Recently in Science, Regeneration & Sustainability Category

Where to go? ~  green, grey & brown sites Sustainable development is a challenge for us all. If we don't engage everyone, future generations will soon begin to pay for our neglect. For this reason, there are in the UK Sustainable Development bodies with national, regional and more local focuses. But what should these groups actually do? Here are some of the ideas which I as one individual have thought about as a member of a sustainable development group with a regional remit.

Sustainability As If People Mattered

What are the regional Sustainable Development (SD) bodies in the UK for? Is their role to provide 'advice' to politicians and state-employed policy-makers at the regional level? Is it to lead by example and implement programmes of work? Is it to be a talking shop between people representing different 'stakeholding' interests in SD? Is it something else altogether? Or is it all of these things?

Meaning and leadership in regional Sustainable Development
My personal view is that good regional approaches to SD are all these things.

Regions in the UK are all of a size (between 5 and 10 million people) where well-crafted action for sustainable development can have meaningful impacts. Regional SD groups should therefore:

* work together, with each other and with others, on the basis of mutual confidence and shared understandings - both of the factors shaping the region's physical and socio-economic contexts, and of the perspectives of all partners;

* recognise that everyone is a stakeholder in this difficult challenge, not just those who are formally represented at the regional level;

* understand that SD is different from almost all other processes in that what happens now and in the near future cannot be revisited on the same basis and revised at some point later on: SD is globally shaped and uni-dimensional in respect of time;

* also understand that 'good enough' and actually deliverable has some chance of success, whilst 'beyond any scientific doubt' but not yet actionable is of very limited value in this period of rapid eco- and socio-economic change;

* offer visible and clear thought leadership to 'people on the street', as well as more formal and conventional strategic advice to those who formulate regional policy;

* recognise that this is real life; our current insights into the challenges of SD are far from perfect. Nurturing an ethos of shared responsibility in all who live and work in a region is however critical, right now.


Supporting regional approaches to sustainable development
The UK government has been working with the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), Defra and others to promote regional SD. To this end, there does now seem to be a modest level of financial support.

It is nonetheless puzzling that these national bodies apparently imagine that each regional SD group can identify without further effort what the specific or even unique challenges for their region are. Yet, whilst this can be done for matters such as flood risk, the issues are far less obvious in many other respects. Not many policy makers and politicians at the local level, for instance, are even aware of what the risks might be.

Much work still needs to be done to bring together the relevant social, economic and environmental profiles for each region of the UK, and to encourage regional SD protagonists to share pro-actively their assessments and responses to these profiles. Just as UK regional strategies in science remain weak, so do those for SD.

Hearts and minds
There is a compelling case for regional SD bodies to recognise that 'advice' alone is not enough - especially in a time of flux for overall regional development policies, even before we come to the ultimately much more pressing matters of global warming, diminishing bio-diversity, economic difficulties (domestic and global) and the general well-being of current and future citizens.

Regional SD approaches are about leading from the front (no-one else has that specific focus and remit...). They must recognise the stakeholding of every person in their region, and find ways to reach them all. This is about encouraging dialogue, sharing good practice, aligning policy and developing the ideas which will help us all to face the future.

To achieve this requires not only analysis of the current regional state of play, but also commitment to help change the cultural climate as well as the environmental one.

Here is one challenge which a rational-legal or scientific approach alone simply cannot resolve.


Read more about Sustainability As If People Mattered.

Terraced housing & cars The new economics foundation (nef) tells us that, as of today, the UK has used the levels of resources it should consume during an entire year, if it were environmentally self-sufficient. In 1961, nef calculates, the UK's annual eco-debt began on 9 July; by 1981 it was 14 May, but in 2009 it falls on 12 April, Easter Sunday. But how can we help people in their daily lives to address and cope with these frightening calculations constructively, rather than such information just causing further alarm? Science and 'facts' alone won't get us where we all need to be.

Sustainability As If People Mattered.

I'm not sure that those of us already concerned with sustainability approach these matters in the best way to engage others yet to be converted - nef* says Easter Sunday (eco-debt day 2009) is 'a day which for many has become synonymous with over-indulgence'. That's a pretty unempathetic perspective on one of the UK's few annual family holidays.

Sometimes perhaps the force of our convictions and fears about sustainability can make us sound a bit crass.

Offering hope, not inferring guilt
Inducing guilt and/or alarm is not often the most effective mode by which to gain mass support, in an open democracy, for complex and uncomfortable change. Personally, I'd rather see Easter as an occasion with a message, whether sacred or secular, of new beginnings and hope - an opportunity for positive reflection on the future.

Eco-protagonists and scientists are vitally important to our understanding of what's happening to the environment. But they're not always good at helping people in the wider community to face up to the enormous environmentally-related challenges which, we must urgently acknowledge, are already upon us.

Research findings and predictions based on rational calculation do not always translate as clearly as the scientists imagine into policy acceptable to the wider citizenry. To the person in the street it can all seem just too difficult and scary, well beyond the scope of 'ordinary folk'.

Engaging people for positive change
Nonetheless, the UK's increasing eco-debt is desperately alarming, and something we need to get everyone to think about, right now.

The question is, how?


[* Andrew Simms (2009) Ecological Debt: Global Warming and the Wealth of Nations, cited in Transition Network News, March 2009. Andrew Simms is nef Policy Director and Head of the Climate Change Programme.]

Read more articles on Sustainability As If People Mattered.

Precision instruments Research Forum has this week, 5 November 2008, carried an analysis (including an article by me) of A Vision for Science and Society, which DIUS, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills launched on 18 July and concluded on 17 October. The debate is by no means over. This is a conversation which has as yet a way to run.

The article which follows is a version of my contribution to that debate, exploring the view that science in the service of civil society needs to find ways to engage more openly with those whom it seeks to serve.


What's science for?
The social sciences don’t get much of a profile in A Vision for Science and Society, the document that launched the three-month consultation organised by the DIUS, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills that closed earlier this month. So perhaps I, as someone at the ‘social’ end of science, am bound to see this documentation differently from some of my colleagues and fellow contributors to the debate from the natural and physical sciences.

Nonetheless, this debate is a big step towards an answer to what in my view is a central question in complex contemporary society: “What is science for and what should it do?

Science in the 21st Century
I was lucky enough to attend the inaugural Sir Gareth Roberts Science Policy Lecture at the Science Council in November last year when Ian Pearson, then Minister of State for Science and Innovation, initiated the current discussion. He asked us to consider how to nurture a “more mature relationship between science, policy and society” for the 21st century.

Subsequently, when the consultation was launched in July, DIUS re-iterated the vision: “The government is committed to creating a society that is excited about science and values its importance to our social and economic well-being; feels confident in its use; and supports a representative, well-qualified workforce. This vision encapsulates our long-term ambitions and we believe it directly addresses the science and society challenges facing us today.”

The Big Question
All excellent stuff, though I recognise it’s not a universally popular perspective. The seekers-after-truth may sometimes feel it diminishes or side steps their endeavours; but all scientists seek veracity, and, within that, the subset comprising research scientists also all seek new truths. The Big Question is:

Which of these many truth objectives should the state and other collaborating parties encourage and finance, and why?

The DIUS consultation goes some long way to securing answers to this question, but not perhaps quite far enough. However, let’s consider the positives first.

There is a fundamental underpinning in the DIUS discussion of the ways in which science must address the global challenge imperatives—climate change, security, population, resources and disease—and on how the rest of civil society (all of us) must engage in this, too.

Addressing the imperatives
There is also much discussion about how to focus science translationally in our economy, towards the delivery of real enterprise and products arising from scientific research....

This makes the department’s failure to acknowledge the potential value of regional science policy in the regeneration of economically depressed areas all the more bizarre.

But the evidence of DIUS’s earnest intention to encourage more, and more diverse, people to become scientists is perhaps a fuzzy first step towards developing some sensible regional science and knowledge economy policies.

From the inside looking out
And yet…and yet… Somehow, the debate feels as though it is being conducted from the inside, looking out.

There is, it might be felt, an implicit assumption that if only everyone understood science better, even half as well as the scientists, things would be fine and we could all just get on with it.

Much as I wish this might be true, there is a part of me that doubts it.

Strategic fit
The consultation documents and the questions DIUS posed to aid discussion did a thoroughly decent job of exploring ways to achieve a better strategic fit of people, business, services, science and technology at the national, if not at the regional, level. But they do not explore why, conversely, science just does not seem to ‘fit’ everyone in our complex and diverse society.

Many of us, according to the surveys that informed the DIUS discussion, maintain that science is ‘exciting’. However, far fewer people are actually up for it when career options are floated or other aspects of informed involvement are tested.

Forms of knowledge
Science is the ultimate in human rationality (though, even then, less rational than proponents may choose to believe). But consistently rational, many of us simply are not.

Even among those well qualified in science, there are some for whom it is no more than a technical adjunct to their personal overarching beliefs and way of life.

Science is just one form of knowledge among many. What distinguishes it is its startling capacity to provoke and direct change. In this, we all, every one of us, have a stake. Science underpins our lives and we often pay for it through our taxes.

