In the rush to innovate, basic research still matters

Governments worldwide are focusing on applied science as the wellspring of innovation and economic growth. But basic science remains of central importance, John Denham, UK Secretary of State for Innovation reassured the UK’s leading scientists in a speech last month.

The UK has seen a significant increase in its science budget in the past ten years. But the government has come under criticism because changes in priorities have led to cut backs in astronomy and physics.

(The following is an edited version of John Denham’s speech to the UK’s Royal Society last month.)

John Denham: good news.

In December I was able to confirm a 17.4 per cent increase in the science budget over the next three years. A significant, year-on-year, real increase in funding at a time of tight public spending.

It was – and is – good news.

And, over and above the investment we’ve made, the government has recognised - more clearly than at any time since the 1960s - the importance of science and innovation to our future prosperity and success.

Yet as we all know, the past few months have seen a rumbling controversy about parts of the science budget. Controversy which has centred on two disciplines but has, at times, spilled over into a public challenge to the system of peer review; calls for ministers to intervene in detailed funding decisions; claims by the opposition that civil servants now determine 20 per cent of research funding; and criticism both of the move towards full funding of research institutions and the promotion of thematic, cross-disciplinary research.

We are in danger of giving the wrong impression about our research base to the international scientific community, to the world's mobile R&D investors and to our own young people.

So it is timely to re-state our commitment to fundamental science; and to set out the proper responsibilities of ministers and of scientists.

Record resources

My case is very clear. As a government we have fought for, and won, record resources. We will continue to argue the case for fundamental and applied research. As ministers, we will take only those strategic decisions which, in the modern world, have to be the responsibility of government. Beyond that, it is for the research community itself – research councils and researchers – to set priorities and to distribute funds.

I've just come back from a week in the US, looking in detail at the success of their innovation clusters in Boston and North Carolina. These are places that set the international benchmark for turning basic research into commercial products.

These clusters are complex systems, with many elements to their success.

But wherever I went, whoever I talked to – not just scientists but entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and intellectual property lawyers – I was told that the cornerstone of success is the quality of fundamental research.

Fundamental research that must be pursued – systematically – over many years.

I think I’ve made a clear commitment to basic research on many occasions. But let me do so again.

Of course the government is interested on the successful exploitation of research. And we should expect our research community and institutions to be alive and open to the possibilities of doing so. Fundamental science, its application, and fruitful innovation are all part of a continuum.

But there is no short cut to successful exploitation which simply starves basic research in favour of its application.

While I and my department will work hard to ensure that we do not pass up any opportunity to exploit knowledge, we will also be making the case - with you - for sustained investment in fundamental research itself. The move to full economic costing is very much part of that.

We cannot predict the scientific breakthroughs of tomorrow, which is why we need to maintain a large volume and wide breadth of fundamental research.

But we can never do everything. Difficult choices have to be made.

Let me acknowledge some of these, and let me try to set out how I think such decisions should be taken.

Making science decisions

For many years, the British government has been guided by the principle that detailed decisions on how research money is spent are for the science community to make through the research councils.

Our basis for funding research is also enshrined in the Science and Technology Act of 1965, which gives the Secretary of State power to direct the research councils.

In the 21st century, I think three fundamental elements remain entirely valid:

•    That researchers are best placed to determine detailed priorities.

•    That the government’s role is to set the over-arching strategy; and

•    That the research councils are guardians of the independence of science.

But recent debates have thrown up questions about each of those principles. How [do] researchers determine priorities; How [do] ministers set strategy, and how [do] research councils play their vital role?

Peer review

I can quite understand how those whose work is not funded may well question [why], particularly when, as will so often be the case in a scientifically strong nation, rejected research proposals of real scientific quality.

I know that Research Council UK [the umbrella body for UK research councils] recently looked at the detail of how peer review operates, and is considering how to improve the process.

But it is hard to conceive of an alternative that does not shift the responsibility away from scientists themselves. I was impressed by the US system of innovation. I was much less comfortable with the way in which the success or failure of quite detailed lines of research can be determined by political lobbying.

Those of my political colleagues, from all parties, who have urged me to intervene in detailed decisions need to recognise that that would be the start of a very slippery slope. None of us should go down it.

Strategic priorities

Of course, ministers do get involved in large and strategic decisions.

The reality is that without their involvement, research would not be supported on a sustainable basis through full economic costing. The relationship between fundamental and translational research would be unclear. Major scientific facilities would not get built.

Today, major commitments like the UK Medical Research and Innovation Centre in London, costing perhaps £500 million, simply cannot get off the ground without active ministerial involvement across many government departments. The same is true of the international science and innovation centres being developed at Harwell and at Daresbury.

Of course, such commitment, could be seen as constraining or pre-empting other parts of the research council programmes. But to be a big player in big science, major, strategic and sustained investment will always be needed.

Multidisciplinary themes

Some have expressed similar reservations about the four thematic research council programmes on lifelong health and wellbeing, energy, living with environmental change, and global threats to security.

But, not withstanding everything I have said about the unpredictability of basic research, there is an increasingly widespread recognition that time is running out to mobilise our resources to tackle some of the most pressing threats to sustainability and security.

The challenges of climate change, of food security, of water supply, and the risk of new conflict impose real timetables on the search for solutions.

Within a growing budget, a proper focus on these challenges is essential and it must be right that government is able to harness scientific expertise. I believe, too, that it forms a key part of our public case for research investment.

The thematic programmes give a focus and a cross-disciplinary emphasis to part of the research councils’ budgets. But within those programmes, the majority of the work funded will, of course, be in response mode.

[In conclusion] I would like us to agree collectively that fundamental research will remain a major priority and that we will seek to reap every possible benefit from our excellent research base.”