Summer 2008 - Science in Parliament

The charity enterprise in research

Summer 2008

SCIENCE INPARLIAMENT

Engineering Skills

Hands-on Science

Chemicals in Food, Water and ConsumerProducts

Biosimilar Medicines

The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee http://www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

6446 scientific&parliamentary summer 08 8/7/08 09:43 Page 2

Science in Parliament Vol 65 No 3 Summer 2008

SCIENCE IN

PARLIAMENT

Dr John Snow diedon 16 June 1858,and I had thepleasure to visit theJohn Snow publichouse in Soho on themorning of 16 June,when the RoyalSociety of Chemistryinvited a ‘flurry’ ofSnows to attend theunveiling of a ‘blueplaque’ by the Rt

Hon Alan Johnson, Secretary of State forHealth, to commemorate his work. For thosewho are unfamiliar with Snow’s work DrStanwell-Smith reminds us of its importance inthis edition of SiP. The John Snow Societybelieves that his work is of equal importanceto that of engineer Joseph Bazalgette, who wasinstructed by Parliament in 1858 to stop rawsewage flowing into the River Thames, whichcreated the ‘Great Stink’ of that year. The smellof the river was so bad that Parliamentconsidered moving to Hampton Court Palace.Worryingly, our pharmaceuticals industry haslost more than 8,000 jobs in the last threeyears, according to recent figures released bythe ABPI. “The pharmaceutical industry haslost confidence in the country as a place to dobusiness”, a new survey by the ABPI and CBIof 100 UK-based pharmaceutical companieshas revealed. 35 companies are expecting toreduce their level of R&D investment over thenext 12 months, currently worth £4 billion,the level of manufacturing is forecast to dropin 42 of the companies, and 46 of them areexpected to reduce the number of clinicaltrials. Our Government should be concernedby these trends.Recent experience with the Energy Bill and theDIUS Select Committee, which has justpublished Renewable electricity-generatingtechnologies, has convinced me that thebiggest barrier to renewable energy is access tothe transmission grid. Unless owners of thegrid can sort out these access problems shortly,there will be fresh calls for its nationalisation.The P&SC has opened a discussion forum onits website, www.scienceinparliament.org.uk,and we invite members to give their views oncurrent controversies. For example, it has beenproposed (not by Government) that teachingin FE and HE be administered by a singlefunding council. Would this lead to a singlesalary scale for academic staff and grants for allstudents, whether in FE or HE? What changeswould it bring to our universities? What doyou think?Dr Brian Iddon MPChairman, Editorial BoardScience in Parliament

Science in Parliament has two main objectives:

a) to inform the scientific and industrial communities

of activities within Parliament of a scientific nature

and of the progress of relevant legislation;

b) to keep Members of Parliament abreast

of scientific affairs.

Summer 2008 Volume 65 Number 3

ContentsScience in the NHS 1Ann Keen MPScience in Universities 2Diana WarwickEngineering Skills: Investing in Tomorrow 3Dr David BrownScience and Society: Realising the Vision 4Ian Pearson MPScience in Parliament 5Opinion by Lord Jenkin of RodingTime is running out for jaw, jaw 6Opinion by Colin Challen MPThe Charity Enterprise in Research 7Simon Denegri and Sara Ellis, Association of Medical Research CharitiesNational Physical Laboratory – the UK’s National Measurement Institute 10Professor John PethicaThe Search for Life on Mars 12

20 Years of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 14

The Severn Estuary: a Barrage or a Bore 16

Engineering Challenges towards Personalised Medicine 18

Dr John Snow: an unsung hero of water and sanitation 19

Hands-on Science in Schools 20Addresses to the P&SC by Prof Tina Overton, Dr Karen Bultitude and Dr Hugh CartwrightChemicals in Food, Water and Consumer Products 26Addresses to the P&SC by Prof David Coggon, Dr Kerr Wilson and Gwynne LyonsSafety Issues related to the Introduction of Biosimilar Medicines into UKHealthcare 32Addresses to the P&SC by Dr Antonio Pagliuca and Michael SummersBeating Stress, Anxiety and Depression 35Book Review by Lord Walton of DetchantThree years in Delhi 36

House of Commons Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills 37

House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 39

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 40

House of Commons Library Science and Environment Section 42

Debates and Selected Parliamentary Questions and Answers 42

Parliamentary and Scientific Committee News 52

Euro-News 54

Science Directory 55

Science Diary 64

The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.

The Committee is an Associate Parliamentary Group of members of both Houses of Parliament and British members of the European Parliament, representatives of scientific and technical institutions, industrial organisations and universities.

ISSN 0263-6271


Science in Parliament Vol 65 No 3 Summer 2008 1

This year we celebrate the 60thanniversary of the NationalHealth Service. In marking this

momentous milestone, it is crucial thatwe acknowledge the important rolescience has played in driving forwardcrucial innovation and improvements,leading to better patient care for manyand saving millions of lives.

The last sixty years have seenastonishing advances in diagnosis,treatment and care within the NHS.IVF, MRI and PET scans are just someof the advances powering innovation,providing evidence for change andensuring that laboratory research isquickly translated into better andmore effective care for patients.

In 1948, just a few hundred healthcarescientists were employed within theservice. They were found behind thescenes, typically in pathologylaboratories. Today, there are over50,000 healthcare scientists workingfor the NHS and its related bodiessuch as the Health Protection Agency.They make up the single largestscience workforce in Britain (and thethird largest in Europe). The size ofthis workforce – which is a surprise tomany – reflects the critical crosscutting importance of scientificservices in patient care, with eight outof ten clinical decisions nowdepending on diagnostic information.They have been important innovatorsin health and have played a key role inensuring that the many scientificadvances of the last sixty years havebeen translated into opportunities forbetter care for patients. As a formernurse of more than 25 years’experience in the NHS, I havewitnessed many of these advances.

For example, NHS medical physicistspioneered and developed many of thedazzling new imaging technologieswhich have revolutionised thediagnosis and management of disease.X rays have become safer for bothpatients and medical staff, with clearerimages produced using a lowerradiation dose. Ultrasound, developedwithin the NHS, no longer producesfuzzy pictures, but highly detailed 3Dimages which are used in cardiology,fetal medicine and many other areas. A

whole new field, functional imaging,uses gamma and Postiron emissiontomography (PET) cameras to trackinjected radioisotopes. Functional MRIscans show soft tissues in highdefinition along with brain physiology.This ability to reveal the brain at workhas sparked an unprecedented era ofdiscovery in neuroscience.

As science in the wider worldadvanced, so did science in the NHS.Watson & Crick’s 1953 paper on DNAmarked the beginning of an explosionof genetic knowledge and soon theNHS began employing geneticists tointerpret the new knowledge aboutgenes for patient benefit. As assistedreproductive technologies like in-vitrofertilisation (IVF) were developed,another new profession emerged –clinical embryologists – dedicated toensuring that the highest qualitystandards are translated into the bestchances of pregnancy for infertilecouples.

Clinical engineering in the NHSmeanwhile has quietly revolutionisedrehabilitation, beginning with thedesign, manufacture and maintenanceof improved artificial limbs,wheelchairs and other mobility aids.Developments in technology, includingcomposite materials, electronics andcomputing have improved prostheticswhich can now be controlled bystimulation from the central nervoussystem. Such systems are able toactivate nerves affected by paralysis.

Measuring how effectively bodysystems are working is another keyarea. In 1948, patients had theirbreathing assessed by blowing intolaboratory based water spirometers, afar cry from the hand-held devicesused in GP practices today withembedded micro chips which cantransmit data to offsite locations forreporting and interpreting, formonitoring changes in a patient’scondition and for quality assurancepurposes, important in national andglobal clinical trials. Much of thisdevelopment in device technology hasbeen done in a symbiotic partnershipbetween NHS scientific departmentsand industry. The advance intechnology has also allowed

respiratory function to be assessedboth awake and asleep. When thisbecame possible, new diseases wererevealed such as sleep apnoea whichwas virtually unknown in 1948.

Diagnosis is today moving out of thelaboratory and into the GP’s surgeryand patient’s home. ‘Labs on a chip’,developed and refined by scientistswithin the NHS, measure multiplesubstances simultaneously from asingle drop of blood.

The NHS, with its unique structure,has always been at the forefront ofhealth innovation. Over the pastdecade, the Government has morethan doubled science spending, a largeproportion of which has drivenresearch with application in publichealth and healthcare. Investment inhealthcare research through theMedical Research Council and theNational Institute for Health Research(NIHR) has already made a differencefor patients. When the NHS began,blindness was inevitable for those withinherited eye disease. One of the newNIHR funded specialist biomedicalresearch centres is a collaborationbetween Moorfield’s Eye Hospital andUniversity College London. Genetherapy developed at the centre hasalready improved the sight of someyoung people with rare blindingconditions; further work with stemcell therapy and new medicines whichprevent scarring in the eye showenormous promise for a range of othereye problems.