Science for the people
Looked at in this light, perhaps scientists employed or funded by civil society (‘government’) have an additional responsibility, beyond that of their usual professional obligation to seek transparency and veracity in their work.
This additional responsibility is to ensure that publicly funded science is both relevant to, and good value for, the investment civil society has made in it—just as private employers expect the same for their investments.

But where is the focus in DIUS’s debate about the particular roles and responsibilities of the scientists themselves, when they conduct ‘science for the people’?

Multi-disciplinary teamwork
Publicly funded science must be responsive and iterative; it must offer ways forward for implementation in real communities of real people.

I don’t, however, see much in the DIUS debate about how science programme managers (and, ideally, all others involved) are to be equipped to deliver this. At the very least, it requires integrated truly multi-disciplinary teamwork between scientists, policy makers and wider stakeholders at every stage, from concept to delivery.

Public scrutiny and quality assurance
And here, too, is a meaningful role for government science advisory councils, offering quality assurance and public scrutiny through independent expert opinion on which science government should support, and why.

Yet the value of these bodies—let alone how to strengthen and learn from them—is not considered in the DIUS debate.

In private industry, company boards appraise their scientific investments. Civil society must do the same for public investment, transparently.

Science as human agency
Which takes me back to the central issue.

We can’t expect everyone to be enthused about a science that appears granite-like before them. If we want true public engagement, science has to emphasise, not deny, its human agency.

Science is about risk, uncertainty and adventure, and the way real human beings cope with and grow through these challenges.

As we all know in our heads if not our hearts, it is not just about serious-looking chaps in white coats, whom the bravest of other sorts of people may join in the search for knowledge.

A compelling human story
Scientists have a very human story to tell, of choices and priorities, crossroads, blind alleys and huge successes.

If we want everyone to believe science is ‘for them’, this story must be told openly, explicitly and contemporaneously, warts and all, by those who are actually doing it.

Then science will seem genuinely relevant and accessible, a humanly shaped, ever-evolving and fundamental part of modern life. That is how things really are, from the outside looking in.

Is DIUS game for this? The debate has yet to begin.

A version of this paper was first published in Research Fortnight, 5 November 2008, pp. 17-18. Hilary Burrage has experience as a member of a science advisory council, but writes here in a purely personal capacity. Her submission to the consultation on DIUS's A Vision for Science and Society, is available here.


Read more about Science & Politics and see more of Hilary's Publications, Lectures & Talks

www.scienceandpolitics.co.uk

Radio dials The UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has just conducted a consultation on Science and Society. What follows is a version of my submission to DIUS on this subject, covering issues such as the role of scientists in the service of government, the use of social science, the need to develop regional science strategies, engagement and stakeholding, the iterative way science evolves in its inevitably social context/s, and how different sorts of people feel about and become active (or not) in this process.

Introduction

The DIUS Science and Society Consultation document is a valuable contribution to contemporary debate on this complex matter. There are many important issues within that discussion on which others will doubtless offer advice, but which will not be touched upon in the commentary below.

Rather, this response will concentrate largely on the nature of science in society, with a particular (though not exclusive) focus on the centrality within that focus of the question of science, scientists, government and policy-making.

The approach in which follows will look more to the general issues, than to the specific, enumerated questions posed by the Science and Society consultation document. We are here addressing some aspects of the assumptions and constructions underlying final question of the document, i.e.:

Do these areas and questions (on roles, responsibilities and actions) provide a suitable framework for addressing the challenges we have identified?


The critical questions

The DIUS Science and Society document suggests a number of critical questions, answers to which may influence the analysis and commentary DIUS invites.

These questions include:

* Is there a difference between ‘Science and Society’ and ‘Science in Society’? To what extent is it important to recognise that science and all other forms of knowledge are inherently iterative in nature?

* Is it also important to recognise that ‘Science’ is a socially constructed area of endeavour and form of knowledge, just like every other form of human activity and knowledge? Can this help us?

* Are the roles and specific obligations of scientists different for those employed by Government and for those who are not? Do Government scientists have obligations which are additional to their basic professional ones?

Whilst it is not now the time to explore these basic questions in depth, they are fundamental to our understanding of that ‘science and society’ is about, and what it can do. A few observations on these fundamentals follow...


‘Science and Society’ and ‘Science in Society’

‘Science’ is one form of knowledge amongst many. It derives its claimed authority from the way it operates – the rigorous testing and rational pursuit or ordering of evidence – which is generally understood to be the basis also of modern western culture. To that extent science is of (or ‘in’) society, rather than an adjunct to it.

Even in modern rational societies however there are many other forms of ‘knowledge’ or belief. Indeed, one of the challenges of liberal western governments is to establish that the state is granted legitimacy by its citizens through that state’s willingness to adhere to the rules of rationality – what the state insists upon can be demonstrated empirically to be in the generic best interests overall of its citizens (adherence to the evidence and ‘rule’ improves your health, safety, environment, freedom, whatever...).

Scientists themselves, however, often seem to operate in the public domain as through there were no other modes of legitimation – they can appear as authoritative per se, rather than as offering the ‘best available’ evidence for a particular course of action or decision making.

Whether this matters depends on what is being considered: a professionally judged and clear-cut way forward is often required in emergencies for instance, but may be less appropriate for public discourse about disputed issues (and especially ones where questions of ‘morals’ or other non-empirical matters are significant).

We all need to be clear about the difference between long-term scientific debates and immediate professional judgements.


‘Science’ is a socially constructed area of endeavour and form of knowledge

It is critical to recognise that all ‘knowledge’ is socially constructed.

Scientists can legitimately, and should, offer evidence opinions on an enormous range of issues, but everyone needs to recognise that not all issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of all citizens by rational debate.

Science is an iterative activity; it does not hold that there are immutable and universal empirically-based truths, but rather that there are good reasons to develop evidence-based and rational understandings of our universe, society and other phenomena.

These reasons – better health, environment, business etc – are also the reasons why emphases in science change over time. We discover something about X which leads us to enquire about Y... which in turn takes us to Z; and in so doing we often discover also that the premise behind X is no longer secure, or that aspects of Y put a new light on how we planned to develop activities arising from something not previously seen as a related issue.

At every step our perceptions of science and ‘the evidence’ are permeated by our social and economic understandings and priorities. This is a critical and consistent underpinning of science-based enquiry, but is not always self-evidently appreciated even by scientists (and especially physical and natural scientists) themselves.

Indeed, scientists can sometimes seem to believe that it’s simply ‘the evidence’ which takes them from one enquiry to another, as though the availability of resources and socio-economic priorities had little to do with the direction of research.

This ‘knowledge-seeking imperative’ – the ‘seeker after truth’ model – may possibly have applied early in the emergence of modern science, but is not usually a realistic mode in modern-day science, often though science may still be perceived (on all sides) as like this.

Scientists often still do not articulate transparently the socio-economic or other formative rationales behind their research; but there is almost always more than one direction in which research might travel, if all the most likely routes and outcomes were to be considered at the point when research is initiated.


Roles and specific obligations of scientists employed by Government

A number of obligations, by common agreement between practitioners and the wider society, apply to all science practitioners, in whatever discipline. These include the requirement to conduct and report their work according to strict criteria of accountability, as well as the injunction to ‘do no harm’.

These obligations are incorporated into the criteria for professional activity as a Chartered Scientist, a status which was formalised in 2000, and in the ‘Hippocratic Oath’ for scientists, introduced by the UK’s then Chief Scientific Advisor in 2007.

Almost all scientists, in all disciplines, also have other obligations. For a number, mostly academics, this will be simply to the extension of the paradigm or framework for their specific discipline, ‘pure science’ as defined by themselves and their peers.

For some others - probably many - it will be the requirement to produce the information and technologies required by their private sector employers in business and industry.

And for another group it is to inform and / or provide professional support for the work of Government, which in turn makes for the same relationships in regard to the interests of the citizens of the state.

Each of these circumstances makes particular demands on, and offers specific perspectives on the work of, science practitioners.

Specifically, these circumstances define ‘stakeholding’ – the ways in which science practitioners have common cause, and the people or communities to whom they are responsible.

In some cases (e.g. business and sometimes academia) that responsibility and commonality is direct and indeed directed.

In other instances (e.g. most Government-sponsored science) the extent or boundaries of common interest and stakeholding are far less easily defined.

This fuzziness of definition is not because there is no clear line of commissioning and formal direct accountability – these are usually very transparent – but because none of the parties directly involved is acting simply on their own behalf. Activities undertaken for the Government (state) are, at whatever distance, activities undertaken on behalf of us all.

There is therefore a very real sense in which science ‘for the Government’ is ‘for’ us all; yet scientific research and development is sometimes conducted (and permitted to be conducted) as though only those who, metaphorically speaking, sign the chequebook are of serious consequence.

One example here might be research in an area such as energy conservation or animal health, where considerations of ‘social / socio-economic application’ are put aside until the work is almost complete, perhaps to be dealt with ‘later’ by non-scientists (policy makers etc). But leaving potential wider social (dis)benefit indicators, measures and frameworks until the science research and development is underway is not a rare occurrence.

