A Framework for Science
Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on a framework for science in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
Change happens progressively over time, but a clear vision and a well-understood sense of direction are crucial.
Just over a year ago, the Government set out our vision for Scotland. We published our economic strategy, defined our economic purpose and said that there would be a new framework for science, which would outline how Scotland's success as a nation will be underpinned through developing knowledge exchange, increasing overseas investment in research and development in Scotland and developing the science base. The clear focus of those science goals emerged from an extensive consultation in 2006.
The new framework, "Science for Scotland", also reflects more recent dialogue with key stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Universities Scotland, the Association of Scotland's Colleges, the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and many others. I attended a meeting to hear the views of 12 key sector advisory boards and I commend everyone who contributed to the development of the framework.
Of course, science and policy development do not exist in a vacuum. We have continued to launch initiatives that will have a positive impact on science and economic growth. Those initiatives include the £10 million Scottish institute for cell signalling in Dundee, the £10 million saltire prize, the new science baccalaureate and the report of the joint future thinking task force on universities, "New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century", which aligned the university science base with the Government's economic purpose of delivering sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all.
This morning, copies of the new framework and associated background papers have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and published on the Scottish Government's website. The new framework is deliberately more focused and accessible than was the 2001 science strategy that it replaces. It is, however, supported by background papers, which provide greater detail.
Much has changed since 2001. Indeed, much has changed in the past few months. Across the world and here in Scotland, individuals and institutions and homes and high streets are feeling the impact of the economic downturn. As we know, other Governments are taking steps to minimise the impact of the downturn and recover quickly. Ambitious nations know that science, engineering and technology have shaped the modern world, so they are continuing to invest in building their scientific capacity, promoting that capacity's economic and commercial relevance and advancing their competitive advantage in global markets. Governments around the world want to be better able to shape and respond to future science-based market opportunities. They want to develop and attract scientific talent, investment and high-value jobs, and they want to attract, encourage and grow innovative businesses that use science and research to prosper.
Scotland is well placed to use science to underpin sustainable economic growth. This week, the unveiling in George Street of a statue that honours James Clerk Maxwell provided a timely reminder that Scotland has a proud heritage of scientific excellence. To this day, our science base stands comparison with the world's best. Many of our key economic sectors are science based, and later today I will visit Optos, a medical devices company in Fife, which is a great example of a high-tech, Scotland-headquartered business that uses science to compete internationally.
"Science for Scotland" is focused on fostering science as a comparative advantage. It describes key ways in which Government, in partnership, will sustain, enhance and more effectively exploit Scottish science to support the economic purpose, enhance our international reputation for science and support individuals, organisations and businesses. It sets out how we will develop four key areas: individuals; scientific research and economic and business demand; international standing and inward investment; and connections in Scotland and in Government.
I will not list each element of the framework. Three elements are key, the first of which is science education and careers. Scotland's people are our greatest asset. A key challenge is to encourage more Scots to study and build careers in science and engineering, so that we can develop the technicians, world-class researchers and science entrepreneurs who are needed by businesses and the economy now and will be needed in the future. We will therefore launch a new marketing campaign—do something creative, do science—to promote a more positive and realistic understanding of the diversity of science-based careers, particularly among young people who are leaving school.
Skills Development Scotland will develop a new national science careers programme: the path is science, engineering and technology—the path is SET—which will support improved and informed choice and help school pupils and college students and their parents and teachers. Both programmes will start in 2009.
We will make science in schools and colleges more challenging, relevant, interesting and exciting, through the on-going development and implementation of curriculum for excellence and the science baccalaureate. Indeed, only yesterday I set out more detail on how the baccalaureate will operate. The baccalaureate will encourage more of our young people to take science courses in the later stages of secondary school, raise the status of secondary 6 and assist young people in making the transition from school to higher and further education and employment. The interdisciplinary project, which is a key feature of the baccalaureate, should encourage students to draw on many areas of learning, recognise the interdependence of subjects and make connections between the study of science and the world of work.
