Volume 2

Setting priorities for publicly funded research : 3rd report of session 2009-10. / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
2010
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Setting priorities for publicly funded research : 3rd report of session 2009-10. / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    34/520 (page 26)
    47. A key element of the Government Office for Science’s Science and Engineering Assurance Programme is a review of the commissioning process and of how departments ensure that the science and engineering they use is robust, relevant and high quality. The findings of GO-Science’s Science Reviews have indicated that Departments generally have robust procedures in place for the commissioning of science. However, there is always room for improvement, and recommendations on this have been made where appropriate. 48. For example, the Home Office has a Project Quality Approval Board (PQAB) process in place for the appraisal of projects. As a part of this process, project bids are peer reviewed internally by colleagues who are expert but do not have a vested interest in the work and who offer constructive criticism of the proposals. However, one of the recommendations of the recent GO-Science Science Review of the Home Office/Ministry of Justice was support for the Home Office’s intention to make greater use of external expertise as part of their Project Quality Approval Board (PQAB) process, (although the potential difficulties, in terms of avoiding conflicts of interest in a small research community and of security concerns, are acknowledged). The Home Office has accepted this recommendation and has discussed an approach with members of the Home Office Science Advisory Committee to involve the Committee in the quality assurance process and the Committee will review PQAB processes within 12 months. 49. As well as peer review at the commissioning stage, external challenge and peer review takes place at all stages of the identification, commissioning and delivery of science and engineering in government. This ensures that government has access to the best science and engineering to contribute to good policy making and sound government. 50. Every major science-using department now has a Chief Scientific Adviser. This network of departmental CSAs and the CSAC Core Issues Group (CIG), Science Advisory Councils and the Scientific Advisory Committees all provide a means of external challenge and peer review of science and engineering used by government. For example, the CSAC Core Issues Group (CIG) activities have included peer reviews of the Gallagher review of biofuels sustainability, and of the geomorphological and hydraulic response of the Severn Estuary to a tidal power development. 51. In addition, departments may work with national and international external experts, the academic community, research institutes, the business and voluntary sectors, and other interested external parties in the identification of evidence gaps, and, in the development, commissioning and delivery of their research and analysis strategies. 4. You stated that the DG for science and research will consult more widely and formally bodies in the academic and business and public service communities to understand their views on allocation (transcript reference: Question 20). How will you consult with such bodies? Which bodies will you be consulting? 52. This consultation process was described in evidence provided by this Government to the Commons’ Science and Technology Select Committee for their inquiry Putting science and engineering at the heart of government policy:'® Allocation of the science budget is underpinned by a body of evidence including draft delivery plans from each Research Council. The DIUS (now BIS) Director General of Science and Research (DGSR) has committed to wider consultation in the run up to the next Spending Review. As a starting point, any consulting will satisfy the following principles: Consultation will be wide-ranging and visible to ensure it is of high quality and has the confidence of the community. Consultation will not be at the disciplinary level. The DGSR has asked the following bodies to provide formal advice: — The Royal Society — The Royal Academy of Engineering — The British Academy — The Council for Science and Technology — The Chief Scientific Advisers Committee — The Confederation for British Industry 'S Memoranda of evidence for the select committee’s inquiry: http://www. publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/emdius/ memo/apps/apps.pdf