Science is also at the heart of publichealth policy within the Department ofHealth, informing it and providing the

Science in the NHSAnn Keen MPParliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health



evidence for response in the face ofnew threats to public health and safety.A current example is in thedevelopment of guidance and plans tosupport the NHS in its preparationsfor a flu pandemic. The DH Health

Scientific Advisory Group completedcomprehensive reviews of evidencesupporting the use of clinicalcountermeasures, publishing them in2007.

Many of the innovations that improvethe lives of Britons during the next sixtyyears are as yet unimagined. Muchmore certain is the knowledge thatscience – and scientists – will continueto be the bedrock of the NHS – as theyhave been for the past sixty years.

Science in UniversitiesDiana WarwickChief Executive, Universities UK

It is well known but worth repeatingthat the UK produces nine per centof the world’s scientific papers with

a citation share of 12 per cent, secondonly to the US, and has continued tostrengthen its share of the world’s mostinfluential papers. The UK’suniversities have underpinned thissuccess, which has been achieved withrelatively lower investment thancompetitors. The continued strengthof research in the UK’s universities ispresent across the sector in a full rangeof disciplines from engineering andphysical sciences through to the artsand humanities.

Universities’ research performance isclosely linked to our country’s futureeconomic and social prosperity, withscience and innovation rising up thelist of priorities for political attentionand public investment. For their part,the current Government hasdemonstrated political commitmentthrough the substantial investmentthat has flowed from the 10-yearScience and Innovation InvestmentFramework. Parties from across thepolitical spectrum have recognised itsimportance. This is good news.

Much of the recent additionalinvestment in university research hasgone to sustain the research base.Termed ‘full economic costing’, thebasic principle has been to sustain thevolume of project-based researchfunding through the ResearchCouncils, but to ensure that more ofthe costs are covered to allowuniversities to re-invest in theirinfrastructure. To some this mightseem a mere accounting issue, but ithas been fundamental in helping toturn around years of under-investmentand set UK universities on a firmfooting to take on the biggest

challenges, with labs and facilities thatare world class and fit for purpose.

The success of the UK’s HigherEducation Institutions (HEI) researchhas also been underpinned by anotherseemingly arcane, but nonethelessessential, policy – the dual supportsystem. This provides public funds toinstitutions in two streams, one as partof their block grant provided by thedevolved funding councils (known as‘quality related’ or QR), and the otherin the form of project-based grantsprovided by the UK-wide ResearchCouncils. A key strength of this systemis that the QR grant is unhypothecated– that is not restricted to a specificpurpose – allowing university leadersthe freedom to take strategic decisionsabout the research activities of theirown institutions. This means that riskyor more innovative research can besupported, when it might otherwiseslip though the net.

Universities UK’s 2006 publication,Eureka UK, outlined some of the mostoutstanding world-changingdiscoveries, innovations and researchprojects that have come out of UKuniversities over the past 50 years.Many of these developed fromindividuals or groups supportedthrough QR funds. They were giventime to evolve in supportive researchcultures. Put simply, if UK universitiesare going to be able to continue topunch above their weight in anincreasingly competitive internationalenvironment, they need the flex anddynamism that dual support affordsthem.

A sustainable and dynamic universitysystem will mean that we can alsoimprove the attractiveness of the UK toinward investors and potentialpartners, draw the best mobile talent,

and capitalise on internationalcollaborations. New knowledge canarise anywhere and internationalresearch collaboration is a direct meansof accessing it and increasing the UK’sstrategic capability for innovation. Arecent report by Universities UK showsthat we are already doing well. UKresearchers are hugely active ininternational collaborations and theirnumber is 50% higher than 10 yearsago. We cannot, however, becomplacent. China, India and SouthKorea are now significant players inglobal science and innovation networksthat channel flows of people, ideas andtechnologies.

Research in UK universities is not onlystrong internationally, but also relevantto business and public sector users atregional and national levels. Strengthin this area comes from the diversity ofthe sector and universities haveworked extremely hard to ensure thatwe do not miss opportunities toexchange knowledge that has thepotential to underpin the developmentof innovative products and servicesthat can benefit us all. Thecommitment to a permanent source offunding to help make this happen,through the Higher Education



Innovation Fund (HEIF), has beensuccessful in stimulating knowledgeexchange, business links and otherforms of employer engagement such ascontinuing professional education.

There is little doubt that research inour universities underpins science and

For the past year or more,something of a wind of changehas been blowing through the

once-dusty corridors of the UK’sengineering profession. Under a newgeneration of management, theprofessional institutions, once jealousof their independence and separation,have now come to work together –joining forces on a number of issues ofcommon concern and commonimportance.

Uppermost among those issues issecuring the ‘talent pipeline’ whichunderpins the current and futuresuccess of much of UK industry andprovides a powerful magnet for exactlythe kind of knowledge-based inwardinvestment that Government hasrightly made a priority.

Chemical Engineers are supposed toknow about pipelines, and we inIChemE – The Institution of ChemicalEngineers – have taken a lead inaddressing this particular pipeline. Indoing so we are building on asuccessful foundation: the‘WhyNotChemEng’ campaign topromote chemical, biochemical andprocess engineering to young peoplehas helped to increase applicationrates to universities by over 70% overa five-year period. Now, we havejoined with the other engineeringinstitutions under the auspices of the‘G15’ group of Chief Executives, todevelop a common understanding ofthe challenges at the ‘upstream’ end ofthe talent pipeline – the supply ofyoung people trained in the science,technology, engineering and

mathematics subjects – the STEMdisciplines. Together, we have calledfor action on four specific topics.

Firstly, it’s time that policy makersexplicitly recognised that youngpeople at secondary school should betaught STEM subjects by staffthoroughly trained and well-versed inthe subjects that they are teaching – sophysics is taught by a physicist,chemistry by chemists and so on. Thatof course means improved incentivesto attract talented people into STEMsubject teaching, including bothfinancial incentives and other leverssuch as first-rate laboratories andphysical resources, provision forcontinuing professional developmentand so on.

Secondly, we have called for increasedincentives for young people not simplyto take STEM subjects at university butsubsequently to enter relevant careers.We have proposed that this could beachieved by a progressive write-off ofstudent debt for those young peoplewho enter appropriate industrialcareers or indeed choose, ideally after aperiod of industrial experience, tomove into teaching themselves. We arenot averse to some graduates alsogoing into general management andfinancial careers, since their skills areimmensely valuable there andbusinesses by and large are likely to bebetter run with more engineering andtechnical understanding in the boardroom and through the managementstructure. But it’s a supply of skill totechnology-based industry and toeducation that most concerns us.

Thirdly, it is time for solid benchmarkstandards for careers support. Ifsomeone purporting to give youfinancial advice has to meet recognisedstandards that are properly enforced,how much more important is it thatreliable standards of advice should alsobe available where advice concernsyoung people’s careers?

Fourthly, and perhaps longest-term,we believe there should be a science‘spearhead’ in every substantialprimary school. Science co-ordinatorsare of course already in place, but theyare not always science or engineeringgraduates, and we believe they shouldbe. It’s gratifying to see this latterproposal supported by the recentConservative party policy paper onInnovation in the UK.

Meeting these requirements will not becheap, nor will it be easily or quicklyachieved. But the consequences offailure to invest in STEM educationare, we submit, far more costly – andthere is already evidence from researchfor UK Trade and Investment that theUK is losing ground in this vital area.+

+ Perceptions of the UK as a Science and TechnologyPartner, report by consultants Arthur D Little Ltd forUK TI, 2006

Engineering Skills:Investing in TomorrowDr David BrownChief Executive, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)

innovation. The challenge goingforward will be to sustain themomentum of recent years and furtherstrengthen our universities, in all theirdiversity. This will require ongoingpolitical commitment. For their partthe universities are committed to excelin all that they do and play a leading

role in meeting the needs andchallenges of the UK in the 21stcentury.

Diana Warwick (Baroness Warwick ofUndercliffe) has been a Member of theHouse of Lords since 1999 and ChiefExecutive of Universities UK since 1995.


4 Science in Parliament Vol 65 No 3 Summer 2008

Science and Society:Realising the VisionIan Pearson MPMinister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills

We have a vision. A vision fora better relationshipbetween science and society

in this country. A vision for a societythat is excited by science, values itsimportance to our social and economicwell-being, feels confident in its use,and supports a representative, well-qualified scientific workforce.