The second key area is research. Scotland's scientific research base is ranked first in the world in terms of the rate of research citations relative to gross domestic product. A major challenge is to maintain that position. Our investment in research infrastructure sustains and enhances the excellence of Scotland's science research base, which attracts significant project funding from the United Kingdom research councils, charities and business, provides international profile and attracts a significant proportion of inward investment. Scotland provides a major element of the UK's research capacity. Indeed, we punch above our weight. I have discussed science with UK ministers twice in the past few months and I will continue to support and enhance productive links at every level with research councils and the European Union.
A clear consensus emerged from the consultation. On-going support for Scottish investment in infrastructure to secure UK project funding is the best way to improve research outcomes and enhance our international profile. Therefore, we will continue to support science infrastructure, as is confirmed in "New Horizons". Such support underpins existing and emerging world-class research, which in turn supports our science capacity, sustains and enhances our international standing and helps to improve Scottish business competitiveness and prospects for inward investment.
The third challenge is knowledge exchange. Our economic goals have not been and will not be realised solely by continued investment in our academic science base. Scotland's expenditure on R and D in higher education compares favourably with spending in most competitor economies. However, our business expenditure on R and D is less than half the UK rate, which in turn is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. That is crucial, because OECD studies confirm that business R and D is the optimum driver of economic growth.
Perhaps one of the most important issues for Scotland is how we increase business R and D. Also, how do we improve how scientific expertise in colleges, universities and research institutes supports businesses, key sectors and the economy? Improved university commercialisation is extremely important but is not the complete answer. We need to generate demand from industry for science. That is a well-established challenge in Scotland and internationally, for which there is no quick fix. Culture change in academia and in business will be involved.
To promote such an approach, "Science for Scotland" confirms plans for a progressive shift in emphasis and resource allocation. Currently, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council allocates only a tenth of its research resource to knowledge exchange. In the future, we will take a new and distinctive approach. We will prioritise research excellence and strategic knowledge exchange as key priorities, given their different impacts on sustainable economic growth.
We will increase investment in scientific knowledge exchange faster over time, to support industry-led projects that help key sectors to use science to prosper. That commitment to increase the proportion of funding for targeted knowledge exchange provides a signal of intent and will influence culture change. Support will be directed to key businesses and sectors, allowing them, rather than Government, to articulate and address their needs by taking forward strategic projects, with support from all Government agencies and with sustainable economic growth as an outcome. The approach will foster longer-term growth in business demand for knowledge exchange and business R and D. It will also adjust the balance of current incentives in academia, promoting growth in participation in knowledge exchange.
Knowledge exchange works best when the partners work together closely and establish a lasting relationship that is based on trust, respect and an understanding of how their different talents produce mutual benefits. There are already several exciting examples of industry-led collaborative projects in Scotland, which are building R and D capacity. For example, the funding council recently invested in 30 PhD placements in small businesses in the chemical industry. We need more of that sort of industry-led initiative.
We want the business community to bring forward ideas. The funding council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise will respond positively to jointly facilitate project development, particularly in key sectors. Government and all its agencies will work with businesses and with colleges and universities to promote faster economic growth. Together we can increase business R and D, grow companies of scale and support the economic purpose of increased sustainable growth.
At the start of the statement, I said that vision is crucial. Our vision is of a nation of world-class scientific achievement, a magnet for talent and investment, and a powerhouse of technology innovation and enterprise, increasing sustainable economic growth. "Science for Scotland" will begin to make that real.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in her statement. We have exactly 20 minutes available for those questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.
I welcome the statement and the science strategy, which has been a long time in coming. Much of it takes forward the important work that Labour and the Liberal Democrats did when we were in office. We all recognise that science—in schools, universities or business—is core to our lives, health and wellbeing.
At a time of economic downturn, why is the strategy not one for science and innovation? Will there be a separate innovation strategy? Has the science strategy been costed? Will it mean extra funding for science or business R and D, or is it just a reshuffling of existing funding?