There is a significant risk when this happens of ignoring central issues around the ultimate public good. Socio-economic / public interest issues must not be left to ‘end of pipe’ where there is Government funding of science. Yet the number of available research and other specialists who have experience of embedding wider public (‘indirect’ stakeholder) interest from the onset of a scientific programme is small.

In short, there are generic and also specific responsibilities on both scientists and commissioners of science. Whilst the generic responsibilities apply to all scientific activity, the specifics may vary; and this is particularly true in terms of stakeholding.

In private business there is still regulation, but within this boundary the reciprocity and obligation is between scientists and their employers. (The issue of how governments and private companies influence each other is a separate factor – though also critical.)


Other aspects of Science and Society

Whilst there are many considerations deriving from the thoughts above which may be brought to bear, this note will focus on just a few, as follows:


Creationism, culture and community concerns

It seems that the challenges arising from issues such as Creationism have caught scientists on the hop. They do not as yet appear to have a coherent strategy for addressing such matters, although fundamental beliefs of this kind have now been expressed in the UK for some years.

This may seem a matter at a distance from the Science and Society issues we are here discussing, but perhaps it is not.

As we noted above, modern science and technology is predicated, like modern business and law, on the over-riding notion of contestable rationality. Not everyone however sees the world in this light. That is why, it might be suggested, many scientists have such difficulty understanding how Creationism and other similar belief sets are acceptable to people.

There is however no obligation on anyone in the UK to sign up to (or, NB, ‘believe in’) rationality outside that underpinning the law itself.

Perceived like this, it is possible to think of a whole range of non-empirically demonstrable belief systems – including aspects of health care, environment and so forth – as part of a continuum from clear demonstrability to a full-scale non-empiricality.

Dismissing these belief systems as irrelevant to science in the modern world is a serious risk, not least because it is likely to widen the divide between those who subscribe to science and those who prefer, or are accustomed to, other bases for their interpretations of people and their lives.

Of course there are cross-overs, but there is nonetheless an apparent reluctance on the part of many different sorts of citizens to become involved in science if they are not themselves ‘standard model’ stereotype. Perhaps this is because some people shy away from the rigid functionality – as they see it – of science.

Other professional disciplines (such as Health, Social Care and Sure Start services) have learned that there is rarely a part of the community which is ‘hard to reach’, but rather there are ‘difficult to access’ services; science in general has not even begun to recognise this in itself. It seems often to stand beyond ‘real people’, a monument to apparent clarity of thought and dispassionate analysis – a model which practising scientists themselves would very probably reject, if asked.

If the assumption of apparently dispassionate and unbending science is correct, one way that science might reach back into ‘the community’ (in reality of course there are many communities) might be for scientists, and especially scientists in the service of the state and teachers of science, to emphasise the exploratory, ever-hypothetical, nature of their work, with all the fluidity and changes of emphasis and development which occur at every stage. Every practitioner of science is aware that choices about how to interpret information, and what to do next, must be made every day.

Perhaps the real challenge here is to distinguish the substantive, measurable outcomes of science and technology – those much admired, massive achievements gained by scientists for the benefit of us all – from the frailty and vagaries of the scientific journey or endeavour itself.

There may be many scientists who do not (or prefer not to) themselves recognise this distinction very clearly, but the acknowledgement of human agency, with all the issues which thereby arise, is a reciprocal balance to the towering achievements of science and technology.

For science to become truly accessible to ‘ordinary people’ of every kind, it needs to be seen by them as something ordinary human beings actually do, and something to which ordinary people can, with hard work and application, aspire.

Peer review, media perceptions and science communications

These quasi-political issues also relate to the ways in which science is communicated.

Just as most scientists are not trained (and so cannot be expected) to assess the wider socio-economic etc impacts of their work, nor are they often trained to communicate it to the wider world.

There is evidence that most scientists are reluctant to expound on their work before it is completed, if even then. This relates to the way in which they have been trained – do not share your findings until they have been peer-reviewed and approved. In effect, there is a requirement of silence.

Little surprise, then, that most people think of science as inflexible and ‘correct’ in a way that brooks no debate. Yet the reality of scientific research is crammed with side-lines, reversals, dead ends and brilliant serendipity.

There are good reasons to observe confidentiality in e.g. commercial operations, but much of publicly funded science is not at this later, particular stage in the game. It is the underpinning and exploratory work which is usually best fitted to direct public support.

This support has as its general corollary the ‘right to know’ and usually to consent. For this reason alone government supported scientists must be encouraged (if not obliged) to share their research processes and findings with the wider public.

There needs to be a clear understanding that peer review is a qualitatively different process from public understandings. The former is a matter of ultimate quality control (which in itself may be less evident anyway in commercial undertakings, where review is internal not external); the latter should be propagated as a perception of a way to find things out – always a fluid and challenging journey.

There is much can be done here to make things better.

Government should require of its scientists that (in appropriate ways) they share their research as it progresses. Peer review must be seen as only a part of that (state funded) journey, not as an end in itself. (Presumably, all government funded research is continuously monitored anyway?) Peer review is an important process internal to science. Communication must become an on-going external activity.

The production of story-boards and other modes of open communication can and should be taught in undergraduate science training. Not all will feel comfortable with this, but there should be someone in every team who is able to deliver.

And science must become a media story in its own right. This means that well qualified scientists need always to be available (as those who worry about specific science issues seem always to be anyway) so weight can be added to emerging debates; and so also science can become reported before it becomes controversial, as well as when it does.


Public science from the inside: Science Advisory Councils

The role of Science Advisory Councils (SACs), which offer advice as ’critical friends’ to government Chief Scientists and through them to Ministers, is another aspect of public engagement and stakeholding. SACs can offer both the highest levels of expertise, and a cool look at the wider picture and the longer term.

The relationship between SACs and other influences on scientific decision-making in government sponsored science is sometimes unclear, but the assurance of impartiality which Nolan appointment procedures seek to impose is an important element in the mix.

SACs, suitably supported, are able to appraise and advise on science developments in a way which adds considerable value for government, especially if the wider issues of engagement and stakeholding are kept firmly in mind.

It is therefore surprising that thus far SACs have not been seen as a major contributor in the objective of securing public confidence in the functioning of science, and neither have they been bodies brought as appropriate to the attention of the wider public, as evidence of partnership working at this level. (It might reasonably be assumed that anyone willing to be appointed by a Minister to such a role might in normal circumstances also be willing to be publicly accountable and visible in that role.)

Although some scientists are keener than others on this idea, there is important potential in the use of SACs (which rightly now include Generalist or Lay members as well as internationally recognised specialists) for reducing public uncertainty and lack of clarity about major public concerns around how government directs science and technology.

A start in this direction could be the bringing together of SAC members across government departments to enquire how they perceive their work, and how they would like advise it should be taken forward. This potential has so far barely been recognised, let alone developed, either as a general proposal or, in regard to their very specific functions, for Lay or Generic members of such bodies, for whom role development remains largely latent - but in terms of future-facing engagement and stakeholding perhaps central - as things stand.

The Social Sciences, engagement and stakeholding

The current Science and Society consultation recognises the role of the Social Sciences in modern government and activities; but these disciplines are thereafter little discussed. This is problematic, not least in the sense that the social and natural sciences, properly brought together, offer a synergy and iterative energy which neither alone is likely to produce.... a matter which seems sometimes to be better managed by profit-facing private businesses in science (customer intelligence), than by government.

Social science is of course far more than empirical ‘surveys’ and ‘public opinion’. It covers many aspects of the reality of science, including economics, social outcomes, customs, attitudes and beliefs, cultural contexts and constructions, training and education, and much else. It is also iterative and reflexive, in that at its best it makes overt the interactions between researchers in all disciplines and their work.

In government supported natural and physical science ‘social’ issues should therefore never be left to ‘end of pipe’. Public accountability and understandings of wider stakeholding – ultimately everyone, when state funding is involved – must involve social as well as natural scientists; and this is true of Science Advisory Councils as well as of individual research projects.

The Haldane principle, the Science Councils & regional science policy

The Haldane Principle now has a century of history, and it may be helpful to consider how it is applied in the contemporary setting, where perhaps it is at times more of a constraint to action than it need be.

The Principle is fundamentally critical part of the science process when it is applied to the requirement that there be no external (and especially no governmental or political) interference in the way science is conducted, and in how the outcomes of research are presented and considered. Science must be led by the evidence, ascertained and corroborated (if it is) by the experts, and not by the convenience or otherwise of unsubstantiated opinion.

There is however a sense in which now-conventional understandings of the Haldane principle probably cannot be applied in the world of ultra-expensive modern ‘Big Science’. Whilst the major funding councils properly and necessarily work at arms’ length from the government (and vice versa) it is unrealistic to think that the best judgements ‘in the public interest’ will inevitably be made by these councils operating alone. They are eminently best placed to judge the viability and likely excellence of proposals for research; but they will necessarily often lack the skills and perceptions required to judge which of a range of proffered potential activities will best serve the citizens of the UK – who are the ultimate funders of much of the research which is conducted, and often also the ultimate beneficiaries or otherwise of this work.