Throughout our first year, I and otherDIUS Ministers have been exploringthis vision with many different groupsand individuals.

Science improves the quality of dailylife, underpins prosperity and increasesour readiness to face the challenges ofthe future – both in the UK andoverseas. There has never been a timewhen the UK population has beenbigger consumers of the products andbenefits of science and technology, orthat the future economic success of theUK has been more dependent onsuccessful exploitation of science andtechnology and our ability to becomean Innovation Nation.

There is great potential for science tocontribute to good policy-making andsound government. Science can helpus to address the main challenges weface as a nation and as a planet:adapting to climate change; globalsecurity and international terrorism;rising populations and the consequentpressure on food, water and othernatural resources; the impact of humandiseases such as pandemic influenzaand animal diseases such as foot andmouth and blue tongue.

The need for consultationI believe there is a strong leadershiprole to be played by Government, inaddressing these challenges. But toensure we all make the right decisions,now and in the future, we want todevelop a shared strategy that is notonly the responsibility of Government,but all groups which impact on therelationship between science andsociety. We have therefore justpublished a consultation document tohelp us develop that strategy.

This consultation aims to build onpast policy and success but alsorecognises that the changing pace ofscientific discovery and the changingenvironment in which science isviewed by society raises newchallenges and questions for us all. Itfocuses in particular on what more weneed to do in public engagement;improving public confidence inscience and developing a workforce toachieve this common vision.

Our ambition is to build a moremature relationship between thepublic (including the media andeducation), policy makers and thescience community (includingbusiness) so that each understands theothers’ objectives, ways of achievingthem, aspirations and concerns.

The Challenges

Each chapter of our consultation setsout a goal, describes the currentsituation, and then poses a number ofquestions that relate to the keychallenges in the vision. The first goalis to achieve a society that is excitedabout science and values itsimportance to our social and economicwellbeing.

We believe increasing excitement inscience, improving inclusion andstrengthening the relevance of sciencein our culture will be best achieved byprofessionalising public engagementand identifying ways to recognise thebenefits it brings. The consultationidentifies key areas for action asstrengthening communication,especially two-way, improving accessand participation, and doing more todemonstrate relevance.

The second chapter focuses on helpingto create a society that is confident inthe use of science.

In March, the DIUS/RCUK PublicAttitudes to Science Survey 2008 waspublished. It showed that public trustin scientists continues to be stronglyinfluenced by the scientists’experience, academic credentials and,

crucially, their perceived independencefrom government and big business. Italso indicated a demand for moreconsultation on scientific issues beforedecisions are made. The consultationtherefore identifies four key areas foraction to help create a betterunderstanding of the nature of science,to build confidence in science fundedby the private sector, to do morelistening to what people say and todevelop a better understanding of therole of science in policy making.

The final part of the vision sets out ourgoal for a society that supports arepresentative well-qualified scientificworkforce.

For the UK to remain at the forefrontof scientific discovery and to securethe UK’s future in a highly competitiveglobal economy, we need to ensure thenext generation of scientists andengineers are properly equippedthrough opportunities in education,research, commerce and government.Unlocking the talent of Britain’scitizens through increasing their abilityto acquire and develop their own skillsis critical both individually and at asocietal level. As the Leitch Review ofSkills outlined in 2006, the only wayto compete on the world stage is toincrease the coverage of higher levelsof skills in our workforce. Through theconsultation, we want to explore threeareas for action, linking how to excitepeople about science to developingskills for life, increasing clarity in thebenefits of scientific skills in all careersand increasing the diversity of theworkforce.

Call to Action

Over the next few months we aim to



It has always surprised people whenI have to admit that I did almost noscience at school. We had evening

biology lectures by a brilliant retiredteacher who put marvellous pictureson the screen with an epidiascope –but this was extracurricular andhappily did not involve examinations.That was where I first learned aboutsperm whales, penguins, chimpanzeesand even the duck-billed platypus. Iam not aware of having learned anyphysics or chemistry at school. I didLatin and Greek, ancient history,French, and some maths (indeed Ihave on my bookshelves a mathsprize). At university, it was the same –classics and law. – but no science.

This came sharply home to me when,after a brief and undistinguished careerat the Bar, I got a job in the chemicalindustry. On my first day, I was askedif I knew what was meant by ‘organicchemistry’ – and had to confess that Idid not. So I was given a schooltextbook to read on organic chemistry– my first encounter with the world ofmolecules and atoms, chemicalcompounds and suchlike. At the endof my first week in the office which Ishared with a chemistry PhD wholooked after process licensing for thecompany, I wondered aloud how Icould ever be of any use to myemployers! Yet, I stayed with them for13 years, so perhaps I must have been.

However, when I expressed an interestin standing for Parliament – Oh dear! Iwas almost sacked on the spot! It wasonly when they began to complain thatno-one in the House of Commonsseemed to understand industry, and Ireplied that if they named a company Icould tell them an MP it had sacked,that they began to get the message!

There may not be a lot of MPs todaywho have had as little scientificeducation as I had 70 years ago, but,equally, there are not a lot of trainedscientists or engineers who find theirway into Parliament. It is myimpression that, with some notableexceptions, we are still a prettyunscientific lot!

Before I was elected in 1964, I hadheard about the Parliamentary andScientific Committee, and had beenadvised by a friend to join – it was myfirst All-Party Group – indeed, Ilearned later that it was the first All-Party Group. I have never regretted thisdecision. It has always seemed to me tobe a valuable bridge between theworlds of science and technology andthe world of politics. Over the years,the benefit of hearing, month aftermonth, eminent scientists, engineersand academics discussing the issues ofthe day as they affected theirbusinesses, professions and researchhas been incalculable. Often, the topicschosen have directly borne oncontroversies relevant to legislationcoming before Parliament – I need onlyinstance the recent legislation onhuman fertilisation and embryology tomake this point. Under successiveChairmen, and with the help ofsuccessive experts to advise them, theP & Sci has attracted speakers andaudiences of real distinction whosewisdom has had a real influence on ourdebates, both in the Commons and inthe Lords. Conversely, the influencecan go the other way – as for instanceon the issue of the public engagementin science, or on other subjectsinvestigated by our S & T SelectCommittees.

When I say ‘audiences’, it is necessary

to point out that these days most ofthose attending our meetings are notParliamentarians but represent outsideorganisations. These men and womenare certainly very welcome and addmuch of value to our discussions; but Iam not alone in regretting that we donot attract more MPs and Peers tocome to the meetings. With scienceimpinging on so many of the concernsthat we have to deal with, week inweek out, I think that more of myParliamentary colleagues, of all Parties,would find the hour-and-a-half spentonce a month time very well spent inhelping them to find solutions to thoseconcerns. Climate change, energyconservation, food standards, industrialinnovation, as well as the teaching ofscience in our schools, research in ouruniversities, and the ever-acceleratingpace of scientific discovery, are allissues that regularly come up atQuestion Time or in Select CommitteeInquiries. They are also all issues thathave regularly featured in theprogramme of the P & Sci.

Newspaper articles, TV and radioprogrammes, the internet and evenspecialist All-Party Groups are ofcourse useful sources of informationand advice on which we all rely tomake ourselves better informed. But

OPINION

Science in ParliamentThe Rt Hon Lord Jenkin of RodingPresident of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee

engage with all sectors of society, thescience community and policy-makersto address the questions in theconsultation document.

We are trialling a number of new ways

to run this consultation in order toreach as many people as possible. Theconsultation has a strong on-line focusas a gateway to other ways to take part.http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety

I believe that Science in Parliament’saudience has a key role to play in thesuccess of this strategy and I encourageyou to participate in the consultationand development of the final strategyand implementation plan.



The science of climate changeloomed large in the Lordsdebates on the Climate Change

Bill. With a few exceptions – notablesceptics like Lord Lawson –parliamentarians in both Houses havetaken their cue from the science,sometimes perhaps with the intentionof adding an aura of invincibility totheir arguments. Perhaps sceptics willobject to my assertion that they don’trefer to the science, but usually theirreference to it is so selective as to bealmost worthless. They use the oldfamiliar rhetorical trick of takingthings out of context, or looking forjust one piece of counter informationto assert that the whole theory hascrumbled.