The cabinet secretary made a big play of her manifesto commitment to the Scottish baccalaureate. At a time of swingeing cuts to secondary school staffing and when major curriculum change is under way, why is the curriculum to be made more crowded by introducing that award? Will the cabinet secretary publish the evidence that parents, teachers and universities are demanding the change?
Finally, given the slashing of budgets for continuing professional development in schools, how long will it, take on the present funding, for every science teacher in Scotland to access the excellent Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre courses?
Rhona Brankin has a positive way of promoting her case.
The science strategy sits alongside the innovation strategy. As I said in my statement, the science strategy draws on work by the previous Administration, particularly the consultation in 2006. I point out that the 2001 science strategy that was produced by the previous Administration was not accompanied by any increased resources for science.
In the rebalancing that the Scottish funding council will take forward in developing the knowledge exchange agenda, growing business demand for science will be a key focus. Recognising and stimulating that demand is a key task for us all and our enterprise agencies in particular.
There has been an increase in advanced highers since last year, despite the scaremongering of some of Rhona Brankin's colleagues, particularly Wendy Alexander. It is recognised that, even in Renfrewshire, there is the same access to advanced highers as there was last year. The baccalaureate is based on existing highers and advanced highers, so it will not crowd the curriculum. It will stretch our ablest pupils in S6, some of whom perhaps coast through their sixth year, and it will include an interpretative and integrated project.
We have a wealth of supportive quotations from organisations, universities and businesses to welcome the baccalaureate. Indeed, universities and colleges are offering to provide support for the integrated projects. For schools that cannot provide the integrated project, the fact that they can draw on employers' support and that the work can take place in universities and colleges will provide the bridge to universities that we so want.
Local government resources education, which, together with social services, accounts for almost half the local government spend. The fact that local government received record funding, despite a tight spending settlement, is testament to our support. John Swinney made a serious point yesterday: if the Parliament and Government face a £500 million cut in public resources in 2010-11, that will be a big challenge for us all. I hope that we can come together to resist that. Investing in education, universities and colleges and in local government will help us to come through the economic downturn and ensure that we are well placed for the future.
I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement, and I assure her that the Scottish Conservatives will support the overall objective of boosting the number of specialist science and technology graduates in Scotland. That objective builds on the previous Executive's plans, and it is in line with ensuring that educational research and economic objectives are pursued in parallel. It also overcomes some of the doubts that colleges, universities and employers have had about the future in the area.
I welcome the determination to provide more practical work and related experience for our top school leavers, but I note that the cabinet secretary believes that that can be achieved primarily in the school set-up by the introduction of a new Scottish science baccalaureate. I have three specific questions on that. First, does the cabinet secretary agree with the academic who said this morning that, because of the restrictions in many schools on offering advanced highers, perhaps only 200 pupils in any year group would take the Scottish science baccalaureate? If she does not agree, how many pupils does she estimate will end up with the award?
Secondly, can the cabinet secretary provide details of how the Scottish baccalaureate will be viewed for university entrance? Most specifically, will a pupil with the award gain advantage over pupils who do not have the award but who perhaps have better qualifications across the curriculum? Finally, will she provide a reason why only some subjects are deemed worthy of inclusion in a Scottish baccalaureate system?
The first question was on the numbers, and that is the challenge. We currently have about 30,000 sixth year pupils, and only about 3,000 would probably be eligible. There is a lot of welcome interest from early adopters of the baccalaureate, but we would not expect all those pupils to take it in the early years. However, that is the point: if we want more pupils to take science at universities, we need more of them to take more science subjects and at higher levels—to higher and advanced higher. The point of the exercise is to grow the numbers and provide an incentive to do that. As Elizabeth Smith identified, the interpretative project will be part of that.