There are many compelling reasons to go ahead with seriously costly science projects; international prestige and economic impact, likely direct outcomes, technological benefits and much else are at stake. Some of these are quantifiable by scientists and their advisors, some of them require a wider perspectives, such as the examination of possible added-value socio-economic impacts, which are beyond the strictly scientific.

It is at this point that Haldane becomes problematic.

One example here might be the newly introduced Science Cities, which have been created on an apparently rather ad hoc basis. These at present appear to be more about branding and commercial synergies (both of course essential) than about science as such – which is left as ever to ‘the scientists’, as though this were a different matter beyond the ken of economic strategists.

Another example might be the prospect of a regional science policy. It is probable that there is added value to be had at least in some instances from investing in very large scale science in the UK on a regional basis, e.g. in investing in say global collaborations to be located beyond the ‘Golden Triangle’, even if there are marginally more challenges for the science operation when things are done this way.

Regenerational impacts beyond those ensuing from the science itself may be critical and should in some circumstances be one of the determining factors in the investment of the huge amounts of public money required for very large scale Big Science investments.

But whilst Haldane holds sway at every point, there is little to persuade those who make funding decisions to look at these wider impacts, or to give them a sensibly determined weighting in the debate.

This position is perhaps acceptable when funding is not from the public purse, but that is rarely now how things happen. Public money requires the best possible return in as many ways as possible, both direct and indirect.

In other large physical and infrastructural investments this potential return is given due weight; and so it should be when the physical investment is in plant or infrastructure for ‘Big Science’. The normal added-value and multiplier outcomes, in addition to the special ones for technology development and so forth, are also important and should be given due weight in the decision-making process.

The English regions and the devolved administrations are relatively large agglomerations of land and population, and the case for considering regional science policies – including wider socio-economic impacts and issues of sustainability - is now pressing.

A genuinely ‘Knowledge Culture’

We rarely see the day-to-day world around us as a transparently knowledge environment. With the right handling and encouragement however, this could change.

There is enormous scope for enhancing perceptions and understandings of science, technology and other very high knowledge / skills activities in the UK today – an outcome which could have huge impact in terms of the future success and, critically, sustainability in all senses, of Britain in the twenty-first century.

Many people, we are told, see science as ‘exciting’; but far fewer understand very much about how it comes about and what it actually does.

This situation is likely to change radically only if there is a much deeper recognition of the constantly changing human choices and emphases which confront us all, scientists and non-scientists alike.

The unexamined notion that science is a solid construction, an immutable rock on which other things are built, is not as helpful here as the idea that science, in common with all other human behaviours, is a socially constructed activity.

This perceived immutability is not an aspect of science which makes it attractive as a form of knowledge, or as an activity, to everyone (and especially not to some groups of people); but neither is this perception necessary.

Modern science and technology is an ‘enterprise’ which has enormous potential and has already delivered amazing impacts over many decades. It is in these respects amongst the most powerful belief systems (religion is another), and without doubt also the singularly most powerful force for rapid change, that the human race has ever experienced.

Science is a negotiated, humanly determined, part of our experience. That experience is self-evidently filtered through our cultural contexts, our personal and given characteristics, and our education, work and civic lives.

These humanly grounded perceptions of science now need to be commonly and widely recognised. In so doing we would be opening wide the door to science for many for whom that door is currently at best ajar.

Far from making science seem less important by recognising its fundamentally negotiated nature, this basic understanding of what science ‘is’ would enhance the identification and delivery of positive synergies between ‘science’, and, in its broadest sense, ‘society’, dramatically.


Hilary Burrage
(writing in a personal capacity)


Read more about Science Policy.

Science Laboratory with computers Are the Natural and Physical Sciences squaring up for inter-disciplinary combat? Each requires huge sums of money to maintain research momentum, but who decides what research offers best value? How can we measure Particle Physics 'against' say, environmental technologies? With their vast 'pure research' budgets to secure, perhaps the Physicists will now also discover that evaluating research investment regenerational impacts supports their case.

The rumblings of dissent between the physical and natural scientists are getting louder. There is a view abroad that investment in areas like Particle and Theoretical Physics is too expensive, when we need urgently to develop sustainable, 'One Planet Living' technologies.

Applied or fundamental research?
Today's Guardian newspaper (6 September '08) has an article about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - a facility (apparatus or laboratory) in Geneva which will cost £5bn over the next 20 years - which adds substance to these rumblings. Prof. Sir David King, previously the UK Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, argues that 'big' money for scientific research is best spent encouraging top scientists to address climate change and related environmental issues; Britain has so far contributed about £500m to the LHC.

The Physicists however argue that thus far we know about only 5% of what constitutes the universe; we cannot stop exploration of the fundamental nature of matter.

Valid views
Both perspectives are valid. But which will hold sway?

The environmental research argument is compelling to people who know little about science, as well as many (often including natural scientists who feel short of funding) who do. The fundamental, 'science for the sake of knowledge' position is also persuasive, but perhaps only really to those who already perceive the deep intellectual challenges of exploring the nature of matter.

Political decisions
It was probably alright to leave science decisions to the scientists a century ago, when the Haldane Principle decreed that political involvement in research decisions was unacceptable. But things have changed, and science is now infinitely more expensive than it was then.

How, on behalf of UK plc, should the Government allocate its cash? Decisions on specific scientific programmes are still made by the Research Councils; but overall allocations are decided by the politicians.

The socio-economic case
Some while ago, practitioners in the Arts and Culture began to espouse the 'socially useful' position: what they do should be supported because it helps community development and regeneration generically, and makes jobs.

My expectation is that, finally, the physical scientists may catch on to the same notion.

Currently, there is little of any discussion about how investment in Big Science - the large research facility programmes - impacts on the locations in which it is placed. In the future this may change.

Jobs and infrastructure
Some 10,000 scientists are employed by (and were attracted to work in) the LHC; and that's before we get to the armies of scribes and other support staff required for such a programme. This, inevitably, must have a huge impact on the various economies in which LHC is embedded.

Scientists until now have held the idea that 'value-added' - the additional socio-economic regenerational (as opposed to simply business) impact of research investment, over and above its scientific value as such - is irrelevant to their decisions about which proposals to support. Research funds may be from the public purse, but regenerational impact, we are told, is irrelevant to decisions about where programmes are located.

Shifting criteria
This high-minded dismissal of non-science-related socio-economic impact, I predict, is about to come to an end. Many technologists and natural scientists, like their more arty colleagues, now make compelling cases for how useful their work will be to society, within quite short time spans.

This is the only way practitioners in the more abstract and fundamental physical sciences can go, in terms of short-term impact. They will have to begin, however reluctantly, to acknowledge the legitimacy of questions about the ways their huge budgets can, alongside unravelling the mysteries of the universe, provide improvements to local economies, infrastructures and regional regenerational prospects.

You read it here first.


Read also:
Science, Regeneration & Sustainability

From Regeneration To Sustainability: A Northern Take On Knowledge

08.07.29 Hilary Burrage NUREC Conference keynote lecture  Liverpool BT Convention Centre This is a version of the Keynote Lecture I gave at the NUREC 2008 conference, in Liverpool on 28 July 08. In it we explore the connections between Knowledge Economies and Ecologies, and Big Science and Regeneration, especially in regional and sub-regional settings, and in respect of issues around Sustainability. My basic thesis is that Knowledge is not yet recognised for the fundamental resource it surely is.

I’d like to begin with some thoughts on what Urban Regeneration in ‘the North’ might be about.

I shall assume two things in doing this:
* first, that we are orientated towards a positive and stable future, and
* second, that ‘the North’ means, from beyond Birmingham up to Stornoway, and all parts East and West between.

Regional regeneration
I know more about regeneration in the North of England than I do about that in Scotland, or indeed Wales or Ulster, but I hope it’s useful to acknowledge that we are all in this together.

I hope too that you will forgive me if I refer from now on to ‘Northern Britain’, as a shorthand for all these locations.

So...

There is ‘the South’, that Golden Triangle of perceived opportunity between London, Oxbridge and Bristol. And then there are, at least in some respects, The Rest Of Us: the periphery, perhaps including the far South West of England, and certainly comprising all of us ‘up North’.

Knowledge and sub-national agendas
My specific theme today is Knowledge, how it infuses complex contemporary society, and how it relates to U.K. sub-national agendas in Regeneration.

To use the emerging terminology, we are about to take a look at the KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGY of Northern Britain.

The idea of ‘Knowledge Ecologies’ allows a wider appreciation of the interrelationships of various factors which affect and influence Knowledge in its various contexts, be they economic, social or environmental.

What is Knowledge?
For our purposes I’d suggest ‘Knowledge’ is a pragmatic notion with a number of different aspects, which can be likened to some of the different states in which we encounter water:

* Social understandings and culture are like the mist or dew which maintains all living things.