Nevertheless, the sceptics do serve auseful purpose in scientific dialogue,by forcing the ‘true believers’ to testtheir case against the evidence, soensuring that their case is ever morerobust. In this context, it was a reliefto read a press release from the MetOffice headlined “Climate Scientistsclear up discrepancy in globaltemperature record.” The report laid torest one of the main sceptics’ charges,that in the mid-20th century there wasa drop in temperature which climatechange scientists could not explain.Look deep enough, and eventuallyexplanations will emerge. Personally, Iwould rather for the sake of all of usthat one day the sceptics would beproven utterly right, and we could allrelax and breathe a sigh of relief. Thefuture might be much brighter. As itis, I much prefer that the basis ofpolicy is tested evidence.

Sadly, the link between science andpolicy is often lost. What we seem tohave, as I mentioned in an article inScience (I’m name dropping here), is agame of ‘climate change poker.’ We

commissioned climate changescientists to tell us what was going onat a pre-G8 summit conference inExeter in 2005; then wecommissioned the Stern Review to tellus what the interplay between thephysical science and the economicscience might be. Now we havecommissioned, so to speak, a ClimateChange Bill which will attempt to putthe lessons into practice.

I’m not sure it will succeed. Politicalscience has stepped in, and we arenow trying to marry real reality withpolitical reality, always a Herculeantask. Here we enter into the territoryof cognitive dissonance, the termcoined by psychologist Leon Festingerin 1957 to describe ‘a psychologicalstate that describes the uncomfortablefeeling when a person begins tounderstand that something the personbelieves to be true is, in fact, not true.’(Wikipedia’s definition).

We would like to believe that we aretaking climate change seriously –hence the sound of energy-savinglightbulbs being screwed into sockets– but we are beginning to realise thatour efforts are little more thandisplacement activities to keep usbusy. Another example of thisphenomenon, at the highest level, wasdescribed in the press recently as ‘theoptimism of global climate changenegotiations.’ Now we’re not allowedto be pessimistic, lest we forsake thepolitics of hope. So it is convenient touse the science only as a kind ofreference point, almost in a paralleluniverse that we can look in on beforeretiring to the ‘real’ world of politics.Scientists themselves sometimes seemcontent with this arrangement, sincethey abhor the possibility they maybecome politicised themselves.

Somebody has to call ‘House’ on thisgame. The climate change numbers arebeing used so loosely, they’re almostirrelevant. For example, reviewing theliterature, the Stern Review came upwith an average figure of 1% GDPspent on mitigation to avoid between5% and 20% later damages to GDP.Problem solved – until one realisesthat that 1% is predicated on an upperlimit of a 550 parts per million byvolume (ppmv) Greenhouse Gasatmospheric concentration, whichMalthe Meinshausen told the Exeterconference would effectively lead usinto the territory of up to or more thana 4 degrees temperature rise. Nothinglike the 2 degrees we hear so muchtalk of, and which EU and UK policyis meant to be compatible with. If wewere serious about say, a 450ppmvtarget, the GDP spend on mitigationwould be around 3%. In 2006, whenStern’s report was published, thatwould have amounted in the UK to£40 billion. We didn’t spend anythinglike it – and it needs to be understoodthat the effort we fail to make one yearmerely compounds the following year’stask. This stuff doesn’t go away merelybecause we spent another year talkingabout it.

To solve the problem faster than we’recreating it is the only useful definitionof a solution we can afford. As it is,what has often been described as agame of numbers – politics – is failingcatastrophically to pay any attention tothe numbers of climate change. Whatwe are doing could be worse thanuseless if it lulls us into a false sense ofdoing something useful.

OPINION

Time is running out forjaw, jawColin Challen MP

they need to be accompanied by thechance of listening to real experts witha variety of experience and differentopinions and of cross-examining them.

These are the opportunities offeredregularly by the P & Sci. Happily,today there are very few of mycolleagues in both Houses who arrivewith as little scientific expertise as I

had 44 years ago – but equally, thereare few who would not learnsomething to their advantage bydrawing on those opportunities.



The Charity Enterprise in ResearchSimon DenegriChief Executive Officer,Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), andSara EllisCommunications Officer, AMRC

The role of charities in funding,advancing and promotingresearch for patient benefit is

one of the unique success stories ofmedical and health research in the UK.This year the Association of MedicalResearch Charities (AMRC) is markingits twenty-first year as the sector’srepresentative body by celebrating theimpact that its 114 current members –both individually and collectively –have had on research and the researchenvironment.

Scale and diversity

Whether measured in terms of thescale of its monetary contribution tomedical and health research – £791million in 2006-07, over £5 billionover the last five years, or the breadthand type of research activity itsfunding supports, the charityenterprise is now integral to thesustainability of science in thiscountry.

About seventy per cent of all charityfunding currently goes to HigherEducation Institutions and historically astrong partnership has existed betweencharities and universities in developinga strong science base in the UK. In2006-07 alone, AMRC estimates thatcharities funded over 3,000 scientists atdifferent stages of their careers andmany charities and universities havebeen able to realise shared ambitionsfor scientific endeavour through thedevelopment of world class researchinstitutes and facilities.

Even a scant review of some of themost exciting and important researchdevelopments in UK health research –from the Human Genome Project(Wellcome Trust) to the developmentof anti-TNF therapy for people with

The range of this activity reflects, ofcourse the very diverse nature ofAMRC’s membership. Two of theworld’s largest charitable bodiesfunding medical research (WellcomeTrust and Cancer Research UK) areAMRC members and the British HeartFoundation and Arthritis ResearchCampaign are also significantly largerthan most of our other members. Yeteven those whose funding may onlyreach into the thousands rather thanmillions have often played ahistorically important role in fundingand raising awareness, particularly iftheir field is a rare disease or condition.

Genetic research into a rare disorder has led to increased understanding ofmore common diseases.

Genetic research supported by Ataxia UK resulted in a landmark discovery,changing the landscape for patients and families with Friedreich’s ataxia, a raredisorder of the nervous system which causes unsteadiness and lack of co-ordination.

Discovering which gene goes wrong in Friedreich’s ataxia has improveddiagnosis and made it possible to predict whether siblings will also develop thecondition, paving the way for antenatal testing. Finding the mutationresponsible means scientists can now study what the gene should normally doand have a target to treat when it goes wrong.

The charity has built on these advances by funding mouse models ofFriedreich’s ataxia. These are mice bred to have the same genetic defect as inthe condition and which have some of the same physical characteristics. Thisinvaluable resource is already allowing potential new treatments to beidentified and tested, some of which may also be useful for more commondiseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

severe rheumatoid arthritis (ArthritisResearch Campaign) or ongoing trialsof an artificial pancreas for Type 1diabetes (Juvenile Diabetes ResearchFoundation (JDRF)) – underlines thecentral part that medical researchcharities have played in supportingresearch that has advanced ourscientific knowledge andunderstanding and/or is helpingdevelop new treatments, therapies andinterventions. And further examples ofsuch work – taken from ourforthcoming booklet to be publishedthis autumn showcasing the work ofAMRC’s members – are interspersedthroughout this article.



A bench to bedside journey to clinical trials

The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign has supported UK scientists in theirefforts to find treatments and cures for over 40 types of muscular dystrophy.One of these, Duchenne, is an inherited condition, caused by an error in thedystrophin gene, resulting in progressive weakness as muscle cells break downand die. Like AMRC, 2008 marks a particular milestone for the Campaign.Twenty-one years ago, dystrophin was identified and since then research hasaimed at understanding the function of this gene and its protein anddeveloping new treatments based on this.

Now researchers are trying to find a drug that will increase levels of utrophin,a protein that is similar to the missing dystrophin. The charity’s researchers atOxford University have founded a biotech company to develop this work andclinical trials are now a realistic option. This progress illustrates the charity’saim of ensuring a smooth and speedy transition of promising technology from“bench” to “bedside.”

peer review: accountability; balance;independent decision-making; rotationand impartiality. Members’ peer reviewpractices are audited every five yearsby AMRC, the last time being in 2005-06. At that time, approximately 90% ofits then 112 members fully met all fiveof these principles. In those instanceswhere it was felt that member charitiescould strengthen and improve theirapproach AMRC has providedfeedback, guidance and training as partof its core role of supporting members.

Quality

Together, AMRC’s members representover 90% of all funding available fromthe sector and their credibility – bothas funders and as a voice in publicdebate about research – rests on theircommitment to upholding the samestandards in how they allocate thismoney.

It is a membership requirement ofAMRC that all its members must abideby the Association’s five principles of

Another membership condition ofAMRC is that member charities musthave a publicly available researchstrategy in place. Such documents areimportant not only as the basis foropenness and transparency with thepublic but are helpful in settingappropriate expectations withscientists and partner organisationsand institutions about a charity’sresearch priorities and the way itworks.