The second question was about university entrance. We published the details of the strategy yesterday, and we have had discussions with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and universities. Universities across Scotland are welcoming the baccalaureate and, following their advice and at their request, we have included advanced higher English in the languages baccalaureate and advanced higher maths in the science baccalaureate.
Over the next few months, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and universities will consider the tariff values of the baccalaureate for university entrance. The first baccalaureate graduates will take the award in summer 2010. The intention is for university website prospectuses to mention the baccalaureate immediately, while printed prospectuses will do so to cover applications for university next year. In the next few months, universities and UCAS will therefore take forward the tariff requirements.
The third question was on why only some subjects are in the baccalaureate. We need to improve our science position in Scotland. I make no apologies for trying to do that; it is why we are advancing the science baccalaureate in particular. Such is the interest that has been generated that we are considering arts and social sciences for the future, but science must be our main focus at this stage.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement, which came with a helpful quotation at the top that the cabinet secretary did not read out. The quotation was from Joel Barker:
"Vision without action is merely a dream."
I suspect that that is a new summary of the Scottish National Party's record in the past year.
Liberal Democrats welcome the framework. We will study it closely, and we will support the Government's practical steps to implement it. The cabinet secretary's statement mentioned the most announced prize in Scottish history—the saltire prize. When will that prize actually be awarded rather than announced again? Mention was also made of the baccalaureate. Stapling qualifications together does not send out strong signals to universities or schools, and a likely 7 per cent uptake of eligible students is worrying.
I know from my constituency, with the research in the school of textiles and design and the economic development of ProStrakan, the need for economic development and research to work together. Will the cabinet secretary address concerns about the real-terms cut in higher education and research funding? That was a catastrophic decision in advance of an economic downturn. Will she also address the concerns that exist about Scottish Enterprise's operating plan? It does not support businesses that primarily serve local markets, which include many science and research businesses. Will she review Scottish Enterprise's funding and operation as we go into recession?
We should be honoured that one of the prestigious professors of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has agreed to join the judging board for the saltire prize. I understand that further details of the prize will be announced next week. It is attracting great international attention and focuses on Scotland's capabilities for renewable energy. We should all pull together to support that.
The member asked about funding. In this comprehensive spending review period, the Government is investing a greater proportion of its overall budget in our universities and colleges than the previous Administration did. Universities asked us to ensure that the profiling of the resources was extended so that there were increases in the later years of the spending review rather than the early years, and we took a responsive attitude towards that request.
I agree with Jeremy Purvis that the connections between enterprise and the local economy are vital. Knowledge exchange must not only reach for high-profile proposals—particularly proposals in life sciences, such as those that we see at Little France—but penetrate deeply into our economy, particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises. The biggest challenge is stimulating the demand for science at SME level. That can happen not only with universities but with colleges. Part of the knowledge exchange agenda is to progress that with colleges and universities.
Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that, with all the emphasis that is being placed on science, the background that engineers require in later life will not be overlooked at school?
The answer is yes. Indeed, as was reflected in my answer to Elizabeth Smith's question, the baccalaureate focuses on science, engineering, technology and mathematics precisely for that reason. We have a big demand for engineers in Scotland and we must stretch the most able in our schools to ensure that we fulfil it.
Does the cabinet secretary share my view that it is crucial to bring together our scientific communities in universities and industry to create high-value collaborative research and development projects, such as the Centre for Health Science in Inverness, which has an emphasis on knowledge transfer and provides a bridge between town and gown?
I agree absolutely. Maureen Watt visited Lifescan Scotland only recently. We have a comparative and competitive advantage in Scotland because of the collaborative pooling that has been established, which is the envy of many other areas in Europe. The UHI Millennium Institute, in which David Stewart takes a keen interest, makes a particular contribution to collaboration between institutions, but we are working with different universities throughout Scotland. The connection between companies and universities is critical, which is why the science framework places a strong emphasis on what we can do to improve it.
The cabinet secretary has highlighted the need to increase the research and development that take place in Scotland. What role does she envisage the enterprise agencies playing in achieving that?