* Civic and community rules are like rain, which falls whether we want it to or not.

* Our formal education can be compared to the streams and rivers which criss-cross our terrain, sometimes preventing us from travelling and sometimes moving us along.

* Expertise is a lake in which we can immerse ourselves, or indeed where we can go fishing, if we are well-placed to do so.

* And research tools and methods are to knowledge what a hydro-electric dam is to water at the end of a reservoir, not without risk, but hopefully unleashing its power to good use.

Knowledge can be wasted.
Knowledge, like water, can be wasted when
* the commodity is not perceived to be a resource, or of value
* it is not used properly
* it is allowed to stagnate, or not maintained in a good condition
* nit is not conserved
* it is allowed to go its own way or run its own course.

And we do also sometimes hit ‘unintended negatives’ – so-called ‘beaver dams’ – which are blocks to the flow of knowledge but intended by those who created them actually to assist constructive development.

One example might be the rules around Objective 1 funding, which is blocked to enterprises physically outside the Objective 1 area, such as Science and Technology Parks just outside Merseyside.

I hope by now you are beginning to see where the parallel between water and Knowledge lies.....

Knowledge centres move over time
The question is how can we, as Regeneration practitioners, use Knowledge, in the same way as conservationists would use water?

It’s interesting to recall that the Industrial Revolution, that precursor of the Knowledge Economy, began in the North.

But we are all aware that somehow things slipped Southwards thereafter, to the magical land of the M4 / M5 corridor, otherwise known as the Golden Triangle.

In more recent times this Southward flow of wealth-making has been accompanied by

* the globalisation of markets and products, by-passing almost every geographical and political boundary;

* very easily accessed information and networks, via the internet; and

* intensification of activity in fields related to information and other technologies, often to the exclusion of other more traditional industries and economies.

Fundamental changes in the Ecology of Knowledge have brought about big shifts in our experience in every aspect of our lives, whether social, economic or environmental.

Knowledge in Regeneration
In what ways do Knowledge, Regeneration and Sustainability interface and how can we best gear each into the other? How should we approach them in the new climate of devolved decision-making?

At first it might seem silly to consider the whole Knowledge Economy or Ecology in terms of Local Area Agreements and the like; after all, modern Knowledge investments are a very expensive and large-scale enterprise.

But attention to Knowledge at every level presents an opportunity to get things right in a way that the broad sweep alone cannot.

Conserving Knowledge
To extend our analogy, we are learning fast that conservation of water, like that of energy, has to be a collective effort.

And so too does the ‘conservation’ of Knowledge.

If we want to keep and get the best out of Knowledge in Northern Britain, we need to make sure we look after and invest in it just as our Southern cousins do.

Finding the right criteria
So where might we start? Perhaps by looking for good criteria by which to evaluate proposals for Regeneration....?

These criteria need to be transparent, meaningful and coherent for everyone concerned - be they planners, politicians, policy makers or indeed the general public and those most directly concerned in ‘communities’.

I do not however believe that currently this happens with any frequency.

If it does happen, why is the cry from stakeholders – whether community activists, service providers, businesses or others - so often for ‘more consultation’?

In terms of major misunderstandings, criteria tend to be more contested, the further we move away from the location of national government - especially when it comes to things such as large-scale investment in Knowledge.

The Golden Triangle
In this respect the Big Science Golden Triangle is significantly advantaged.

To return to our global economy model, the Golden Triangle is close to the corridors of power, it is hugely resourced in both financial and human terms, it has all the right infrastructure and it is well focused on delivery.

There are some outstanding Knowledge centres in the North, not least in the Daresbury Laboratory collaborations, in the Science Cities of Newcastle and Manchester, and in the Edinburgh – St Andrews nexus.

World-class excellence in specific disciplines
Even more locally, we can point to the world-class excellence of work done in ous Diseases.

The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine can stand proud against institutions anywhere in its achievements in this field, and there are alongside the work of the School hugely significant Biomedical developments, both at the University of Liverpool itself and at Speke Liverpool industrial locations near Runcorn.

Knowledge 'pools' have big potential
The potential for Merseyside’s economy of these connections - as also of the clustering of skills and facilities in aspects of Information Technology - are enormous, if they can indeed be brought together not just as a pool or pond, but as a river flowing purposively from the tributaries of its component parts to serve a stronger socio-economic ecology.

And similarly we can point to many other Knowledge ‘ponds’ in Northern Britain, bringing together very high skills in professional services such as Law and Accountancy; cultural provision such as Music, Theatre and Museums; or public services such as Health.

Socio-economic contexts
But to be blunt, these facilities sometimes lack the wider socio-economic cogency and contextual enhancement of comparable facilities further South.

We have seen the emergence of the ‘Northern Way', an admirable development which seeks to focus the synergies of all our Knowledge and related assets; but these still do not always ‘flow’ to our benefit as they might.

Yes of course there are pockets of disadvantage ‘down South’. But we only have to look at basic measures such as a life expectancy and health to know that overall the Southern half of Britain fares better than the Northern half.

It would be downright wrong to suggest, as some do, that Northern Britain has no Knowledge facilities which stand up against those of the Golden Triangle.

Knowledge contexts and economic outputs
But it would be equally foolish to suggest that all Northern Knowledge centres have the same supportive hinterland as most Southern ones.

Northern Knowledge facilities do not always lever in the economic outputs and other advantages of some Southern facilities of equivalent standing.

The reality is, until all of us are clear about the range of required criteria – not only academic criteria, but also many other sorts - for deciding where and when to invest in Knowledge, we will not have a proper conversation; and opportunities in a range of locations and situations will then be lost.

Knowledge as 'Science', and otherwise
But before we go any further, I should make one thing clear: Whilst I would like to be able to discuss the management and nurturing of Knowledge in the UK, we will inevitably find that we need to consider more narrowly defined sorts of Knowledge such as ‘Science’, or ‘Arts and Culture’, or ‘Education’.

‘Knowledge’ and ‘knowing’ as such do not seem to feature in the policy debate at any level. Nonetheless, I hope you will accept that ideally I would encompass all sorts of Knowledge in my analogy with water; as indeed I would urge you as Regeneration practitioners to think of Knowledge in this broader sense. But we must work with what we have, and the nearest to that for Knowledge as we intend to use the term is ‘Science’.

We have 'Science' funding councils, which have much larger budgets than funding councils for any other sorts of discipline. But we do not have a 'Knowledge' funding council. And so, for much of the rest of our discussion, we shall needs be use the terms ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Science’ almost interchangeably.

Big Science in North West England
So let’s take one topical example, which is Scientists and Big Science facilities in the North West England.

There are in Merseyside perhaps just half the number of scientists and technologists one might expect pro-rata from the UK general demographic. It is hard not to see a connection between this low concentration of high skills in Science, and the alarmingly modest school-leaving results in this City.

Merseyside is a sub-region where outcomes in terms of a low skills economy and its clusters of industry-based technologies are vulnerable to the operational decisions of powerful corporate Boards, often located in entirely different parts of the world.

The New Light Source synchrotron
And Liverpool is also a City within a Region which is still fighting, a decade after the battles started, to keep the world-leading Fourth Generation Light Source (4GLS) at the Daresbury Laboratory, between Manchester and Liverpool.

The proposal is that this spectacular New Light Source will be designed using an energy recovery linear accelerator to yield very short pulses (around a ten million millionth of a second), so that it will 'freeze' the motion of molecular vibrations and other microscopic scale processes. It will also combine light beams of different wavelengths (energies) which will put it at the leading edge internationally.

But now the Light Source synchrotron may not be built at Daresbury.

We can, we are told, have a jolly good Science Park there. Indeed, we have even been given special Innovation Centre status to take forward the ‘spin-offs’ from our excellent higher education facilities, as well as an important £8.5 million project for something called EMMA (Electron Machine with Many Applications), a development which will ultimately have applications in e.g. cancer therapy.

EMMA will be connected to, and use, ALICE (Accelerators and Lasers in Combined Experiments) designed as a prototype for 4GLS. ALICE is located at Daresbury but has only just been funded for future operations.

A Science Park, not a Synchrotron?
But it has been emphasised that we should not automatically expect to keep 4GLS, one of the most significant Big Science programmes imaginable, in the North West of England - even though scientists at Liverpool and neighbouring Universities devised it.

Indeed, 4GLS has now been renamed the New Light Source (NLS), and the histories around its genesis have been revisited by what some regard as ambitious and perhaps hostile external forces.

The £8m+ for EMMA is obviously a good thing, but this should be seen in the context of the £200 million for other major scientific facilities elsewhere in the UK.

The truth is, there are very influential people elsewhere who want to develop this incredibly important work in fundamental Physics; and some of them don’t really want to do this in the North West. Their preference, as you may have surmised, is the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), located in the Golden Triangle.

Investment and brain drains
In the meantime Daresbury has suffered a ‘brain drain’ of top scientists leaving not only the Daresbury Laboratory itself, but also vacating their academic positions in Daresbury’s partner Universities in the North West of England.