Similarly, while the recent CharitiesAct rightly puts ever-greater emphasison charities demonstrating the publicbenefit of their activities, it has actuallybeen a long-standing concern ofmedical research charities not just tobe able to understand and show theimpact of their funding but also todisseminate the results of suchresearch as broadly as possible. AMRCand its members have now taken partin two studies by the UK ClinicalResearch Collaboration (UKCRC)which have helped the wider sciencecommunity better understand the rolethey play but also inform thesecharities as to how the activities theyfund fit with the bigger picture. (SeeFigure 1)

A unifying purpose

This overriding commitment to acommon set of standards marks theUK sector out from its equivalents in

FFiigguurree 11.. Proportion of Total Spend by Research Activity Source: “From Donation to Innovation” UKCRC and AMRC, October 20071a. Medium and Smaller Sized CharitiesData from 29 medium and smaller sized AMRC member charities1b. UK Health Research AnalysisData from the 11 largest government and charity funders of health research in the UK

Wellcome Images.

Figure 1a Figure 1b



Charity-funded research as a catalyst for wider action

The earlier a stroke can be recognised, the better, yet stroke can be difficult torecognise and diagnose. In the late 1990’s a team in Newcastle developed asimple test to enable ambulance staff to recognise a possible stroke. Theynamed the test FAST (Face, Arm and Speech Test), and it looks at three issues- facial weakness, arm weakness and speech disturbance.

The Stroke Association recognised the potential of FAST and funded the teamto research whether paramedics can accurately identify stroke using FAST –resulting in the establishment of FAST in ambulance services throughout theUK and as an integral part of training for paramedics.

The Association used their research findings in their 2005 ‘Stroke is a MedicalEmergency’ campaign, to increase awareness of stroke and its symptomsamongst the public, GPs and A&E staff. The Department of Health and policymakers were also targeted, to ensure adequate systems are provided to treatstroke as a medical emergency.

FAST was an integral part of the campaign, with leaflets and posters producedshowing the symptoms of a stroke and stressing the importance of calling999. These were distributed to many hospitals and GP surgeries, and nowmore than half the general public are aware of FAST, and the Department ofHealth has again funded the Stroke Association to publicise the messagethroughout the UK.

the US and abroad where the NGOsectors are more disparate, as does itsunity of purpose and openness onissues such as the necessity andimportance of animal research or stemcell research.

Indeed, it was concerns over attacksby animal rights campaigners on someof the shops run by an AMRC charitythat was one of the key catalysts tomotivating the Association’s membersto create a formal umbrella body in1987 which it funds itself to look afterits own interest. Twenty-one years laterand this member subscription base –over 95% of all AMRC’s funding comesfrom its members – is an importantfoundation of its ‘independence’ andcredibility with those with whom itworks.

Historically, another unifying cause forthe sector has been its stance on non-payment of indirect costs of researchfunded in universities. TheGovernment acknowledged thesignificant role played by charities byfunders and their principled positionon this issue by establishing theCharity Research Support Fund

All Party Parliamentary Group onMedical Research

AMRC provides the secretariat forthe APPG on Medical Research,which was established in 2005 byAMRC, Academy of MedicalSciences, Medical Research Council,Cancer Research UK and theWellcome Trust. Details of theGroup’s previous and forthcomingmeetings are published on ourwebsite at www.amc.org.uk

(CRSF) in 2004 to enable universitiesto cover these costs. Welcome thoughthis was, the Government’s monetarycommitment to the Fund up until2010-11 lags behind the anticipatedgrowth in charity researchexpenditure. AMRC and its membersare increasingly concerned that as aresult charity money may diminish invalue relative to funds from whollygovernment sources and reduce thenature and diversity of fundingavailable to researchers in the UK.

Public engagement

Finally, the all-important footnote tothis story is that the charity enterprisein UK research would not be possibleon the scale we now see it, were it notfor the ongoing support of the Britishpublic.

Their enthusiasm and desire tosupport research that will ultimatelylead to finding the cause and cure fordiseases and conditions affectingthemselves, friends or family isreflected in the upward trend indonations to medical research charitiesover recent years: forty per cent of all

donors gave to medical researchcharities in 2006 compared to justover 24% in 2003.

Medical research charities are now atrusted source of information to theirrespective patient constituency and areplaying an ever-more important role interms of wider public engagement onscience. They are also finding new andinnovative ways to bring this patientvoice to bear upon issues of publicdebate such as the potential of ‘humanadmixed embryos’ but also in respectof their own research funding activitiesand related work such as theParkinson’s Disease Society’s ResearchNetwork or Alzheimer’s Society’s QRDprogramme.

Conclusion

In the future, AMRC’s credibility willcontinue to rest on the commitment ofits members to funding qualityresearch of public and patient benefitand the difference this has made notjust to science but also to patients’lives in the UK. It is this ‘difference’which remains our prime purpose andmotivator and which we celebrate inthis, our twenty-first year.



For 30 years I have workedacross both public and privatesectors, using cutting-edge

science to establish new businessesand advise on public policy. This hastaken me from the UK to the US andback again, via Ireland andSwitzerland. The experience has givenme an insight into how a publicly-funded laboratory can operate tooptimum public and commercialeffectiveness.

Now, as Chief Science Adviser at NPL,I am in a position to use thisexperience to help to shape one of thefew remaining public laboratories inthe UK. NPL is operated by SERCO, aquoted company, and so it functions asa private institution. Yet a largeelement of its funding direction andremit still comes from governmentsources, so it mixes public and privatestakeholders and private and publicdrivers.

It is important to state that the corerole of NPL is measurement. Basicthings such as litres, weights, andmore subtle and powerful quantitieslike time, require standards thatpeople can trust. To have privatecompanies provide these standards isnot realistic. Would you like to see oilcompanies telling us what a gallon wasand brewers defining the pint? Goodstandards require science withindependence and public trust.

NPL has three over-arching roles that Iwant to outline in more detail. They are:

1. To promote and deliver top-end,quality science.

2. To make sure that that this scienceis exploited publicly andcommercially.

3. To be an independent referencepoint.

Quality science

To achieve this, we need to ensure thatwe are doing great research. If NPLwants to provide definitive standards itneeds to be as good if not better thananyone else when it comes to research.It also needs to be working in the rightareas as a national measurementinstitution. The economy in the UK isnot large enough to accommodateeverything, so research areas need tobe targeted wisely. NPL has to decidewhere its strengths lie and to play tothem, and where there are newopportunities and areas where it canleverage its expertise. My role at NPLwill ensure that the laboratories andsupport facilities enhance this processand that the talented people at NPLhave what they need to deliverresearch at the cutting edge.

During the coming years, NPL willlook to set the foundations fordelivering leading science in supportof measurement and standards. It willcreate an innovation centre to supportUK businesses, focus on developingthose areas where it is already close tothe leading edge, and make strategicinvestments in areas where it believes

a critical need for support will arrivein the future.

Successfully exploitingquality science

I believe that by enhancing its researchcapability NPL can expand thecommercial application of its scienceand I want to fully exploit the publicasset base of this knowledge for thebenefit of the UK.

Successful commercialisation of top-end science is something that I havedone throughout my working life so Iam familiar with what needs to be inplace for this to flourish. Followingsome work in the 1980s inSwitzerland on equipment for thin-film characterization and inCambridge developing nano-scaleprobe techniques, I set up a companycalled Nano Instruments. It was basedin the US rather than the UK. I wantto discuss why I believe that over 20years later it is still not as easy toexploit science successfully in the UKas it is in some other areas of theworld.

There are several reasons why the USworks so well for exploitation oftechnical knowledge. One is thepsychology of those looking to buildnew businesses there; they are happy

10

National PhysicalLaboratory - the UK’sNational MeasurementInstituteProfessor John PethicaChief Scientific Adviser, NPLProfessor Pethica took up the role at the tail end of 2007 and here lays out hisvision for the future.



to take risks. In the UK there is moreof a comfort zone mentality.

It is not all down to psychology. Theenvironment of the US is anotherfactor. The scale is large and all levelsof its business eco-system are working– there are lots of companies of allsizes in this massive market, and theygrow and are absorbed, created, andbought at all sizes. In the UK andSwitzerland, we are not too bad atnurturing companies of small andlarge sizes but need a bigger market –which is where Europe can help. Thebigger the market, the bigger returncompanies receive on their R&Dinvestment, helping to successfullyexploit new technologies.

So the US benefits from its marketsize, but just as important is the stateand federal governments’ role in theUS tax and support system. I believethe UK is still behind the curve in thisrespect and the US is much moreproactive.