The integration of enterprise work is critical. Joe FitzPatrick welcomed the announcement that the Scottish institute for cell signalling was to be established at the college of life sciences in the University of Dundee. The institute is a good example of how to ensure that businesses are plugged into the fantastic, world-class research that takes place in Scotland in a way that helps to commercialise that research, which is critical. Its development was a result of co-operation between the Scottish funding council, our enterprise agencies and the University of Dundee.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the joint future thinking task force. The other week, it faced concerns that there is no new money and that the horizon fund is being created merely by top slicing other budgets. She stated her intention to provide a higher proportion of funding for knowledge exchange. Will that increased proportion be additional money or further top slicing from universities' already tight budgets? What will be the timescale for the increase? The funds that are proposed for the horizon fund are, in many cases, already committed, and I am concerned that, without more money, there is a danger that other important projects may lose out.
We are all operating within the budgets of the current spending review—everybody is aware of that—but we have given a clear indication of the direction in which we want to take investment in knowledge exchange in the future. It would be far more helpful if members would recognise that, although we would like to have additional resources to distribute across the sectors—in particular, science—it will be particularly challenging to find those resources in 2010-11 if we face £500 million cuts in the Government's budget.
Half a million women in the UK are qualified in science, engineering or technology but less than a third work in those sectors, all of which already suffer severe skills shortages that are set to worsen. That situation is bad for our productivity and competitiveness and undermines our aspirations for fairness and opportunity. Why is the Government's strategy silent on that gender imbalance and what specific actions does the Government propose to take to improve women's participation and position in those sectors?
That is an appropriate question. We need role models in science for young women. We have no better such role model than Professor Anne Glover, who is the Government's chief scientific adviser.
Alison McInnes is right to identify the gap that we must bridge. There is a real issue, particularly at primary level. Primary school teachers are predominantly women and 90 per cent of them feel more comfortable teaching biology than physical science or chemistry. That is why we introduced £250,000 for the science centres—Glasgow Science Centre in particular—to bridge the gap by helping to support education for, and the understanding of, primary school teachers.
There is much that we can do on that matter. If we think that we could do more, we will do it, and if Alison McInnes wants to suggest anything to me, I would be very interested in taking it forward.
The development of wind and wave power provides Scotland with the single biggest manufacturing, technical and scientific opportunity that it has had in 100 years. Will the cabinet secretary commit to allocating sufficient knowledge transfer and skills transfer funds to allow the burgeoning wave and tidal industry to develop at the pace at which it should be developing?
The saltire prize will help to showcase the capability in that industry. However, ensuring that we have the necessary technical expertise at all levels—not only in high-level research, but at the technical level—is a real challenge.
Another challenge that we face is the economic downturn. That is why the Government's economic strategy still stands. We should look to the renewable energy sector to help us to come through the economic downturn and become a place of expertise, skills and development in renewable energies. I am discussing with the Scottish funding council and Skills Development Scotland how we can best support that. Particularly in the short term, transferring people with similar engineering skills from other areas of work into renewable energy would be worth while.
The cabinet secretary described the low proportion of commercial R and D that takes place in Scotland. Does she agree that Scotland's contribution may have been underestimated? Many statistics are collected on a UK basis only, therefore R and D may be allocated totally to the country in which a company has its headquarters. Does she also agree that industries that conduct much research in Scotland, such as the pharmaceutical industry, should be requested to provide more detailed breakdowns of where they conduct their research?
Dr Ian McKee raises an interesting point. I would like that to be the case, but we must deal with the statistics that we have. Indeed, various parliamentary committees have taken a keen interest in the matter since the Parliament was established and have identified a shortfall of research and development in Scotland. We should certainly interrogate the statistics more to determine whether there is an issue with companies that are headquartered in England attributing R and D solely to that country and not to Scotland. However, there is still a big gap and, if we want to improve Scotland's productivity and economic growth, we must tackle that gap and bridge it.