It is therefore excellent news that the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has just a few days ago announced a £50m funding boost for Daresbury Science & Innovation Campus. The cash has been earmarked from its Large Facilities Capital Fund to create the Hartree Institute of Computational Science at Daresbury.

But this still leaves a question mark over the future location of the New Light Source and the world-class scientists who work on it. And similar considerations also of course applied to the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s threatened financial reductions at Jodrell Bank, which is closely connected with the University of Manchester, until a ‘reprieve’ just very recently.

The best people often feel obliged to go elsewhere when the research dries up.

Support for Russell Group universities
When this sort of talent haemorrhage occurs, it makes for even greater challenge in maintaining the very high reputational stock of Russell Group universities in the North West.

The Russell Group, comprising twenty of the UK’s top research universities, boasts that in 2006/07, Russell Group Universities accounted for 66% (over £2.2 billion) of UK Universities' research grant and contract income, 68% of total Research Council income, 56% of all doctorates awarded in the United Kingdom, and over 30% of all students studying in the United Kingdom from outside the EU.

So nurturing Russell Group universities in Northern Britain is surely one of the most essential and obvious ways to maintain and extend the reservoir of knowledge and skills in this region.

Big Science 'added value' neglected
But the criteria for where to locate the main programme for the New Light Source - or indeed any other Big Science programme anywhere in the UK - are sadly lacking in respect of the ‘added value’ of wider impact, whichever regional economy becomes the host location.

There has been endless debate about the ‘quality of the science’ - an obvious essential - but, lamentably, almost none on the wider sub-national impacts for the regions concerned.

Much of the funding is put up by the Government, which might reasonably expect a good return across a range of benefits and indices both scientific and much wider.

But the funding allocators don’t worry that scientists might have to ‘go South’ if they wanted to follow this exciting Light Source work.

Regional inaction
And it must also be said that initially far too few policy makers in the North of England actually understood the fundamental significance of this ground-breaking work.

A couple of years ago Rachel Lomax, then a Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, reminded us all, at a conference in Liverpool, that you ‘can’t laugh your way out of economic decline’.

I’d add that perceiving the possible loss of the New Light Source as principally a blow to ‘civic pride’ won’t get us very far either.

Such a view, still occasionally perpetrated by local media, does not help people in our region to understand the significance of this fundamental research. It also suggests to external observers that our local Knowledge Ecology is weak, and we haven’t much idea about how substantive Knowledge Economies actually work.

Big Science benefits its locations
Rather, we need to say, very loud and clear, that there would be huge benefits, quite possibly to the whole of Northern Britain, in developing the New Light Source at Daresbury.

To summarise so far: Northern Britain has some excellent pools of Knowledge, but not, to date, a great reservoir of supportive cultural understandings and high skills, from which we can really empower Northern people and position our region to advantage.

It’s being hard-headed, looking for common understandings between all parties, local, regional and national, which will make a difference in the end. That is why established and shared criteria for Regeneration proposals are so very important.

Who decides?
As Regeneration practitioners, we need to think about regional Big Science and Knowledge investment.

We do not invite only Transport specialists to have a view on the location of main road and rail routes; nor doctors alone to choose where to put internationally recognised Medical facilities.

Likewise, the location of Big Science facilities is, in the most positive of senses, too important to be left only to the Scientists.

We must now ask, quite urgently, how those of us in Regeneration should be thinking about the management of investment in Science, as a massively important influence on the ebb and flow of Knowledge Ecologies.

Knowledge as an orientation to the world
We need to think of Knowledge, not as a set of academic disciplines, activities, ideas or skills, but rather as an orientation towards the world. It is, to extend my analogy, the watertable on which our society is based, the underpinnings of what we believe, perceive and do.

Informal Knowledge or ‘Knowing’ is the taken-for-granted culture which we all share – the dew, mist or rain which keeps us socially alive and operational whether we recognise it or not. But climates can change, so we will need in future to be more aware of these often ‘invisible’ life-support systems. We need always to be orientated even in our taken-for-granted culture towards seeking to find out more and understand what’s happening around us.

Formal Knowledge, on the other hand, is a more direct driver of modern economies. It includes almost everything ‘High Skills’ – whether these skills are scientific, technical, professional, academic, entrepreneurial, artistic, strategic or whatever. Formal knowledge comprises the streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs of our endeavours.

Who makes Knowledge decisions?
So at a very early stage in any Regeneration proposal we need to find out where these Knowledge resources are, and begin to decide what we can – or should – do with them.

And we must also ask who decides how Knowledge is handled.

Many contemporary Knowledge issues can be determined only at a macro- scale.

Yet the policies and actions which culminate in such Knowledge decisions are often made with no such considerations in mind, by people at a relatively local level.

For example, many matters around transport and infrastructure, education, housing and other services are determined at the micro- level, and against criteria relating mainly to quite short-term local electoral accountability.

Big decisions and Big Science
But decisions about Big Science or other large-scale investment in Knowledge of whatever sort, are often made by people and organisations with little or no local accountability, and according to criteria which have nothing to do with local people’s direct concerns.

Only in places where Knowledge – or at least its outcomes – are intrinsically valued, is there likely to be congruence between local decision-making and the consequences of this at strategic levels for Knowledge. Context in these matters is critical. Hence once again my emphasis on widely shared and comprehensive criteria.

So let’s also look at things the other way.

Talking to the right people
Trying to persuade investors in another country that they should do business in a given region can be difficult, especially when the plants and professional skills may be more cheaply available elsewhere.

This is one of the reasons I have doubts about the single-minded pursuit of clustering industries in Technology Parks as an end in themselves.

Things look different however, if we seek to attract expertise at the international cutting edge of scientific Knowledge, rather than simply seeking investment capital.

Technology Parks or Big Science?
It may be more effective to talk with a handful of very top experts who might be persuaded to stay and work in a regional location, provided they have the laboratories and other back-up they require.

If we just concentrate on building the real estate for technology parks we will get a qualitatively different regeneration outcome, from if we push the boat out on globally cutting-edge scientific research.

Regeneration practitioners, please take note.

Combining approaches
Ideally, of course, we should put the technology and the pursuits of high-level scientific research together. And indeed this has to some extent happened in regard to the Merseyside identification with work on Infectious Diseases.

We have the world-class Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and the Teaching Hospitals, in conjunction with the Bioscience facilities of the University of Liverpool. These facilities, as we have noted, are working in tandem with the Biotechnology cluster for vaccines and so forth in Speke, on the city outskirts.

Here is real and potential synergy indeed. I hope someone is conducting the case study!

Knowledge Ecologies and their potential
Ultimately, it is Knowledge Ecologies, the contexts in which Knowledge activities occur, which determine how much benefit may be derived from the resources available – and I’m sure by now I don’t have to extend this, as an analogy, to the management of water, to make my point.

Understanding Knowledge Ecologies, and valuing Knowledge, produces a virtuous circle.

Decision makers at every level must be geared in to ‘looking after’ Knowledge, before everyone can benefit fully from what it can deliver.The physical detail of Regeneration programmes must marry with the human requirements of the people the programmes are intended to serve.

Knowledge centres in their communities
Recognising the role of schools, colleges and universities in their communities, and ensuring they are integrated into their localities – as well as outward-looking – is an essential element of this.

And what, for instance, is or could be the full impact of a teaching hospital or any other facility which employs and / or engages many ‘ordinary’ people, in a very extraordinary and high skills setting?

Or how should we value a cultural initiative such as the renewal of Hope Street, in Liverpool? Hope Street Quarter is home to this city’s international orchestra, several of its theatres, its two cathedrals, and much else, including more recently the joint Universities’ Science Park headquarters. The refurbishment of Hope Street has quite literally brought together the aspirations of flagship Knowledge-led educational and cultural organisations, significant independent businesses and local people in communities across the spectrum from university residences to the more challenging parts of Toxteth, our nearest neighbouring area.

As Chair of HOPES, the charity which spear-headed Hope Street’s renewal over several years, I can vouch for the difficulties – and also the huge benefits – of trying to bring all these perspectives together.

Checking the human realities of Knowledge Ecologies
Whether we are looking at the siting of a Children’s Centre – not, please, in the middle of an uninhabited industrial estate, just because the local authority has a nice spare building there – or, indeed, at the location of an international centre of excellence for Big Science – maybe a decent air link away from the Golden Triangle might be a good idea? – the question has to be:
Will this development serve its purpose in the most humanly effective way?

Attention to Knowledge Ecologies at whatever level, from early years learning right through to the operation of the most complex scientific research, reminds us of something which is quite obvious but sometimes put aside...... The economics of land acquisition and construction or physical development are only one of a large number of factors which Regeneration practitioners must address when taking programmes forward.

If we want the best from Regeneration programmes we need to be joined up.

The USP of Regeneration
It is the full acknowledgement of physical and socio-economic integration and cohesion, as a basic underlying principle, which distinguishes Regeneration from simply construction, community engagement, economic development or planning. This is what makes Knowledge in all its senses so critical in Regeneration.

