reported the situation in Govan high school incorrectly? She gave some figures, but does she also accept that, at least from 2007 to 2008, the number of applications for science highers and advanced highers has increased rather than decreased?
I acknowledge the concern about the report on Govan high school, which I do not think was particularly accurate. However, I suggest to the cabinet secretary that the trend for presentations for highers and advanced highers is worrying. The FOI inquiry will perhaps shed more light on that by the end of the month.
Another concern is that people coming out of universities with science degrees are not necessarily finding science-related employment. I know that everyone has concerns about ensuring that pupils at school—dare I say it, girls in particular—have the best opportunities to take up science subjects. I share the Liberal Democrats' concern about that. That is even more important in 2009, but it simply will not be possible if schools feel that they cannot staff or resource the science subjects.
I note the comments of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which highlights its concerns and its request that the Scottish Government, along with the General Teaching Council in Scotland, do more to improve the quality of CPD training for science teachers. Ms Brankin made a very good point about that being extended in primary schools.
The RSE report also highlights the need for a slightly more American approach to how we take on board advice from the many scientific bodies that present to the Government. There is a feeling in some of our specialist science areas that that process is sometimes just a mechanism by which the Government will operate something, rather than being about presenting information on key issues. We should consider that message.
The Scottish Government believes that the twin approach of the curriculum for excellence and the introduction of the Scottish baccalaureate exam—a group award based on highers, advanced highers and an interdisciplinary project—can resolve the science problem in schools. That is fine, up to a point. The curriculum for excellence brings the potential for much greater innovative work in science in primary schools, but there is a fundamental issue about the Scottish baccalaureate. I have absolutely no problem with the principle of a baccalaureate; in fact, I am strong supporter of the international baccalaureate exam, because of the breadth of its approach and its compulsory units in the theory of knowledge and community service, as well as the academic disciplines. However, if the Scottish baccalaureate is really to be made to work properly, we need to address the specific issue that its component parts have to be available in schools. I am referring especially to the advanced higher element. If, to use the words of Brian Lang, universities are to continue to believe that
"university places must continue to be awarded on academic merit",
we need to ensure that we retain that strength in our university system.
In recent times, it has been good to see the upgrading of the tariffs for the advanced higher, but that will mean something only if we know that pupils have the opportunity to take the advanced higher. I believe that, within the Scottish baccalaureate, the advanced higher will matter more than the higher and the interdisciplinary approach. That is something for the cabinet secretary to think about.
As I understand it, we are still waiting for the University and College Admissions Service to look at the tariff points. That is crucial, because they matter to youngsters who are about to make their decisions. The more we can speed that up the better.
A science strategy is extremely important, but it has to be consistent right through primary school, secondary school and into tertiary education and beyond. There is a lot of scope for development within business and industry and to have partnerships and more teachers and pupils on exchanges. In ensuring consistency, it matters that the Government has an approach on science. If it is going to introduce science baccalaureates, we have to know where they sit in relation to the arts and social sciences. If youngsters—and their parents—want one thing, it is to know what their qualifications from school mean in terms of their continuing on to university. There is huge vagueness about that at the moment, so I hope that the minister will address the issue when she sums up.
We will be supporting the Labour amendment and the Liberal Democrat amendment.
I move amendment S3M-3728.3, to insert after fifth "Science for Scotland":
"further notes the concern that some secondary schools in Scotland are reducing the availability of SQA Highers and Advanced Higher courses in science subjects".
I welcome the debate. I do not think that anyone in the chamber, or indeed in wider society, would underestimate the role that science plays in our lives. Many of the everyday things that we take for granted are here only because of the hard work and innovation of scientists. Very often, we stand on the shoulders of giants. In Scotland, we are not short of those giants. I am thinking of James Clerk Maxwell, John Logie Baird, Alexander Fleming, Watt, Kelvin and many others. Members might be interested to note that there are no women among the scientists whom I just mentioned. That was quite deliberate on my part, because my colleague Alison McInnes will refer to women in her contribution. Not just historically but currently, Scots feature highly in every scientific discipline, including in many new fields, some of which might even have baffled the historical giants of the past. They certainly baffle me, but I am an arts graduate, so what would you expect?
Scotland is pre-eminent and internationally recognised in the field of science. In fairness to the Government, it has produced a strategic science framework. However, if we take the covers away, it has only 12 pages and it is aspirational rather than substantial, as Rhona Brankin said.
The science sector requested that the overarching framework should be succinct. As the member will see from the references, the website and everything that underpins the framework, there are lengthy, extensive and detailed developments of all aspects of the summary framework.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that information. Notwithstanding what she has said, concern has been expressed, certainly from the university sector, that the framework is weak on the policy and budgetary commitments that will deliver the vision. In fairness to the cabinet secretary, the framework reiterates existing commitments and does not aim to lay out a coherent agenda in one place.
The success of Scotland's universities in science is widely recognised, whether that is Heriot-Watt University moving up the research assessment exercise results table or Glasgow Caledonian University's applied knowledge exchange.
I will make a small plea for Scotland's colleges. As we rightly sing the praises of our universities and their research activity, the danger is that we miss the fact that many of the challenges that we face are at the technical level. For example, we need technicians. In many respects, the level of qualification that is required for such posts is provided by our further education colleges. We need to ensure that the colleges buy fully into the strategy as far as their ability to contribute is concerned. We need to hear from the cabinet secretary how she envisages that the colleges will do that. In light of Elizabeth Smith's legitimate concerns about the Scottish baccalaureate, colleges also have to become involved in that. I understand that one college has recently been authorised to deliver the international baccalaureate. Welcome as that is, the concern is that it indicates that, for Scotland's colleges at least, there is a question mark over the Scottish baccalaureate.
Rhona Brankin mentioned schools, one issue for which is teacher training, particularly in the primary sector. We have to give our teachers confidence in their delivery of science at primary school level, but we have no detail on how that will be done. I will not repeat the figures that other members have given, but there are worrying indications in the OECD report that Scotland is not where it should be in comparison with other countries. For example, in secondary 2 science, 14 out of 49 countries scored above Scotland and, in primary 5 science, 21 out of 36 countries scored above us. The trend is worrying. I would like to see more substance in the strategic framework to address issues such as that.