Imagine the exploitation of knowledgeand new research being dependent onthe support of a three-legged stool ortripod, with each leg an equally vitalcomponent to provide a balancedsuccess. One leg represents the scienceand technology itself. Another is theregulatory and legal system, and thefinal one is fiscal. To have one weakleg destabilises the system, making itmore likely to collapse. This cannot becompensated by strengthening theother two legs. All three have to beinternationally competitive.

In the UK our research base continuesto be excellent, with a superb reservoirof talent. The regulatory and legalsystem is also very encouraging, as therecent vote on the Human Fertilisationand Embryology Bill shows. But fiscalsupport is the weak leg that threatensthe whole structure and makes the UKless competitive. One example is thecorporate tax rates that negate anybenefits of research freedom or grantsupport. It simply makes othercountries, especially our Irish andSwiss neighbours, a far more attractive

proposition for starting a business orfor investment. Other countries suchas the US in fact do everything in theirpower to tilt the balance in favour oftheir local companies, making thembetter equipped to succeed in theglobal market. It’s not just tax rates,but things like Small BusinessInnovation Research (SBIR), longrange US Department of Defenseresearch, and a willingness to radicallyshut down less promising areas. Ifother countries do not have ‘levelplaying fields’ then why should UKcompanies not have a competitive taxand support environment? You can seewhat a 10% effective tax rate in thefinance sector did. Opportunity costsmust be allowed for in research as ineverything else.

Because of its position between thepublic and private sectors, NPL has animportant role to play as the broker ofa better landscape for technologytransfer in the UK. We candemonstrate to the commercial worldhow public research can serve theneeds of business. We can also be amouthpiece for businesses, helpingthem feed messages back fromcompanies trying hard to succeed in asystem that has not been designed tooffer them so much competitiveadvantage. We are experts intechnology transfer and we will usethis expertise to guide for the future aswell as deliver today.

Providing a reference point

By establishing standards NPLprovides a level of confidence, trustand independence that comes frombeing a leading scientific institution.UK Government may need anindependent, credible publiclaboratory perhaps more than itcurrently realises. It cannot just buyunbiased technical advice andcredibility from purely commercialentities, as they are (rightly) interestedin retaining a contract. You also can'tguarantee the independence andconfidence unless you’re doing cuttingedge, published science. Indeed you

have to lead the field, which comesback to the first role of NPL.

There are laboratories similar to NPLin other countries, such asPhysikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt(PTB) in Germany and NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology(NIST) in the US. NIST has a centralrole in establishing security proceduresand information handling for the USGovernment, something I believe thatNPL could help with in the UK. NPLactually has a famous track record inthis area with the invention of packetswitching, which is the basis ofcomputer communications and theinternet worldwide today. It wasdeveloped by Donald Davies at NPLfrom the 1960s. As systems get morecomplex, the protocols and standardsalso get more complex. NPL has theexpertise to help with that.

Industry, as well as government, relieson an independent reference point.NPL provides the ultimate inconfirmation when it says thatsomething meets a standard which acompany wishes to claim it is meeting.And it is very desirable for the UK tohave an interest in the process bywhich international standards are set,to support its own corporations.

NPL responds to the kind of industriesthat are predominant in this country,which is why there’s a strong emphasison materials research, quality control,materials analysis for example.

NPL can increase the effectiveness ofindustry and help with the transfer ofresearch and development into actualproducts and services. Underpinningthis will be its work in informing newstandards and regulation. At root, it isa publicly trusted point of referencefor science and technology. The talentpool is here and we are building theinfrastructure to support those areasthat will produce the high qualityscience we need to take the laboratoryforward for many years to come.



For centuries, humans have beenfascinated by the possibility of life onother planets. Recent roboticspacecraft have given us tantalizinghints that primitive life may haveexisted – or, perhaps, still exists – onour neighbouring planet, Mars. TheEuropean Space Agency set up thelong-term Aurora Programme in 2001(see Box 1) and its first mission,ExoMars, will be presented forapproval to the ESA MinisterialCouncil in November 2008. The mainscientific objective of ExoMars is toestablish whether life on Mars has everexisted or is still active today. Thetechnological and scientificdevelopments required to makeExoMars possible have already startedto deliver commercial benefits for theUK with the promise of many more to

follow. This note provides an overviewof ExoMars and discusses the benefitsof the UK’s involvement.

Background

The origins of ExoMars go back to2000 when ESA began studies for amission which would land a rover onthe surface of Mars. This rover was tocarry a sophisticated automaticlaboratory capable of detecting andanalysing traces of life, both presentand past. In 2006, ESA awarded adesign contract for the ExoMarsmission to Thales Alenia Space, Italy,with a major subcontract for the rovergoing to Astrium UK. In the sameyear, a provisional selection ofscientific instruments was madewhich, in addition to life detectioninstruments, included instruments tomeasure the Martian environment. UKscientists are leading four of the 23scientific instruments and are heavilyinvolved in the design of seven others.The design phase is well advanced andit is expected that manufacturing willstart early in 2010.

The Mission

ExoMars will be ESA’s second missionto Mars and will build on the expertisegained from its 2003 predecessor,Mars Express Orbiter which itself hasbeen spectacularly successful butcarried the ill-fated Beagle 2 lander. Itwill be launched on an Ariane 5 rocket

Why look for life underground?

During the Martian day, the surfaceof Mars is exposed to intenseultraviolet light from the Sun whichpasses easily through the thinMartian atmosphere. During theMartian night, the surface drops to-100°C or even colder. Theseconditions are not conducive to life.

However, there is a more benignenvironment a few centimetresbelow the surface where ultravioletlight cannot penetrate and thetemperatures are less extreme. Moreimportantly, data from instrumentson board spacecraft in orbit aroundMars strongly suggest that largequantities of water ice exists in theporous layer of soil some 30 to 60centimetres beneath the surface insome areas. It is known that sometypes of organisms live successfullyin very similar conditions on Earth.

The ExoMars drill is mounted onthe rover and will deliver samplesfrom below the surface to therover’s life detection andcharacterization instruments.

The Search for Life on MarsRay P Carvell, Mark R Sims, Mark A Sephton and Lindsay Dannatt*

*Ray P Carvell, Brightwell Instruments Ltd, Sotwell Street, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 0RH.Mark R Sims, Space Research Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH.Mark A Sephton, Earth Science and Engineering, South Kensington Campus, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ.Lindsay Dannatt, Science and Technology Facilities Council, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1SZ.

What is the Aurora Programme?

The Aurora Programme is part ofEurope’s strategy for space whichwas endorsed by the EuropeanUnion Council of Research and theESA Council in 2001. This strategycalls for Europe to:

• explore the Solar System and theUniverse

• stimulate new technology

• inspire the young people ofEurope to take a greater interestin science and technology

The primary objective of the AuroraProgramme is a European long-term plan for the robotic andhuman exploration of the SolarSystem. ExoMars is the first in aseries of Aurora missions that willlead to the return to Earth of asample from Mars. The UK isplaying a leading role in ExoMarsand the Aurora programme.

Getting to Mars

Mars is a ‘near neighbour’ of the Earth but, even at its closest, it is 35 millionmiles away and landing a spacecraft on its surface is not at all routine. To date,there have been 10 attempts to land spacecraft on Mars and only 5 have beensuccessful – including 3 since 2003. Just 2 carried rovers. So far Europe hasmade only one attempt at landing on Mars.

from ESA’s spaceport in French Guianain November 2013, followed by alanding, using parachutes and airbags,on Mars in late 2015. The exactlanding date will be chosen afterExoMars goes into orbit around Marsin order to avoid Martian dust storms.



In addition to the rover with itscameras, exobiology laboratory anddrill for collecting samples from up to2 metres below the surface where lifeis thought most likely to be found, theExoMars lander will carry anenvironmental and geophysics sciencestation.

The rover and lander instruments aredesigned to collect scientific data for atleast 6 months after landing and maylast much longer depending on theseverity of the conditions encounteredon the Martian surface.

The Science

ExoMars is expected to answerimportant questions including:

• Has there ever been life on Mars?

• What is the present day environmenton Mars?

• Has Mars ever had an environmentthat could support life?

• How has the Martian environmentchanged over time?

• How do planets form and evolve?

Answers to these questions willincrease our understanding of theuniqueness – or otherwise – of life onEarth, within our Solar System and inthe Universe.

The Technology

UK industry and scientists are workingin partnership to deliver commercialbenefits for the UK from ExoMars andthe Aurora programme. Examplesinclude:

• Unmanned vehicle technologies thatcan be applied to situations here onEarth in remote, unstructured orhazardous environments.

• 3D multimedia technologies that willcreate new virtual reality experiencesof planetary exploration for research,outreach and commercialexploitation.