Our Unique Selling Point as Regeneration practitioners is that we seek to bring together all the skills and understandings of the various disciplines and endeavours which underpin our work. Not every construction, community, developmental or planning scheme comprises Regeneration.

Full Regeneration programmes include all these elements, plus that special ‘extra’ of ensuring that all the Knowledge streams, formal and informal, will, ultimately, flow together for the common good.

Delivering synergies
Bringing all these elements together is however a tall order.

This ‘gearing in’ or re-alignment is not however something with only top-end outcomes. Appropriate understandings and management of Knowledge by every one of us, across the board, would help us as Regeneration practitioners to address all sorts of issues.

We must deliver the potential synergies in the conjunction of these themes. One of the most fascinating things about Knowledge and Regeneration is that what we know develops iteratively – the layers on the onion keep growing, as we share experiences and thereby understand more.

Looking at Knowledge Ecologies
We might consider three questions which arise from these thoughts about Knowledge.

1. Do we in fact share common understandings about the fundamentals of how Knowledge and Science interface with Regeneration?

Would we agree that common criteria and measures for the evaluation and understanding of Knowledge are now emerging? And what, if so, might these be?

2. Do we as Regeneration practitioners need a special take on ‘regional’ or sub-national Knowledge strategies?

Should those who determine science policy now as a matter of good practice assess likely socio-economic impacts – the ‘added value’ - when the Government invests in Science and Knowledge at sub-national levels?

In 2001 I was amongst those who worked towards the inaugural NW Science Conference, which resulted in the first regional Science Council. Should we collectively now to take this initiative a further step forward, and incorporate the Regeneration agenda directly into national Knowledge and Science strategies?

The Haldane Principle, established in 1918, prescribed that Government should not influence how Science is developed, this being the job of the Research Funding Councils alone. But things were very different 90 years ago. Science was a much less complicated activity, the costs of scientific research were proportionately less significant, and certainly nobody thought about connections between investment in Science and investment in what we have come to call Regeneration.

So should the Government now revisit Haldane? Should those who determine science policy now as a matter of good practice assess likely socio-economic impacts – the ‘added value’ - when the Government invests in Science and Knowledge at sub-national levels?

And should we in Regeneration also be developing tools for the same purpose?

3. How can we confront the idea of ‘Sustainability’ – a term which is often dismissed simply I suspect because it is so difficult to ‘unpack’?

To return to the original metaphor, it is not enough that we know where the canals, tributaries, rivers, lakes and hydro-power dams are.

Stable and sustainable systems
We need also to ensure that we have a stable system, one which depends on just a single planet’s-worth of resources.

In this scenario issues such as equality and diversity, or for example the urban-rural divide, take on a new significance. One Planet Living means having an adequate sufficiency for everyone; and this in turn requires a far greater focus on how we deliver Regeneration for real people, whoever and wherever they are.

There is not time right now to develop the theme of social equity, but I am sure everyone agrees it is a non-negotiable, in terms of taking things forward. There is no hope of Sustainability if we do not address the basic needs of all members of our society, women and men, people of every culture and ethnicity, older and young, city and country dwellers alike.

Sustainability is where the social meets the physical
And Sustainability is also the point at which my water metaphor turns into a literal reality. The physical and social worlds meet when we consider Sustainability.

Knowledge is not a finite resource. It can take any of the formats, by analogy, which water has; but it can and does also constantly increase in its volume and impact. And like water, this volume and impact must be managed, if it is to deliver positive change, not destruction.

One of the ways in which Knowledge grows is through our increased understanding of sustainable systems. In this sense, Regeneration practitioners cannot in truth do their job unless they seek also to do themselves out of one.

The end of Regeneration?
Our ambition has to be that Regeneration will become an occasional sideline, for ‘Emergencies Only’ if you like. Our main task as practitioners will be to manage change, and lead not simply on ‘Regeneration’, but rather on Sustainability.

At its best Regeneration provides the connectivity and energy to enable and empower everyone, at every level, building on common understandings to produce positive synergies and outcomes.

This is why I have concentrated here on the idea of Knowledge and how it ‘flows’.

Study Group on Knowledge, Science and Regeneration
And with BURA, the British Urban Regeneration Association and a number of others - some of them here now - I am seeking to take this work forward.

We are developing a Study Group on Knowledge, Science and Regeneration and input to this would be very welcome. Please do get in touch if you’d like to know more.

Testing the 'Knowledge is like Water' analogy
But for now I will leave you with an invitation to test out my offered analogy between Knowledge and water:

1. Does the ‘Knowledge is like Water’ model actually ‘hold water’?

2. Does it help us to see how the management of Knowledge in different parts of the United Kingdom may vary, and why?

3. Does the ‘Knowledge is like Water - it flows where it can’ idea help us to see, at every level from Local Areas, through Sub-regions to large chunks of Britain, how a more equitable distribution of Knowledge might be achieved?

4. How might this distribution model nonetheless encourage a free-flow between many different points, such that the Knowledge Ecology, like a good water system, is kept healthy, vigorous and stable?

5. And lastly, how might developing a model to describe the movements and management of water help us in delivering Regeneration?

The interface of Knowledge and Regeneration
The new challenge in Regeneration is to see how in practice Regeneration can interface with Knowledge. This is much like the challenge of managing a watertable, whilst also providing the irrigation systems and the hydro-electric power for revitalising communities and the lives of the people living in them.

Those of us ‘Up North’ continue to hope that a synthesis of Sustainability and Growth will see improvements in our economy and basic standards of living, to match those already enjoyed by the more fortunate of our Southern cousins.

We want Sustainability, but most of us still want regional Growth as well.

I look forward through our work in the new Study Group to discovering more about how we can resolve these challenging demands.


I am grateful to a number of friends and colleagues for generous encouragement and commentary on this paper, and I will also of course appreciate further dialogue about any of the ideas I have here tried to explore. Please contact me, or use the Comments form below, as you wish. Thank you.

Read more about Science, Regeneration & Sustainability,
Science Policy
and
The Haldane Principle, 21st Century Science Research And Regional Policy;
and see more of Hilary's Publications, Lectures & Talks.

Research lab There are compelling reasons for a regional science policy for the UK; but they are often dismissed as incompatible with the Haldane Principle of 1904 and 1917/18, that government must not 'interfere' with scientific research. Science then was vastly less expensive and impacted far less on the economy and ordinary people's lives. In the 21st century, the potential for regional development through science is huge - and it can only be done through intentional government direction.

The 'arm's length' principle, that government should not intervene in how to determine what scientific research is done, was developed about a century ago, by Richard Burdon Haldane (1856-1928), who chaired UK Government commissions and committees on this subject in 1904 and 1917/18.

The 1918 Haldane Report recommended that only specifically required research should be commissioned and supervised by particular governmental departments. All other research, said Haldane, should be under autonomous Research Councils (of which the Medical Research Council was to become the first), free from political and administrative pressures and able to develop as was deemed fit by the Research Councils themselves.

Noble and fictional?
Noble as the pursuit of knowledge simply for its own sake may be, it's impossible in our age of huge expenditure on Big Science that this recommendation, now almost a century old, can remain unexamined as the way forward.

The possibly apocryphal story is told (sadly, I can't remember by whom) of one of the extraordinarily talented Huxley family having, many years ago, a laboratory at home in which he explored scientific questions; and of his son asking innocently of their young neighbour, what his father did in his (home) laboratory.... It's not like that any more.

And in most cases it probably wasn't like that then either. Not many people in any age have been able to pursue science just as a self-financed hobby.

Vast investments
As recent House of Commons debates have illustrated, there is growing concern that the UK Government's huge investment in science should have the best possible return, on what is in the end tax payers' money.

But no investment returns in our complex world can be measured in only one way. There are impacts of many kinds - on jobs and the economy, on infrastructure, on the environment, on people's future life expectations, as well as on the state of knowledge itself.

Who does what evaluation?
Few of these impacts are easily measured, and even fewer carefully monitored from when a line of research is first proposed. This is at least in part because of the Haldane Principle and its continuing influence on government.

Politicians continue be nervous of any accusation that Haldane has been breached, an accusation easily made by scientists keen to pursue their work unhindered. So, little is made of the positive or negative impacts that scientific research of itself (as opposed to later 'applied' through technology and industrial developments) may have on, for instance, the locations in which they may be placed.

Single criterion decisions
'The science', it is proclaimed, must speak for itself, unhindered by base considerations of how it might benefit (or otherwise) non-scientific developments such as urban regeneration.

One result of this position is that decisions about large-scale and fundamental scientific research are made only by scientists, with scant if any regard to the measurable impacts which the process - as opposed simply to the possible eventual outcomes - of undertaking the research might have on the people (tax payers) who provided the wherewithal.

Surely even a hundred years ago this was not Haldane's intention? He was in fact advising the government of the day on how best to benefit from science at a time of war.

Imaginations and applications
There is a strong case for supporting fundamental or 'pure' science, in the sense that it allows the very best scientists to take their disciplines forward in exciting and truly astonishing ways. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is a core activity in science, and, properly handled, can be an enormous catalyst for progress.