Valuable though it may be, we need to ensure that we back up the summit to which the cabinet secretary referred with practical measures to support teachers, whether by way of teaching materials or opportunities for CPD. There are a number of issues that we need to address.
The business sector has also expressed concern on the subject. I understand that employers are increasingly looking for graduates with an international perspective to their education. There are some signs that our universities are not as able—perhaps because of financial considerations—to facilitate international exchanges in science, outbound rather than inbound. However, all the signs are that international multinationals are keen to recruit scientists who demonstrate an international perspective. Unless the universities, with the support of the Government—moral or financial—can expand on international learning opportunities for our students, we will be in some difficulty.
The strategic framework continues the good work that has already been done. As other members have said, a little more meat on it would have been welcome, although I will allow for the fact that there are other relevant websites around.
We will be supporting the Labour and Tory amendments at decision time.
I move amendment S3M-3728.2, to insert after fifth "Science in Scotland":
"; regrets that, although half a million women in the United Kingdom are qualified in either science, engineering or technology, less than a third work in those sectors, noting in particular the high fall-off rate at postdoctoral research level; calls on the Scottish Government to include within its strategy for science specific action to improve the participation and employment of women in the science sector".
It is not uncommon in a debate such as this to reel off a list of great Scottish scientists from history, but I would rather concentrate on the hard scientific work that is going on today. I am fortunate to live in the East Kilbride constituency and, as it is part of Central Scotland, to represent Scotland's oldest new town.
East Kilbride houses a small but very significant science park that demonstrates Scotland's edge in science. Among the range of successful companies there is Controlled Therapeutics, which develops and produces pharmaceuticals. The workforce in East Kilbride developed a vaginal insert to aid childbirth in cases where the birth is medically induced. That product is now the world leader, and Controlled Therapeutics estimates that
"Every minute of every day a woman somewhere in the world will give birth assisted by one of our pessaries."
That is science at its best, with a Scottish company's expertise used and recognised across the world.
In September last year, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, announced the Scottish Government's support for Controlled Therapeutics under the regional selective assistance scheme, which helped to protect the existing jobs and to create 23 new ones. That is building success on top of success—it is making the most of what we have.
East Kilbride's science park also houses Crucial Technology Europe, a division of Micron. It direct-sells memory upgrades for computers and other electronic devices. Filtronic Comtek designs, manufactures and markets components for cellular infrastructures. We are also fortunate to have the headquarters of the Worldmark group, which began in East Kilbride. Its logo is "Global Solutions … Locally". Worldmark's operation in East Kilbride includes the company's research and development functions, as well as manufacturing. That is crucial.
We all recognise that business enterprise research and development expenditure is not as high as it should be in Scotland and that it does not reflect our capabilities. Studies have shown that, despite Scotland's universities having punched above their weight for research framework programme grants from the European Union, for example, that is not reflected in the private sector. Some of that can be put down to methods of accountability, with some company branches in Scotland having their R and D work registered at headquarters elsewhere, but it is vital to recognise and to promote further the interface between academia and business. The cabinet secretary recognises that, through objectives to increase public-private knowledge transfer, to address issues of intellectual copyright—she mentioned that today—to encourage private sector research collaboration, and to take forward the proposal from Universities Scotland for a single forum for all available intellectual property from Scottish institutions.
I note from the Royal Society of Edinburgh's paper, which was kindly supplied to us all prior to the debate, its view that
"since the joint RSE/Scottish Enterprise Commercialisation Report, there has been a dramatic improvement in the efficiency and drive of the Scottish universities in connecting with business."
That is welcome. I also note from the RSE paper the reiteration of the European Union's move towards a European research area. With its skills and expertise, Scotland should take full advantage of that, working and collaborating with partners, with our UK neighbours and with others. Scientific research and development is a discipline that is ripe for collaboration, whether among national and international academic institutions, through regional initiatives, through private enterprise or indeed—I say this to Rhona Brankin, in her absence—through independent nations sharing expertise with mutual trust and respect.
Scotland has a good and justified reputation internationally for the quality of its science base. We should celebrate that, but we should do so without complacency. There has been much discussion about enthusing laypeople and, particularly, pupils and scholars. The Government is taking that on board, as are others. In that regard, too, science has a home in East Kilbride. One of our residents, retired physicist Dr Ravi Singhal, gives free public lectures in the James Watt auditorium, which are filled by people who are eager to learn about physics. He has just completed his sixth series of lectures as part of the community education initiative under the science for all programme. I hope that Mr Singhal repeats the endeavour, because I would very much like to go along and learn.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has mentioned in the past the importance that she places on science development. I will continue to support her and the Government in driving Scotland forward and keeping us ahead of the game. Fiona Hyslop has long stressed, in opposition as well as in government, that science and technology are allied but distinct topics. I look forward to hearing from the Government how those linked streams will be progressed, in parallel with the skills and innovation strategies.
Science is the key to Scotland's future prosperity, central to our understanding of the world, the gateway to many employment opportunities and endlessly fascinating and exciting, yet, for many, it is a closed book and an unknown world. Some people were perhaps turned off science at school, whereas others may be stuck in a two-cultures time warp, precisely 50 years after C P Snow's landmark lecture. Whatever the reason, science should be for all and for life. Of course, not everyone will be a scientist, but everyone should have a basic understanding of science and should be able to engage as a stakeholder in the many science-related issues and debates that confront us all.
The key to all that is, of course, what happens at school. I welcome the marketing strategy that the cabinet secretary launched at Trinity academy in my constituency a few weeks ago. However, I am sure that she will agree that the curriculum and the teachers are central. Science, in addition to literacy and numeracy, should have core status in the curriculum, as it has in England. It should be far more prominent in primary schools and it must be central to the secondary school curriculum. We should all be concerned by the findings of the recent trends in international mathematics and science study—TIMSS—report that Scotland is falling behind, particularly in the primary 5 to secondary 2 age bracket.
