Academia and government can work together, says Peter Brooke

Effective government policy must be informed by the best academic research. A healthy engagement between the academic community and government is necessary if Whitehall is to have high-quality, evidence-based advice on the major challenges facing the UK.

This is the message from the Council for Science and Technology (CST) – the Prime Minister’s top level science advisory body – to John Denham, Secretary of State for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, in a new CST report, How academia and government can work together.

The CST is co-chaired by Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser, and Professor Dame Janet Finch, together with 15 members drawn from a broad range of academic and business backgrounds. It focuses on issues that cut across government departments within the medium- to long-term.

New framework

CST’s report is one of eight that the Secretary of State has commissioned from groups and individuals to help develop a framework for higher education in the UK over the next 10-15 years, which he announced in his speech on higher education at the end of February(1). The framework will help to ensure that our universities maintain their world-class status for the long-term.

CST was asked to advise on how to achieve better and more productive engagement between the academic base and government to support policy making. This strand of work is also feeding in to the Science and Society consultation(2) on the vision he outlined to the Royal Society of Arts on 16 January(3) this year.

The CST project was led by Sir John Beringer. CST recognises that interactions between academics and policy makers are complex and take many different forms, and that there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Part of the difficulty is that academics and policy makers inevitably operate in different cultures.

The report identifies several areas where work can be done to build on existing links. The key is building mutual understanding.

Effective engagement

At present, there is some ignorance on both sides about the importance of effective engagement. Equally, both sides would benefit from appreciating the constraints that each operates under.

Government must recognise the importance of independence and peer recognition to the academic community. In return, academics should recognise the competing priorities facing policy makers. Both sides need to recognise that some of the outputs of the engagement may be easier to value and incentivise through the academic system than others. Creative solutions are needed from both sides.

The Council has therefore highlighted the importance of good communication and relationship building.

Exchange mechanisms, including prestigious internships and secondments, are vital and should be career-enhancing on both sides. 

Building capacity

Government needs to build its own capacity. CST recommends that Chief Scientific Advisers’ roles are further strengthened, so they have the necessary access to Ministers and are better known within the academic community.

The Core Issues Group, consisting of departmental Chief Scientists and established by Professor Beddington, has proved vital in kick-starting the capacity-building mechanism. The members of the group recently contributed to the Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels (conducted by the Renewable Fuels Agency, for the Department of Transport) through providing a peer review team to critique and ensure the science was as robust as possible. In addition, this group engages further with the Research Councils through regular meetings with their CEOs.

At the same time, universities need to operate more like consultancies in their dealings with government. They need to translate the successes they have had in working with business into successful ways of working with government. It will help them to compete for the £2.8 billion annual spend on consultancy services.

Evaluating outcomes

CST also urges further thought on how these relationships are valued and rewarded, including ways of measuring quality, and whether the outputs are capable of being reviewed through the academic process or not. The report sets out some options on how each might be valued and rewarded, whilst recognising more work is needed.

By implementing these recommendations, CST believes that the policy and academic communities will forge clearer, more coherent and more professional relationships that will be mutually beneficial and good for the country.

Reference

1. Dius - Speeches 

2. Interactive DIUS

3. DIUS

Dr Peter Brooke is Secretary of the Council for Science and Technology