Haldane can be very properly invoked to ensure that there is no interference in the way fundamental science is actually done. We can understand that fundamental research requires scrupulous peer review, but never political meddling.

This is however very different from the idea that politicians have a positive duty to ensure all the 'added-value' they can squeeze for the wider community which they represent, when the government funds big research investments.

Regionalism and regeneration
In Haldane's time the very concept of regeneration as we now know it didn't exist.

It was only later that observers such as J.D. Bernal (in 1939) argued that the overarching consideration be social good rather than freedom of research; this being followed in 1971 by Sir Solly Zuckerman's critique of the artificial separation of applied and basic science - a critique in part accommodated by the Rothschild Report of the same year, which saw some funding and decision-making being handed back to government. (This thinking was also followed elsewhere, e.g. in 1972, when an article in the respected journal Nature called for an 'End to the Haldane Principle in Canada'.)

That was respectively 80 or 35 years ago; and despite continuing debate (in Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere) it seems we still fail to see where Haldane helps in the modern world, and where he doesn't. I doubt this was a legacy the man himself intended.

Good science can also offer added value
There is little doubt that only good science is worth doing - the other sort isn't really science at all - and good science requires genuine independence for its practitioners. Haldane continues to offer assurance that scientists can and must conduct the work they do unhindered.

We should not however confuse this guarantee of research independence 'on the ground' with the duty upon government to ensure its (and our) money is invested well.

Sometimes the best investment is indeed in fundamental research, expensive though this is. But the 'non-science' dividends of placing that research, whether fundamental or applied, in one location rather than another, may be compelling.

Regional science policy
Now that science involves such enormous funding, the case for investing that money also as part of regeneration strategies in the UK 'regions' is persuasive.

Some scientists on Research Councils, divorced from the realities of wider public policy, may want to cite Haldane as they resist the idea of looking at regional investment impacts ensuing from the development of research proposals. They are wrong to do so.

The time has come for regional science policies to become part of the equation, acknowledging the impact that Big Science research based away from the Golden Triangle would have on areas of the UK which require regeneration. This is hardly an ask too far.

And it is certainly not a threat to the integrity or operational independence of science, Haldane Principle or not.


Read also:
Science & Politics

Natural Vs. Physical Science Research Points Up Regeneration Added-Value
and
Big Science, Technology And The New Localism

Ratatouille Today marks the start of UK National Vegetarian Week. The arguments for a balanced vegetarian diet are persuasive - it 'saves' energy, it uses less carbon and water, it can respect the seasons, it has potential to make a huge contribution to resolving global hunger, and it's good for us. So how can we make vegetarianism more often the diet of choice?

Nobody expects an immediate cessation of meat production, let alone a stop right this minute to diary farming. Many people, admittedly not all, will be happy for now to see the continued consumption of vegetarian diets could just be 'meat-free', with all the benefits that would bring.

But one of the things National Vegetarian Week can do is introduce us to the wide and tasty range of foods which a vegetarian diet includes and the reasons for choosing it. And it can help raise awareness of how to prepare and cook vegetarian ingredients.

Long-term business
And, most importantly, perhaps National Vegetarian Week can help along the debate about how in reality the transition to a more sustainable food economy might happen. There have to be ways to protect the livelihoods, for instance, of people who currently produce meat, but who in the future will need to farm differently. Food production is self-evidently critical for us all. It's the nature of the product, not the supply, which must change.

At last we're beginning to act (albeit far too slowly) to the idea that carbon needs to be conserved in our industial, domestic and transport arrangements, as does water.

Canny investors have already realised that now is also the time to get a grasp on how to make meat-free food an integral part of the move towards what we all hope will be a sustainable future.


Read more about Food (a series of postings on this theme)
Food, Facts And Factoids
Beans Or Beef? The New Eco-Moral Choices
Seasonal Food - Who Knows About It?.

Daresbury Laboratory Tower  60x99 043a.jpg Investment in scientific programmes often has added socio-economic value. But there is little evidence that good indices are available to measure what this impact might be for large-scale scientific regionally-based development. Whilst private investors guard their capital with care, only rarely do the criteria for evaluation of Big Science proposals include adequate consideration of the wider impact of public funds invested.

The bovine foot and mouth pyres of a few years ago are testament to unintentional damage inflicted when strictly focused ‘science’ is applied crudely in wider socio-economic contexts.

Everyone wanted to do the right thing; but the upshot of scientific best advice was rural economic devastation.

What criteria?
The same scenario may be enacted again, if the judgement of a panel of leading scientists results in removal of the Alice (Accelerators and Lasers in Combined Experiments) programme at the Daresbury Laboratory in North-West England.

The science will carry on elsewhere, most probably in the USA, but the NW regional economy, which could have benefited hugely, will instead take a hammerblow.

Best value for government investment
Scientists quite rightly concentrate on what they understand – in this case physics, engineering and the like. I cannot comment on their scientific judgements about ALICE; though it is always open to their colleagues have views on this.

Whatever, the investment of significant government monies must also, as numbers of parliamentarians have argued, be about best value in socio-economic terms, as well as indicated by narrower scientific parameters; and the scientists would without doubt agree they are not best placed to adjudicate all this.

Socio-economic impact studies
If the relevant science councils have undertaken regional socio-economic impact studies on their proposed investments, these, like the scientific appraisals, must now be opened to public scrutiny.

If they have not, we must challenge the science councils to undertake these comparative impact studies immediately, before potentially devastating decisions are made.

Added value - or otherwise
Added value' (perhaps significantly, a term often used to evaluate the impact of educational initiatives) and ‘unintended consequences' (c.f. Robert Merton's work) may be indices beyond the lexicon of physical science; but, as the rural economists acknowledged after foot and mouth disease, they can never be outside the remit of decisions about big investment, in the public interest, of taxpayers’ money.

A version of this article, entitled 'Alice in economic context', was published on the Letters page of Guardian Education on 15 April 2008.

Read more:
Science, Regeneration & Sustainability
Science & Politics

Science bottles & test tubes The Liverpool city region (Merseyside) looks on available evidence to have only about half the number of scientists which might be expected on the basis of the overall national statistics. So by what indicators might Merseyside measure progress in the retention and development of graduate scientists and technologists?

In 2008 the University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University between them will, excluding medical doctors, produce more than 2000 new Science and IT graduates. There will also be nearly 500 post-graduates, including those, a considerable number of whom studied part-time for Master's degrees, in the field of information technology - which is noted as a strength on Merseyside.

Here indeed is potential in every respect. So why do Liverpool and Merseyside stay so near the bottom of the national economic stakes?

Who's economically active?
Just under half the UK population (i.e some 28 million people) is economically active, nearly a tenth of whom (2.67 million, in 2005) have a Science or Engineering HE qualification – which is about two fifths of all graduates; and some 88% of these are currently in employment.

But the Merseyside conurbation has a population of nearly 1.5 million. Of those of working age however, against a national average of 74.5%, about 68% (551,000) are in employment (62%, or 167,000 in Liverpool itself) .

Graduates
Whilst it is very difficult to obtain accurate and up-to-date statistics on exactly how many scientists live and / or work in Merseyside, some approximations are possible. These suggest that numbers are significantly lower than they 'should' be, if the overall numbers of scientists and technologists were distributed evenly across the UK.

Approaching 30% of the UK newly adult population is now qualified to degree level (in any subject), whereas even after considerable recent improvement the figure on Merseyside is around 21% .

The Liverpool city region clearly needs to keep (or, better still for everyone over time, attract, and 'exchange' freely with other places) as many of our current annual output of 2,500 science graduates as possible.

Measuring retention, exchange and employment of graduates
How this can be done is, of course, a matter still under debate. But one sensible place to begin might be to set up a formal method of collating data about who, with a degree in what, stays on, comes to live and work in, or leaves the Liverpool city region. How else are we to measure progress or otherwise in our 21st century economy?

That these figures, for every stage in graduates' careers and lives, are not routinely available on a Liverpool city region basis, is an indicator of how far we have yet to travel in the knowledge economy stakes.


Useful statistics and references
BERR SET (Science, Engineering & Technology) Indicators 2005
City of Liverpool Key Statistics Bulletin August 2006
Office of National Statistics 2006
Knowledge Exchange Merseyside Graduate Labour Market Report
Merseyside Economic Review 2007

You are particularly invited to offer Comment below if you can tell us more about these statistics, in respect of Liverpool, Merseyside and / or the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation. Thank you.

Read more about Science, Regeneration & Sustainability
and The Future Of Liverpool.

Recent Entries

The Science Council Lecture On Government Science Policy
The inaugural Sir Gareth Roberts Lecture, delivered on the same day as the Queen's Speech to Parliament, was our first…
Translational Science In Transition: The New Science Policy
Who pays for what in the constant race to stay at the global cutting edge in science and technology is…
Liverpool Vision's Jim Gill Reflects On Hope Street Quarter
What follows is a summary of a conversation between Jim Gill, Chief Executive of Liverpool Vision, and Hilary Burrage, Hon.…