One reason for that is that very few primary teachers have a science background. Action is already being taken at some schools in my constituency to deal with that by linking primary schools with secondary school science teachers. The Government should consider seriously the suggestions by the former assistant chief inspector of education Jack Jackson that we need a new cohort of science teachers working across the primary-secondary interface. He has also floated the idea of a quota whereby 20 per cent of primary teachers in training would have science degrees, as well as the idea that primary teachers should be taught science as part of their university training. Those suggestions must be considered seriously.
The member might be interested to know that Professor Jack Jackson inspired me, as he was my biology teacher at school, and that he has provided great advice on the science education summit that we will hold in May, when some of those views can perhaps be developed.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome information.
As other members have said, good-quality CPD in science is crucial for primary as well as secondary teachers. Good programmes are available from the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre. CPD for secondary teachers is particularly urgent because of the curriculum for excellence. One factor in the genesis of the curriculum for excellence was the need to do something about science in secondary 1 and 2, but there is a big concern, most clearly articulated a few months ago by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, about the science part of the curriculum for excellence.
I know that the situation has moved on since then, but it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary where that debate has got to. In summary, the Royal Society of Edinburgh was positive about the underlying principles of the curriculum for excellence and broadly supportive of its defined learning outcomes, but it was very concerned that, in the rush to cross-disciplinary working, insufficient attention would be paid to the building blocks of the individual subject disciplines. The society also indicated that, without a common understanding of the structure of the curriculum, there was a danger of different agendas developing across Scotland. I would welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the situation following her discussions with the society.
What happens in higher education is equally important; when it comes to making or exploiting leading-edge innovation, it is more important than what happens in schools. The big worry is how Scotland can match the increasing resources that are coming to English universities for scientific research and other areas. As our amendment indicates, UK-level integration and UK research council funding are important, and the strategy should address how we maximise the benefit of that. However, there is still the wider issue of university funding. Sooner or later, the Scottish Government will have to initiate a major review of the issue, as called for again by Dr Brian Lang at last week's meeting of the proposed cross-party group on the Scottish universities.
An equally important and related issue is the effect of science on the wider economy. The cabinet secretary flagged up some of the problems—for example, when she pointed out the low level of business expenditure on R and D. Central to the science framework are those pages that list the many actions that are being taken in the area, mainly by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, such as supporting science-based business innovation. I hope that those actions will be implemented with great urgency.
We should not get too depressed and should recognise the progress that has been made in connecting the universities with businesses—an issue that was highlighted by Linda Fabiani. We should also recognise the great successes that have been achieved in recent years, especially in the life sciences. What we need to do, especially in these difficult economic times, is to build on the solid foundations that have been laid. Dundee's success is often cited, but Edinburgh has also made great strides. Further development of the life sciences may be particularly important for Edinburgh now that financial services are under such pressure.
In conclusion, I welcome the summit that is shortly to take place on the issue. I welcome the fact that Jack Jackson will be present and hope that the summit will be as inclusive as possible. I do not know whether Opposition spokespeople have been invited, but I suggest that they ought to be.
The number of women who are employed in science, engineering and technology is half the number of men who are employed in the same industries. The Greenfield report identified that the UK economy was losing considerable talent because women who were qualified in science, engineering and technology were not working in those sectors. Half a million women in the UK are qualified in science, engineering and technology, but less than one third of them work in the sectors.
In November 2008, I pointed out that gender imbalance and highlighted the fact that the Government's newly announced strategy—a 17-page document—was silent on the matter. In a written response to me, Fiona Hyslop claimed that the reason for the omission was that
"this issue was not identified by the wide range of contributors and stakeholders as a priority area requiring new action."
To her credit, she then acknowledged that there is
"a clear need … for better gender equality in this area".
I thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to meet me to explore the matter further; I have been heartened by her willingness to engage on the issue. However, I am appalled that stakeholders in the scientific community did not raise the gender imbalance that I have highlighted as a matter requiring action. That lack of sectoral self-awareness may explain why it is so difficult to make headway on tackling the issue.
There are initiatives, such as the women into science, engineering and construction campaign—WISE—to improve the participation of girls in science, and there is evidence of improvement in take-up, although we still have some way to go on entry to the profession. At undergraduate level, female students account for 43 per cent of the total in chemistry, around 39 per cent in mathematics, 20 per cent in physics and only 15 per cent in engineering. Of equal, if not more, concern to me is what happens after that. In physics, 25 per cent of postgraduates are women, but the figure drops to 15 per cent among those gaining research posts. Only 8 per cent of those working as senior lecturers and less than 4 per cent of professors are women. Even in biology, only 12 per cent of professors are women. That is quite a leaky pipeline.
It is not enough to attract women into the sectors—we must keep them there. In 2002, Baroness Greenfield wrote:
"If you are not a woman, and if you are not a scientist, the issue of ‘women in science', might seem to be fairly low down in the pecking order of national and international preoccupations nowadays. But if you happen to be both those things then, as a woman in science, you may well be feeling apprehensive, aggrieved or simply unsure of where your career and, indeed, your life is going".
Last month, I met a group of young female academics working in physics, astronomy and life sciences. Sad to say, they are indeed aggrieved and apprehensive. The discussion that we had supported Greenfield's analysis that a significant issue for women researchers was that,
"in the critical period of their early 30s, just as they had gained their scientific credibility, and were amassing data and the ensuing all-important published papers that impress the university search committees, so there was the shadow of the biological time-bomb for women.
If a woman takes time out to have a child at this highly critical phase in her career, it could be very hard for her to compete on a level playing field with men who have had a consistent track record of publishing."
In universities at postdoctoral research level—where some of our best bright young women scientists should be working—short-term research grants, the constant moving around that is required and the inflexibility of conditions of research awards are all unintentional barriers to participation. We need to move away from assessing somebody's competence purely by the number of papers that they have published. There should be more recognition of soft skills and teaching skills. Improved mentoring is urgently required and support for returners would also help.
