"Multi-Technique Problem Solving in an Industrial
Environment"
Shell, Thornton Laboratories, Chester-
Wednesday 6th of January 1999
"Save British Science - A Personal View"
A. Carrick, Acolyte
Consultants
| |
 |
| |
Figure 19. Alan Carrick giving one of his two
presentations at this year's Winter Meeting |
| |
|
The only thing I knew about "Save British Science" when I
began to prepare this talk was that some time ago Len Hazell had proposed that we make a
contribution from UKESCAUG funds to the organisation. I can't remember how far Len
enlarged on the nature of SBS when he made his appeal, other than that it was a
"worthy cause" - perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention - but I do remember
that when I started to think about it afterwards, I finished up with more questions than
answers. Unusually, since I try never to put anything in writing, I committed those
questions to paper - or more exactly e-mail. Hence this.
I live in a part of the country which is no stranger to the activities
of "single issue" pressure groups - Tatton Park was one of the earliest National
Trust properties to dissociate itself from events involving the local hunt: we have the
country's only Independent MP: we now almost have a second runway at the airport- and so
you will forgive me if I approach an organisation whose name not only suggests
"single issue" but also some measure of jingoism with a fair degree of
scepticism.
Misgivings about names aside, (what is so special about
"British" science as opposed to German, French,
Dutch, or any other science?) if an organisation exists,
then it exists on the Internet, and this for me is always
the easiest place to start to find answers. A couple of
guesses at the SBS web address (www.sbs.org
and "www.sbs.org.uk")
didn't exactly draw blanks, but neither did they provide
much enlightenment, and it was only after a "serious"
web search that I found the real SBS URL -("http://dailspace.dail.pipex.com/town/parade/og69/")
and my answers started coming.I can now see the reason for
the name (the original "Times" advertisement -
I like "Save British Science Society" only fractionally
better, however.) More important, I can now see that their
aims are indeed tho roughly worthwhile, even if, over the
twelve years of their existence and the considerable volume
of writings, media interviews, and press releases, getting
no easier to pursue. The contact information on the site
is accurate, and led straight to the desk of the only full
time employee, their Director, Dr Peter Cotgreave, who proved
a paragon of responsiveness, providing by return post a
sheaf of newsletters, policy documents and other material,
some of which provided excellent starting points for talk
and slides.
So SBS is responsive and accessible. Are they known amongst the
academic community they seek to help? Are they effective? Sadly the answer to the first
question , derived from an admittedly limited sample of the UKESCAUG academics,
extrapolates to "no" in general. It seems that SBS could certainly do with a
higher profile in the science departments of the majority of UK Universities. As to
effectiveness, then the same selection of academics would probably say that that still
remains uncertain. From what I've seen of the SBS lobby activities, though, that 's not
for want of trying and they've launched some pretty accurately targeted missiles
("cast some attractive lures" is perhaps a better metaphor) over the years.
I would recommend the "documents" section of the web site,
and of those listed in particular the March 1996 memorandum "Policies for the Next
Government: Science and Technology" Surely some of those closely argued and clearly
presented lines of thought must have found their way (via the "centre left"
"think tanks" such as the "Institute for
Public Policy Research") into current political thinking. Maybe there is no
easily traceable link between SBS efforts and the announcement (in an Independent headline
of 9th December 1998, for example) of an "extra" £776M funding for the
Universities, but who is to say what would have happened without such steady pressure?(*) The 1996 memo seems to summa rise the situation: "there are only
two options for Britain - become smarter or become poorer"
One final question: what other organisations exist to promote the
continued exis tence of science in the Universities and the welfare of the science base?
The British Association? The Royal Society's COPUS? Any other of the August Bodies listed
at "http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/"? None,
really. COPUS as "a forum (and) .. a source of information and inspiration"
looks, as its name suggests, towards the public rather than directly towards influencing
policy. The BA believes "science and technology are a vital part of our heritage and
culture", but has no direct policy lobby group, so it is really down to SBS to harry
the policy makers, and for that they need funds.
Since I've benefitted from that environment for "British
Science" which SBS exists to promote, then I think it is a good thing we try to
maintain it - not only for future (privileged) individuals, but for the country as a
whole. That's not to say things won't change - governments do (sometimes) listen: power
shifts and devolves, and the political ethos of the EU grows - however tentatively -
towards "togetherness" but, beyond all this, it would surely be a Bad Thing if
the sciences were eventually to disappear from our (British) Universities.
Wouldn't it?
(*) Footnote. Setting that amount of funding in
context was another headline in the same paper announcing talks between Zeneca and the
Swedish firm Astra to for m a "£40bn" company. Even more apposite (and
disturbing) is the note (News Review, "Chemistry in Britain", January 1999) that
"The corporate headquarters of AstraZeneca will be in the UK, while the R&D
headquarters will be based in Sweden.. ."
|