• Highly innovative miniaturisedinstrumentation using low-temperature catalysts that are neededfor the future biotechnologyindustry.

• New solvent systems that provideflexible, safe and economicextraction procedures so thatindustries of the future can operatein a clean environment.

• Advanced fluid dynamicssimulations of ExoMars’ entry intothe Martian atmosphere that willimprove operational tools formodelling high-speed flight onEarth.

Key parts of the mission including therover are being built by UK industry.The rover will be the mostsophisticated exploration vehicle onMars and the first to use a drill andradar to explore beneath the planet’ssurface.

The Skills

In the UK, over 16 companies and 18research institutions are presentlyinvolved in ExoMars. It is anticipatedthat over 250 UK engineers,technicians and scientists will beemployed on this mission. A widerange of high-level skills are neededincluding electronic engineering,mechanical engineering, thermalengineering, robotics, software design,materials science, microbiology,contamination control, systemsengineering, product assurance andinternational project management.

These are applicable to many otherindustries.

At least 100 scientists will study thedata collected by ExoMars which, inaddition to answering the keyscientific questions, will be used toplan future Aurora missions.

The Future

ExoMars is the first in a series ofmissions that will lead to the return toEarth of a sample from Mars and, inthe more distant future, perhaps amanned mission. The instruments andtechnologies which are beingdeveloped for ExoMars are stepping-stones for these later missions.

The People

ExoMars’ ground-breaking science andengineering will inspire and encouragethe next generation to become thehighly skilled scientists and engineerswhich Britain will need in the future.

In support of this, an outreachprogramme involving schools, collegesand the general public is beingplanned with some pilot work alreadyunder way.

The Funding

The UK’s involvement in ExoMars isfunded by the Science and TechnologyFacilities Council, one of the UK'sseven research councils, and a partnerin the British National Space Centre,which co-ordinates the UK’s civil spaceactivities. As Aurora is an optionalprogramme of ESA, the level of return(industrial and science) to the UK isdependant on the level of funding.Currently the UK is the second largestcontributor after Italy.

Further information about the Aurora Programme and ExoMars can be found at :http://www.scitech.ac.uk/SciProg/Aurora/auroraHome.aspx

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Aurora/Further information about water ice on Mars can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7294767.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2009318.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/120270.stm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mars-odysseys-measurement


Technology Assessment (OTA) hadover 100 staff, and Europeanequivalents typically 10 to 15); incontrast, POST in 1989 had onedirector, a secretary and also needed toraise its own funds. The new POSTthus faced a serious conundrum!POST’s founders had been inspired bydetailed and lengthy ‘technologyassessments’ (TA) carried out overseas(Table 1), however POST lacked theresources to do the same. This forcedus to think carefully about the realneeds of our Parliament. These seemedto fall into two categories. Firstly therewas the individual MP or Peer forwhom information and analysis had tobe delivered in a form that could beabsorbed quickly. Lengthy reportswere not likely to be much use to thebusy Parliamentarian juggling manytasks every day and lacking supportstaff. We thus decided to focus initialbriefings into a 2-4 page ‘POSTnote’format.

A Brief History of POST

Since 1939, the P&S had encouragedParliamentarians to explore theimplications of scientific developmentsfor society and public policy, but asour economy became more dependenton technological progress, and thenegative effects of technology(especially on the environment)became more apparent, some felt thatParliament needed its own resourceson such issues. Parliamentarians notonly required access to knowledge andinsights into the implications oftechnology for their constituents andsociety, but also needed to exercisetheir scrutiny functions over legislationand administration. This thinking wasalso influenced by the fact thatspecialised parliamentary science andtechnology organisations alreadyexisted overseas.

Some P&S members (Sir Ian Lloyd MP,Sir Trevor Skeet MP, Sir Gerry VaughanMP, Lords Kennet, Gregson andFlowers among others) visited already-established organisations in the US,Germany and France, and thisreinforced their view that modernParliaments needed their own‘intelligence’ on science andtechnology-related issues. Initially theyasked the then Thatcher governmentto fund such services at Westminsterbut were asked first to demonstrate areal need. This led to the P&S creatinga charitable foundation to raise fundsfrom P&S members; the reaction was

sufficiently positive to be able torecruit a Director from April 1 1989.

POST’s Original Mission

POST’s formation followed overseasmodels by adopting the principle thatit should serve both Houses, and itsoutput should be apolitical and ofpotential value to Parliamentarians ofall parties. POST should accessexternal scientific expertise, andshould deliver clear, easy tounderstand, accurate and objectivereviews. Thorough quality-controlshould ensure that MPs and Peerscould have confidence in theinformation should they wish to cite itin debate. These principles werereflected in the structure of POST’sBoard with members from theCommons and Lords together withdistinguished scientists and engineersfrom the wider world.

Overseas models were internallyfunded (the US Congress’ Office of


20 Years of the Parliamentary Officeof Science and Technology (POST)

Part 1: the First 10 YearsNext year marks the 20th anniversary of POST’s services to Parliament, but it is already over 20

years since the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee (P&S) established the charitable foundationwhich allowed POST to be created. Dr Michael Clark, who was Treasurer at the time and later

became Chairman of POST’s Board until 1997, and Prof Michael Norton, POST’s first director, lookback on initial objectives and early experience, and how relevant these were to Parliament’s current

needs. In the next issue of SiP, the current Chairman and Director will bring the story up to thepresent and offer some thoughts about the future.

Table 1 Principles of Technology Assessment1

• interpret, analyse and anticipate technological issues of interest to Parliament

• set out the facts and identify where agreements and disagreements exist

• analyse the interactions between policy and scientific and technologicaldevelopments

• discuss potential options for parliamentary action, and their ramifications

• assure objectivity and relevance to the parliamentary process

• contribute to the effectiveness and credibility of the parliamentary process byhelping decisions to be better informed.



A fundamental precondition wasrelevance to Parliament; thus POST’sagenda was always decided by theBoard which, through its structure,could assess both parliamentary andscientific relevance. Early subjectsrelated to short-term issues (eg humanembryo research, computer misuse, oilrig disposal, Kuwaiti oil fires, etc),while others contributed to longerterm awareness (eg ozone layerdepletion, global warming,antibacterial resistance, riskassessment, etc). Both types helpedParliamentarians to contribute indebates and exert influence ongovernment.

However POSTnotes, while useful forbackground understanding and forsupporting brief interventions (eg inPQs or debates), did not allowsubjects to be explored in sufficientdepth for the detailed scrutiny role ofParliament. As soon as resourcesallowed, we thus supplementedPOSTnotes with more detailedanalyses where the Board believed itcould help individual Parliamentariansor select committees to examine thepolicy aspects of science andtechnology issues in greater depth.

From Birth to Adoption

POST attracted more resources and bythe time of the 1992 inquiry into thefunding of POST, there were threespecialists, as well as short-termsecondments from organisations suchas Research Councils. The InformationCommittee recommended thatParliament should adopt POST for aninitial three years2 and subsequently ata second inquiry for five years3. Inboth inquiries, the burden of proofwas put on POST to demonstrateutility as well as output, so we usedquestionnaires to assess real interestand demand from Parliamentariansand committees.

The Commons InformationCommittee assessed the case for POSTagainst the background thatParliament already had a Science andEnvironment Section in the CommonsLibrary and that select committees(especially the Lords Science and

15

Technology Committee) also inquiredinto technological issues. However,thanks to close and friendly workingcontacts, we had ensured servicesremained complementary andendeavoured to create a properposition for POST between Librarybriefings and investigations bycommittees. An example of synergisticrelationships with select committeeswas the POST study on radioactivewaste which was taken as the ‘basictext’ for the Lords Science andTechnology Committee’s 1998 inquiry.

The first 10 years

With hindsight we can categorisePOST’s output as:

• helping individual Parliamentariansdevelop their own view on ascientific issue

• contributing to informed debate inthe chamber

• providing information of value inreacting to constituents’ concerns

• identifying potential subjects orlaying the groundwork forcommittee inquiries

• providing support on particularissues during or after an inquiry.

POST material1 was cited in debate,used as a subject for an adjournmentdebate, provided initial analyses forcommittee inquiries, or actuallybrought future developments to theattention of Parliament for the firsttime. To be relevant to Parliamentoften means covering issues wherethere is fierce controversy, as can beseen in some of the subjects tackled –research involving human embryos,animal testing, illegal drugs, andradioactive waste.