Although there are role models for young women to look to—Baroness Susan Greenfield, Dame Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Professor Neva Haites and Professor Anne Glover to name a few—the reality is that there are few women in senior posts in science departments to set an example to them. There is no magic solution, but a consistent and pragmatic approach is needed to nurture young women scientists. The UK resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology, which is based at Napier University, is tackling some of the issues, but much more needs to be done. The Athena project aims to increase the number of women who are recruited to the top academic posts in science. It works with universities on staff development, mentoring and networking schemes. It is extremely disheartening to me that only three Scottish universities have shown any interest in the project and I urge all Scottish universities to sign up to it.
A complex web of interactions has a negative impact on the retention and advancement of women within the sector as a whole. To reduce attrition at all levels of scientific, engineering and technology-related employment, workplace policies, practices and whole cultures need to change to make workplaces fair places to work for everyone. We need workplaces in which it is acknowledged that family life is at least as important as working life and in which every individual can progress to attain their full potential and reach the top if they have the capacity to do so.
We should be under no illusion: this is not a women's problem but a problem for us all. Britain's future depends on finding or creating far more professionals in science, engineering and technology and keeping them in work. The Confederation of British Industry has said that, to maintain the UK as a competitor in the global economy and keep manufacturing companies in Britain, the number of graduates in science, engineering and technology will have to double by 2012. Where will the new recruits be found if not through greater participation by women?
The Government's science strategy highlights the need to strengthen Scotland's capacity for innovation. With a wider variety of people working on new products or projects, we would surely be more likely to find new ideas and different approaches. Common sense tells us that a diverse workforce—including one that is gender diverse—results in greater innovation.
If each sector and influencer agreed to take responsibility for improving equality practices within the area over which they have influence or control, the barriers to women's participation, retention and progression could be minimised. The Scottish Parliament and the Government are key influencers. We must encourage fresh thinking to tackle the inequalities that are leading to disillusionment among young women scientists. I hope that everyone will be able to support my amendment.
In my research for this speech, I came across a reference in a scientific paper to the importance of the SNP in the development of major advances in translating the benefits of sequencing the human genome into practical clinical use. I was perplexed, as our speciality is really the triple helix, but I reasoned that, at last, the scientists were beginning to recognise the benefits of Scottish National Party Government—until I read in a footnote that, in this context, SNP refers to single nucleotide polymorphism. How speedily one's sense of pride and optimism can be dashed. My sense of elation took a further plunge when I found that the author was referring to dense SNP.
Notwithstanding that, I welcome the motion and the importance that it gives to Scotland's scientific heritage and potential for the future. So important has science been to Scotland that it is easy to dwell on the past—I have a tea towel that shows that Scots invented everything from the steam engine to the telephone—but the future is what must concern us, as that is where the jobs lie and where our country's prosperity is shaped.
Although there can be no grounds for complacency in this competitive world, there are grounds for cautious optimism. There is no time in this short speech to cover every aspect of this protean topic, so I will concentrate on two. The first is the advantage that we have in Scotland that is shared by almost no other country: a comprehensive medical record for every citizen. True, there is a national health service in England as well, but the growing privatisation of that service means that there is a greater risk that medical records will be dispersed and left incomplete. Our knowledge base is a massive advantage when encouraging public or private scientific medical research. There can be no objection to its use in that way, as long as ethical protocols are scrupulously observed.
It has been said that the UK pharmaceutical industry conducts up to 20 per cent of its research in Scotland, despite our having only about 9 per cent of the UK population. I want that research activity to be actively encouraged and ultimately mirrored by the establishment of head office functions in Scotland. Control of our own taxes, especially corporation tax, would help greatly in that regard.
If I may concentrate on my constituency for a while, I would like to emphasise the enormous contribution that is made in the Lothians and surrounding areas to scientific advancements, especially in the field of biosciences.
Just about everyone in the world remembers Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal ever to be created from an adult cell, but spectacular developments such as the creation of Dolly are only a tiny part of the work that is undertaken at Edinburgh's famous Roslin Institute. Roslin is associated with the Royal (Dick) school of veterinary studies, the number 1-ranked veterinary school in the UK for 2008, and conducts research into the health and welfare of animals and applications of basic animal sciences in human and veterinary medicine, the livestock industry and food security. Together with scientists from the Moredun Research Institute and the Scottish Agricultural College—or the SAC, as I think we are supposed to call it these days—the Roslin Institute will soon move into a state-of-the-art veterinary campus to the south of Edinburgh, forming one of the largest centres of animal science research excellence in the world.
The cabinet secretary has already referred to Professor Sir Ian Wilmut, who is closely associated with the cloning of Dolly, and who is now director of the Scottish centre for regenerative medicine, working on the biology of stem cells, their potential value in medical treatments and the protocols and technologies that must be established in that connection. The centre is already one of the largest critical masses of basic and clinical researchers in Europe and works, at the institute for stem cell research, with clinicians from the University of Edinburgh medical school. Shortly, they will be located in another state-of-the-art building, this time on a site adjacent to the Edinburgh royal infirmary at Little France.
That brings me to the really exciting piece of this story, which is the establishment of the Edinburgh BioQuarter in a large greenfield site adjacent to the ERI. Already, more than 1,200 researchers work on the site and, ultimately, it will provide more than 500,000ft2 of further academic research space and 900,000ft2 of accommodation for commercial, research-based organisations. Working together in that 21st century environment in perfect harmony—well, almost perfect harmony—we will have the university, the NHS and Scottish Development International. The importance of the venture cannot be overestimated, because the synergy that will be created by all those bodies working together will allow the smooth development of scientific discovery into commercial possibility and clinical application—a genuine win-win-win situation if ever there was one.
Members will be relieved to hear that I do not have time to cover the vast areas of scientific work that is taking place in this great city of ours. Heriot-Watt University's research park, which has more than 20 research-based enterprises, is just one more example.
Scotland is not just an integral part of the UK science base, as is suggested in Labour's very parochial amendment, which is supported by the unionist parties—they are always criticising the SNP for thinking small but appear unable to think big themselves. The amendment emphasises those parties' complete poverty of aspiration. Scotland is a key part of the European and world science base, and will remain so long after independence has been gained.
