Impact scepticism

Bad news for unpopular agenda as David Willetts calls for scientific literacy, not ‘utilitarian calculation’. Paul Jump reports

The economic value of public investment in science is best demonstrated by the ability of a scientifically literate country to capitalise on advancements made around the world, according to the minister for science and universities.

Speaking to an audience of science journalists at the Science Media Centre in London today, David Willetts reiterated his scepticism about proposals to measure the social and economic impact of research in the forthcoming research excellence framework.

“Scientific activity can’t be reduced to a utilitarian calculation or an economic balance sheet,” he said.

But he added that the discipline would not be exempt from public-sector cuts and said it would be necessary to economically justify state investment in science.

He said that as a layman, he was most persuaded by the argument that an economy and society with high levels of scientific understanding had a greater “absorptive capacity”.

“It means that if you have that critical mass in your own society’s in-house capacity to understand, you have a greater ability to benefit from scientific advances happening around the world,” he explained.

Mr Willetts was complimentary of the previous government’s efforts to boost science and said he did not intend to approach his brief in a “partisan spirit”.

He said he would call upon the expertise of the former Labour science minister Lord Sainsbury and Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP and Commons Science and Technology Committee stalwart, who lost his seat in the general election.

He also expressed support for the appointment of a chief scientific adviser to the Treasury, but said now “might not be the most tactful moment” to push for it.

Mr Willetts said he approved of incorporating principles on respecting scientific advice into the Ministerial Code, but was wary about this being seen as “a treaty between two warring tribes”.

He added that his aides were still trying to determine whether the decision to suspend all spending announced this year by the previous government would affect funding for the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation in Central London.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

• For an interview with David Willetts, see Times Higher Education, 20 May.

Already registered?

Sign in now if you are already registered or a current subscriber. Or subscribe for unrestricted access to our digital editions and iPad and iPhone app.

Register to continue  

You've enjoyed reading five THE articles this month. Register now to get five more, or subscribe for unrestricted access.

Most Commented

  • Woman taking homeopathic medicine

Alternative treatments in healthcare plan is latest in a series of homeopathy-related controversies

  • Man lying beneath rugby pile-up

Six academics share their experiences before delivering a verdict on the system

  • Zygmunt Bauman with hand over mouth

Eminent sociologist has recycled 90,000 words of material across a dozen books, claims paper

  • Foot about to step on banana peel

Kevin Haggerty and Aaron Doyle offer tips on making postgraduate study even tougher (which students could also use to avoid pitfalls if they prefer)

Phil Baty explains why hundreds of research papers will not be considered when compiling the next Times Higher Education rankings