I welcome the strategic framework and commend the motion to Parliament.
I declare an interest, in that I am a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde.
As almost everyone who has spoken today has testified, there is a widespread commitment to science, Scotland and advancing science in Scotland. Supporting science is about much more than merely providing resources; it is about attitudes, approach and society in the widest sense.
However, money merits a mention. The cabinet secretary will be relieved to know that I am not thinking about the most recent spending round, when the settlement for universities in Scotland attracted much criticism. I am thinking of a much more fundamental concern, which Malcolm Chisholm mentioned: the looming funding crisis for Scottish universities relative to universities in the rest of the UK. The current call by vice-chancellors in England for higher fees will intensify the pressure for increased funding north of the border.
Is the member arguing that we should introduce tuition fees in Scotland, to match fees in England?
No. I am saying that, as the Royal Society of Edinburgh said in the briefing to which Linda Fabiani referred, the issue should be addressed
"in a forthright and rigorous manner."
The issue is developing on this Government's watch and is being debated by academic scientists in every university in the country. It is the elephant in the room, but the cabinet secretary could not bring herself even to acknowledge that the issue is on the table. We do not serve the debate well by not acknowledging that.
However, I do not want to dwell on money. I will use my remaining time to talk about the final aspect of the "Science for Scotland" framework, which is science in society. In its excellent briefing, the RSE drew our attention to the need to raise the level of scientific literacy of all Scots, whether or not they go on to become scientists. The RSE drew attention to the fact that most of us, who are not scientists, gained our knowledge through our experience at school, but school science remains based around learning basic scientific laws. At school, we learn the immutable laws that apply in all circumstances—Newtonian laws of physics, the periodic table in chemistry, biological evidence and so on. In consequence, many non-scientists assume that science is about facts. However, modern science, at the frontier of knowledge, is rarely about facts. Groundbreaking science does not give unambiguous, definitive answers; it leaves uncertainty, for example about potential side effects and risks.
The consequence is that schooling in science in Scotland—in common with many other places—does not prepare people for the real world of science that they meet in later life. I hope that the forthcoming seminar on science in schools will dwell on the issue and that the cabinet secretary will work closely with the RSE on the matter. Part of the challenge in science education is to familiarise pupils past and present with the concept of uncertainty and the provisional nature of scientific understanding, without eroding confidence in the scientific process.
Does the member acknowledge that constant assessment might mean that many pupils want to know what they need to pass tests, as opposed to wanting the opportunity to explore and discover? Pupils might want to know something for certain, to pass a test—that might be easier than learning that things are uncertain as part of a life of learning.
I agree whole-heartedly. Given the time constraints in the debate, we probably should not pursue the issue now, but I hope that the matter will be pursued at the forthcoming seminar.
Science's contribution to society was explored recently by Professor John Beddington, who is Her Majesty's Government's chief scientific adviser and head of the Government office for science. In a speech to the RSE in Scotland, he outlined how science can come to the rescue in many of the challenges that we face. Members will be pleased that I do not have time to describe how science could come to the rescue on population, demand for food, energy and water and so on. On climate change, which the Parliament will soon debate, Professor Beddington said that science is the only way by which we might be able to meet our target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Professor Beddington urged policy makers to be guided by scientific evidence. I note in passing that he suggested that we should make a bigger effort on home insulation and energy efficiency, that nuclear energy is, for him, a no-brainer and that genetically modified crops are a key technology, to which we should give time. I understand that those ideas will not find favour with many in the chamber, but it is important that we look to deepen our understanding of the scientific evidence as we move forward on the climate change debate.
Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's point about the dangers of scientific endeavour simply becoming a question of the number of presentations for formal examinations, there are important issues around the number of presentations. I welcome the cabinet secretary's determination to take a fresh look at that area, and I hope that she will commit to working with the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the curriculum for excellence.
I conclude on the point with which I began. In delivering for Scotland's scientific community, we must deal not simply with issues that we might find more comfortable, such as the school curriculum, but with those that we find uncomfortable, such as challenging our own pet policy positions, whether on genetic modification or nuclear power, and the importance of Government in Scotland addressing the competitive threat that our universities face in the years ahead.
The cabinet secretary started her speech by rightly indicating that the University of Edinburgh has perhaps the biggest computer in the UK. This is where I start to compete with Linda Fabiani, with my own advertorial for the area that I represent, because the first Apple computer was brought into the Scottish economy through McQueen Ltd of Galashiels.
Scotland's record in developments in information technology and pure science has rightly placed this country on the very top tier of the nations that are associated with science and scientific endeavour. The cabinet secretary—again, rightly—pointed to the work of the Scottish Government in carrying on its predecessor's work on science. While there were elements in her speech that suggested that she was tempted to say that the previous years were barren, I think that the consensus in the Parliament is that the work of the current Government on science continues that of its predecessor. Indeed, previous Liberal Democrat ministers, including Jim Wallace and, in particular, Nicol Stephen, and others recognised not only the benefits of science to the pure benefit of research and learning for the good of the nation, but the key economic benefit of nurturing, supporting and developing the sector. That is why we are still on the path of trying to get even better connections between our universities and private sector investment.
As Ian McKee's tea towel showed, Scotland has a fantastic record in inventing, but we need a much better record in translating inventions into economic, gross domestic product gain for our country. Whether the benefits come from epidemiological research in the health sector—the structure of the NHS in Scotland gives us a competitive edge for such research—or from the Heriot-Watt University school of textiles and design in Galashiels in my constituency, which the cabinet secretary knows well, we can not only be at the cutting edge of research, but develop it further for our economy. As far as Baroness Greenfield, the chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, is concerned, that is on the Scottish universities' agenda.
Members may well have in their wallets the Bank of Scotland £20 note, which is regrettably being phased out. They should be aware that, on one side, the banknote shows an image of Sir Walter Scott, a former constituent of mine; more important for this debate, the other side shows an image of Janet Mullen, a scientist who lives in Peebles and who is a current constituent of mine. When the image was taken, she was a scientist and technologist at the school of textiles and design in Galashiels. However, as my colleague Alison McInnes said, it was about 20 years before Janet Mullen's identity was publicised. Her work in the area of textiles and design is an image of science that should be recognised and promoted in Scotland, but she was not known for her contribution, which is what I seek to correct.
Alison McInnes also pointed out the complex relationships that exist between different elements of the science community and industry, which have differing priorities and interventions. Ian McKee referred to another constituent of mine, Ian Wilmut, indicating again, if it needed to be reinforced, that we have an outstanding, excellent future in the Edinburgh BioQuarter project. That project was conceived by the previous Administration and is being advanced by the present Administration. Such cross-party, cross-agency developments are necessary, as science requires the Parliament to take a long-term view of its development.
Ian McKee also mentioned the "dense SNP", which, as he indicated, stands for single nucleotide polymorphism. I am not sure whether that is a small particle struggling to break away from a larger particle in a larger fluid, but I am sure that Dr McKee will inform me after the debate. It is by taking a long-term view of the role of science in economic development that we will support businesses such as ProStrakan in my constituency—there is a pattern developing in this speech, as members may well have noticed. A scientist called Harry Stratford moved into the Borders and set up what is likely to be Scotland's most exciting pharmaceutical company. He loved the area and his enthusiasm for his work was infectious.
The same model should be adopted in our schools. Hugh O'Donnell was absolutely right—the existence of an entrepreneurial, exciting and challenging teaching environment for science that is also fun is the best basis on which to make progress. That is why I would like to see more links being made between our universities and our schools, including our primary schools, as part of networks in a different type of teaching. Such a model would involve people talking to local primary schools about climate change or about the new water treatment plant that Scottish Water is building in my area; it would involve people talking about engineering in the local college or university PhD students talking about hygiene. Such a model would be consistent with the Government's strategy and the work that it is doing.
I hope that the consensus on the contribution that science makes to Scotland and, in particular, to the Borders will be reflected in this afternoon's votes.
This has been an extremely good debate. We have had several excellent speeches on the subject of science from members of different parties. As we have heard throughout the debate, not least from Linda Fabiani, we have a rich and proud history of science innovation and invention. I was somewhat disappointed that more speakers did not give us a long list of historic achievements by Scots in the field of science—I thought that MSPs' researchers would have sought to pad out their members' speeches for six minutes with long lists of historic achievements, but perhaps I am far too cynical.
Like Jeremy Purvis, I enjoyed Ian McKee's reference to "dense SNP". At least on this occasion he did not refer to the Conservative amendment as malicious and evil, although I dare say that he was tempted to.
Science is important for its contribution to learning and the betterment of mankind. In addition, it is a key component of economic growth and wealth creation. Although we support the Government's science strategy, we have a number of concerns on the issue. I will concentrate on two specific points that have come out of the debate.
The first was raised by Elizabeth Smith in her amendment, and it relates to the availability of highers and advanced highers. We will never develop science in our society and our economy unless youngsters in our schools have the opportunity to take science courses and achieve qualifications that might lead them to study science in further and higher education. It must be a real concern that, despite the cabinet secretary's protestations, there are indications that, in some schools, the availability of science as a subject is in decline.
Elizabeth Smith quoted a number of examples of schools in which we are aware that courses in chemistry and/or physics are being cut. That must be of concern to the Scottish Government. A proper mapping exercise must be carried out on the availability of science in our schools, and more must be done to encourage the availability of science subjects.
In the briefing paper that the Royal Society of Edinburgh prepared for the debate, the point is made that schools play a key role in developing people who have an interest in science. That means that we must have enough science teachers and that we must provide them with access to high-quality CPD. The RSE's paper also refers to the science baccalaureate, which must be properly resourced if it is to be a success.
The second area of concern is in connection with scientific research in our universities. The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the campaign for science and engineering in the UK have highlighted their concerns about the funding of Scottish universities. As we have heard during the debate, there is a concern that Scottish universities are becoming less competitive relative to universities elsewhere in the UK because of the current funding settlement.
I and my colleagues, and members of other parties, have raised the issue in the chamber and elsewhere on many occasions in the past year. Some of our concerns were highlighted by Dr Brian Lang, the recently retired principal of the University of St Andrews—he has been well quoted in the debate already—when he spoke at the inaugural meeting of the proposed cross-party group on Scottish universities last week.
The cabinet secretary will know that there is real concern in the university sector that universities in England, with their ability to charge top-up tuition fees, are becoming better funded than universities in Scotland. That means that English universities are better placed to attract talented individuals and corporate investment, and can compete more effectively for research funding.
As Wendy Alexander said, even this week, a debate has been initiated by universities down south for the current cap on tuition fees to be lifted. While we cannot say for certain whether that will happen, it is clear that it is a real and present threat to Scottish universities.
In its briefing paper, the RSE says:
"At the moment it is not clear how Scotland might match the increasing resources coming to English universities through top-up fees. It is vital that this issue is addressed in a forthright and rigorous manner."
At the proposed cross-party group's meeting last week, Brian Lang called again for an independent review of universities in Scotland to consider what universities are for, how they are funded and who should control them. I am pleased to endorse that call. It is a stance that is winning increasing support throughout the university sector. The Scottish Government cannot continue to sit on its hands and pretend that there is no problem to be addressed.
That leads me to a related issue that Rhona Brankin addressed in her amendment: access to research funding. Such funding is currently derived from United Kingdom research councils and, at present, Scottish universities punch above their weight and attract a greater share of research funding at the UK level than we would be entitled to simply on a population basis. The logic of the Government's position is that that research funding would be devolved, because the Government wants everything to be devolved. However, that would have the consequence of cutting research funding to Scottish universities. It is not surprising that the Government's approach is vigorously opposed by everyone in the higher education and science sectors.
By whom, and when, has the devolution of research funding been argued for?
I would have thought that a party that argues for independence would not hesitate to argue for the devolution of research funding. Presumably, if we were independent we would not still be participating in the UK research set-up, but perhaps the cabinet secretary, in her winding-up speech, can clarify SNP policy on that area. A move to devolve that funding, or indeed a move towards becoming independent, would be directly contrary to Scottish universities' interests and should be vigorously resisted.
There are many more points that I could touch on, but time does not allow. I believe that we will get our science strategy right only if we get science education right, which means having the science teachers in place and making science courses in schools available to all interested pupils. For that reason, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of Elizabeth Smith.
I am pleased to take part in the debate. Like many arts graduates, my connection with science came to an end not long after second year at high school, when it no longer seemed relevant, yet our day-to-day contact with science and all that it generates has become greater and greater. Our growing interest in our health, in the environment and in meeting our energy needs increasingly demands a science-literate society.
There has been a broad welcome for the "Science for Scotland" framework, and a will throughout the Parliament to see it implemented. As many members have said, Scotland has been a world leader in scientific research, but the environment in which that reputation has been built is becoming increasingly competitive. Scotland faces challenges to its position, with the prospect of those who work in the sector being attracted by developments abroad. We need to be ready to respond to that.
We all want Scotland to remain a magnet for talent and investment but we need to be serious about the challenges that we face, particularly on university funding. Many concerns have been raised recently by university leaders regarding Government investment.
In its briefing for members, the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK raised its concern that the strategy is weak on the policy and budgetary commitments that would deliver the vision, with which it is broadly in agreement. The Government's intention to monitor and report to the Parliament on progress is welcome and perhaps goes some way towards that. However, in the current economic climate, a bolder response is needed. If the Government heeded Rhona Brankin's call to match the Prime Minister's commitment on science funding, that would be a welcome start. I look forward to the minister's response on that in closing.
Several key issues have been addressed in the debate. The TIMSS survey clearly identifies challenges for schools, and those points were well made today by Malcolm Chisholm. The survey paints a picture of Scotland standing still while other nations make progress; the weak stages for science are identified as late primary and early secondary education. The RSE, in its briefing, raised wider concerns about the implementation and content of the curriculum for excellence. Again, those points were made by Malcolm Chisholm. I appreciate that discussions on the issue are continuing. The cabinet secretary might want to refer to those in closing.
Students must be confident in the nuts and bolts of science subjects, and it is vital that teachers are suitably supported through greater investment in CPD. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the TIMSS report has led to major increases in staff CPD. However, as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education's chief inspector, Chris MacIlroy, said in evidence:
"There was no parallel massive-scale CPD here."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 11 February 2009; c 2027.]
Nevertheless, I very much welcome the forthcoming schools science summit, which the cabinet secretary mentioned. There are clearly issues that need to be addressed.
I am pleased that the contribution of colleges was recognised in the debate by Hugh O'Donnell. Science has always been seen as something that happens only in universities, where the significant bulk of the research takes place, but that is not the case. The different learning styles that are offered by colleges in science, engineering, technology and maths offer routes to achievement for students who might not otherwise consider working in those sectors.
As the briefing from the Association of Scotland's Colleges identifies, Scotland's economic recovery will rely to a significant extent on innovation, and colleges play an important part in that. The breadth of skills that is needed in the science-based industries is delivered not just by universities. Well versed in partnership working, colleges can provide a key route to the improvement of skills and the generation of new knowledge. A great example of that is Forth Valley College and Heriot-Watt University, which, in partnership with INEOS, have created a five-year programme that offers students a blue-collar/white-collar qualification. That programme is merging research and skills with industry and creating the kind of graduates that we need to build the science sector.
I acknowledge Alison McInnes's contribution to the debate on the subject of women in science. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is responding positively on the issue.
Several members focused on the contribution to science that is made by universities. Scottish higher education institutions currently receive around 12 per cent of UK research funding, which, as other members have recognised, shows that Scotland is punching above its weight. Scottish universities recently demonstrated that they are at the cutting edge of innovation in the latest RAE.
Nevertheless, we are familiar with the funding challenges that Scotland faces, as outlined by Murdo Fraser in his closing comments. As Wendy Alexander said, only this week we heard reports of chancellors in English universities calling for the cap on tuition fees to be raised. Although we do not know when or whether the UK Government will go down that road, it presents the potential for greater pressure on Scottish university funding, especially as the "New Horizons" report commits funding in Scotland to broad comparability with funding in the rest of the UK. If we see increased investment in universities in England, how will the Scottish Government keep up?
There are questions around the additional funding that has been mooted in the strategy for knowledge exchange. The simple question is this: when will that funding be made available? What is the timescale for the shift in priorities within the horizon fund? I look forward to the minister addressing those points in closing. The Scottish Government must do better than the financial settlement that has been offered to universities for the current spending review period if we are to ensure that universities and research institutes in Scotland are able to compete within the UK and globally for research funding, for talented individuals and for corporate investment.
I welcome the strategy's recommendation that the Scottish Government enhance links with the UK Government, research councils and the EU. It is important that the Scottish ministers engage in UK and EU policy debates. In closing, the minister may be able to give an update on the work that Lord Drayson, the UK science minister, is undertaking on the future direction of UK science funding.
Although our universities lead on research, our businesses do not engage with R and D to the level that they must if we are to grow and innovate. There are notable successes in Scotland, which have been highlighted by Linda Fabiani and Ian McKee, although Jeremy Purvis probably won the competition with references to successes in his constituency.
A continuing challenge is how to translate the excellent research in our universities into a greater research base that is utilised in R and D. We need a much stronger pull from business—I welcome the challenges to business that are set out in the framework—but we also need a greater push from Government to stimulate demand in the business sector. We need to link and match research and researchers in universities and colleges to private, public and third-sector bodies.
Scotland was built on Scottish ingenuity within the UK. Many of the leading scientific breakthroughs in history have happened in our country within the UK and in partnership with UK institutions. Indeed, today's huge breakthrough in research into quantum computers that the cabinet secretary mentioned involved the University of Manchester and the University of Edinburgh. In science as in other areas, Scotland clearly benefits hugely from being part of the UK. It is naive to assume that we would have the same relationship with the research councils under a changed constitutional arrangement. The Labour amendment highlights the RSE's strong concerns about the need for Scotland to continue to engage with UK research councils, so I was disappointed by the cabinet secretary's dismissal of those concerns.
We all know that science graduates are crucial to the future of our country. Science graduates get jobs. Research shows that 58 per cent of science graduates are in full-time employment within six months of graduating, compared with 50 per cent of business graduates, 38 per cent of sport, leisure and care services graduates and 26 per cent of arts graduates.
As we are all aware, our universities and colleges are capable of producing world-class researchers and have been doing so for hundreds of years. The challenge for the Government is to bring together those winning ingredients by backing up the science strategy's warm words with funding and with action.
This helpful debate has drawn out a range of useful and, indeed, interesting contributions. One of the more interesting was that of Jeremy Purvis, who claimed Sir Walter Scott as a former constituent. I had not realised that Jeremy Purvis would cast himself as the Benjamin Button of the Scottish Parliament.
There has been no disagreement today on science's contribution to the economy. Indeed, that is a vital part of Scotland's economic recovery plan. Ensuring that we make that a reality is a task not just for our public agencies but for us all, in the sense that we must present a united and clear message on that to the rest of the world.
We have all agreed that developing individuals is key to ensuring that we have the skills necessary to meet tomorrow's demands. As well as through formal education, we need to do that, as Wendy Alexander said, by encouraging the public to take an interest in science. Our science campaign is off to a flying start, with many schools already participating in a custard run—to demonstrate that custard is both a liquid and a solid.
The education summit in May will be key in helping to ensure that we reverse the trends that have emerged since April 2002, as outlined in the TIMSS report. I advise Malcolm Chisholm that the RSE is involved in the curriculum for excellence, in which it is helping particularly on the chemistry agenda. I also gently remind Hugh O'Donnell that the TIMSS report covers the period 2003 to 2007, during which time his party was, as part of the Government, in charge of education.
There has been an upturn in interest in school science subjects, which is an interesting point. I hear the concerns that have been expressed, but I reiterate that, between 2007 and 2008, the number of entrants for higher and advanced higher across the science subjects increased. In addition, there has been a positive reaction to the baccalaureates, whose focus on science will help the economy.
I was interested in Hugh O'Donnell's reference to college science, which is an important issue that should be raised as part of this debate.
In a very thoughtful and informed speech, Alison McInnes prioritised the issue of involving women in the science agenda. She is quite right to ask why stakeholders did not consider that a priority in their responses to the consultation. In itself, that identifies a deep-seated and deep-rooted problem that must be addressed. I am more than willing to take up that challenge and take on that agenda.
We have all agreed that supporting our academic science base and celebrating the scientific advances of our scientists will help to attract new investment and raise Scotland's profile in the world. We will ensure that clear and consistent messages on that are contributed by giving prominence to the ground-breaking work in which our scientists are engaged.
Rhona Brankin highlighted the issue of funding, as did several other members. Rhona Brankin wanted more money for universities, local government and science, but I do not remember Labour proposing anything in that direction in the recent budget negotiations.
I acknowledge that an important point has been made about the possibility that the cap on fees in England will be lifted, but I remind the Parliament that, for that to happen, the Treasury would need to meet the costs upfront and bankroll that. At a time of tight public spending, that has become less possible than it might have been in the past.
I want to quote David Eastwood, who is the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England—he is about to be replaced by Alan Langlands. In November 2008, David Eastwood urged universities in England to dampen their expectations. Speaking at the council's annual general meeting in London, he said:
"Institutions would be foolish to plan on the assumption that there will be an early rise in the fee cap. I think it's inconceivable that the cap will rise significantly before 2013."
Perhaps Wendy Alexander and others are more informed about what the Westminster Government wants to do, but the point that Mr Eastwood made is important, and we must consider it in addressing the points that members raised in the debate.
On scientific research, Ian McKee made the important point that 20 per cent of the UK's pharmaceutical research takes place in Scotland. He eloquently extolled the contribution of the science base in the Lothians. Particularly against the backdrop of the current world economic situation, we all agree that we need more than ever to encourage business innovation and increase the demand for science.
I say to Claire Baker in particular that the horizon fund is already being used for knowledge exchange. That is particularly important for companies as they seek just to survive the current difficulties, but we must also keep our eye on the horizon. The voucher scheme that we introduced recently will help companies that have perhaps decided not to take projects forward to think again.
On the funding for knowledge transfer, the strategy clearly commits to greater investment in the area, but does the cabinet secretary have any idea what the timescale for that will be? At present, the horizon fund is a limited pot of money and the funding has already been accepted by universities. When and how will the cabinet secretary create the shift to greater investment?
I am sure that the member is aware that the Scottish funding council makes allocations to individual institutions. The existing pot of resources for the current spending review period will be allocated as part of that process in the next few months. The member will see the direction that is taken as the horizon fund is implemented for individual institutions. However, I reiterate that it is already being used for knowledge exchange, and the voucher system is an example of that.
We recognise the international aspects of what we have to do. Hugh O'Donnell raised the issue of scientists and the importance of their international perspective. Ian McKee was absolutely right to stress Scotland's integration not just with the rest of the UK science base, but with the European science base, the European framework, and indeed the global science base. In ensuring that Scotland's science profile is better appreciated throughout the world, we need to ensure that it is integrated with our international strategy, and the Government is doing that.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am conscious of the time. I am afraid that I need to move on.
The saltire prize will be a beacon for activity around our international profile in the coming years.
On connections, the Scottish Science Advisory Committee is helping us to ensure that we have further collaborations. That initiative is a model of what can be achieved through collaborations. Research pooling has been extremely successful. We can see that in economics and other areas in which we have perhaps not performed well previously. In such areas, we are seeing excellent results across the board from the RAE.
In "Science for Scotland", we have set out the path that we will take. We will publish reports on progress as we proceed. There is much to look forward to, and there are many challenges. The vision in the framework sets out a national mission for science in Scotland. We have seen other economies achieve remarkable growth as science nations by harnessing a common will to regard science as the future, and that is where we, too, should try to be. I invite members to support the framework. Many people in the science community in Scotland will be watching and listening to our debate, and I hope that members will show them support by supporting the motion.