But how did our experience comparewith the other Parliaments on whichPOST’s rationale had been based?Ironically, the US OTA (formed in1971) was zero budgeted by the newRepublican Congress of 1995. At thattime we considered whether this hadany implications for POST butconcluded that this reflected USinternal politics rather than a reduced

demand for analysis of science-basedissues. Indeed, OTA’s demisecontributed to the era where sciencebecame “cherry picked” to supportparticular political ideologies ratherthan informing policy4. Congress hassince had second thoughts by re-establishing a TA service. In contrastwith the USA, TA in Europe hasspread and the EuropeanParliamentary TA Association (EPTA)network has grown from the 6members in 1989 to 18 now5.

Present needs of Parliament- have they changed?

We wonder if Parliament’s need forsupport has changed in these 20 years.Of course, science changes, but we donot believe its importance to societyand Parliament has lessened. Scienceand technology continue to raiseethical issues where Parliament needsto consider what rules and norms toapply. Twenty years ago it was humanembryo research; more recently stemcells. Twenty years ago there wasdebate over the human contribution toglobal warming; now it is over how onearth can we slow and adapt to it.Some, such as how to use ITeffectively, seem to be fixtures!

Parliamentarians remain the target oflobbying – for example on globalwarming, there have been well-fundedcampaigns of ‘spurious science’ 6 aimedat manufacturing uncertainty in thescience which bodies like POST canhelp put into an objective perspective.Equally, ‘joined-up’ governmentremains elusive – there is agovernment target for greenhouse gasreduction but departmental decisions(whether on transport or on energy)remain fragmented. Such policy issuesinvite parliamentary scrutinysupported by detailed and objectivepolicy analysis. Indeed one of thevisions of POST’s founders was to cutacross disciplines and departments – asystems approach to policy analysis.Other examples are that there are oftenunintended consequences from actions– eg concerns over the scale of animaltesting conflict with rules on testingmore chemicals and foodsupplements. Our future changes



Using the very high tides in theSevern Estuary as a free andperpetual source of hydro-

electric power looks very attractive atfirst sight. Until it is examined moreclosely. A new feasibility studycommissioned by the Government hasrevived interest in this much discussedproject.

The basic idea is straightforward anduses established technology. A barragehousing sluice gates and turbineswould be built across the estuary. Thegates would be opened as the tidefloods in and closed at high tide to

impound the water behind thebarrage. As the tide recedes the waterwould be released through theturbines to generate electricity for afew hours until the tide starts to riseagain. The turbines would begenerating electricity for about aquarter of the day.

But in practice there are some snags.Although the electrical output ispredictable (because the tides arepredictable) it would vary throughoutthe year. At the spring and autumnequinox the maximum tidal range atAvonmouth is 40 feet, but it is onlyabout half that during neap tides atthe summer and winter solstice. Theelectrical output would then becorrespondingly less.

There is also the problem of matchingthe electrical output to the dailydemand for electricity which issupplied by the Grid. The tides aregenerated by the moon and they riseand fall according to the lunar cycle.High tide occurs at a different timeduring the day and hence so does the

electrical output. The cycle repeatsevery two weeks. But we live our livesaccording to the solar cycle and ourelectrical demand follows a regularpattern every day.

The national electrical demandsupplied by the Grid is low at night(about 35GW) but starts to rise from5am to a plateau at mid morning.Then it rises to a peak at 6pm (60GWin winter) after which the demand fallsagain.

When the maximum output from theturbines coincides with the peakelectrical demand the power generated(up to 8.6GW) is particularly valuableand would command a high pricebecause it would replace expensiveelectricity from alternative stand-byplant. But this happens only once afortnight. At other times the value of

The Severn Estuary:A Barrage or a BoreRobert Freer

rapidly – eg what are the implicationson transport demand projections of oilat current or even higher prices? Asseas rise around our coasts with agrowing population, some difficulttechnological and societal choices mayalso have to be made in the future.POST’s founders would have seenPOST, with its ability to accessexternal networks of experts,stakeholder groups and professionalsocieties, as well-placed to helpParliamentarians exert effective andinsightful influence on such issues.

Finally, though it is right that POST beassessed on its value toParliamentarians and committees, we

should not lose sight of the originalobjective to help raise the credibility ofthe parliamentary process as a whole.We believe that technologyassessment, by engaging leadingexperts and stakeholders in theprocess, helps improve understandingof the parliamentary process. Some ofthe early POST reports (eg TunnelVision, Nanotechnology, Dealing withDrought, the BSE crisis, andTechnology Foresight) had asignificant impact outside Parliament1.This, in our view, not only raisedParliament’s credibility but also helpedinform subsequent dialogues betweenParliament and the stakeholders onthe issue concerned.

Notes1. POST’s activities to 1998 and those of other countries’

equivalent offices are described in “Parliaments and

Technology-the development of Technology

Assessment in Europe” (N. Vig and H. Paschen eds).

SUNY Press, 2000.

2. Report of the Commons Information Committee on

POST (Session 1991-2. HC325).

3. Report of the Commons Information Committee on

POST (Session 1994-5. HC578).

4. Many examples are in Chris Mooney’s “The

Republican War on Science”. Perseus Books, 2006.

5. http://www.eptanetwork.org/EPTA/

6. Norton, M.G., Kass, G., and Allum, N. “Combating

Spurious Science”. Science and Public Affairs, Dec

2007, p18.



the electricity generated would beprogressively less. Electricity generatedin the middle of the night would havea low value.

In the present proposals the barragewould be built from Brean Down, aheadland south-west of Weston-super-Mare in Somerset, to Lavernock Pointbetween Cardiff and Barry in SouthWales. It would be 9 miles long andcontain 216 axial flow turbines each of40MW rated capacity making a totalinstalled capacity of 8,640MW. Theannual output would be 17 Twh,which is 5% of the national annualdemand of 382 Twh. The annualaverage load factor would be 23%.There would be 176 sluice gates andtwo large locks of sufficient size toallow ships to pass through to theAvonmouth docks. A roadway on topof the barrage would provide anotherroad link between Bristol and Cardiff.

Construction would take about 8 yearsand the cost is estimated to be £15bnbut the public may be sceptical ofthese estimates when they rememberthe increase in final cost for othermajor building projects such as theChannel Tunnel, the Scottish Assemblybuilding and the Olympic Games.

The project has the support of theSustainable Development Commissionbut has been criticised by birdwatcherswho are concerned that intermittentflooding of the estuary may disturbsome species of birds. They areseeking alternative habitats to beprovided for the birds. A separateStrategic Environmental Assessmentstudy has been started to look into this

and other environmental concerns, butthe study may become unnecessary ifthe birds simply fly away and findtheir own alternative feeding grounds.

Commissioning reports and feasibilitystudies can too easily become asubstitute for action, giving theillusion of action in place of decision.No amount of studies, however longand expensive, will build the barrage.At some stage a decision to go aheador not must be taken.

But if the decision is taken to build theSevern Barrage it would be sensible tofirst build a similar but smaller hydro-electric barrage elsewhere, for instanceon the Mersey or the Wyre, to learnabout the practical problems duringconstruction and operation.

Is the Severn Barrage a soundinvestment? It depends what you aretrying to achieve and, as always forprojects with a high initial cost, on theassumed discount rate. The barrage isa much better investment thanbuilding more wind turbines on atleast five counts:

• The output is entirely predictable,whereas the output from windturbines is not.

• It would generate four times theamount of energy that we get fromall the present wind turbines.

• The peak output is particularlyvaluable when it coincides with thepeak demand on the Grid.

• The electricity is generated near themajor demand centres of Bristol andCardiff and therefore thetransmission costs are small.

• It provides another road crossing ofthe estuary.

But the barrage cannot generate thesecure base load power on which weall depend to run our industries,offices and homes, and without whichthe country would come to astandstill. Anyone with £15bn tospend on generating low carbonelectricity might be better advised toinvest it in nuclear power.

Thomas Fulljames’ Proposal for Severn Barrier 1849 - Now the site of the first Severn Bridge

Severn Estuary Photo by Tim Britton



Introduction

Advances in medical science,biomedical engineering and molecularbiology, coupled with social attitudescentred on consumer choice, pointtowards tailoring medical care to thespecific needs of individual patients.The agenda of personalised medicineis further driven by growing economic,social and technological pressures,including:

•Cost of healthcare provision, inparticular for the ageing populationsuch as the management of chronicdiseases and cancer. This hasgenerated a growing demand forambulatory care, autonomousmonitoring and control, andintelligent decision support forclinicians and patients alike.

•Litigation, which diminishes marginsfor human error thus spurring greaterreliance on technological assistance.

•The accelerating pace of science andtechnology which is opening up newand compelling possibilities forhealthcare development with aconcomitant growth in publicexpectations.

•Personalised medicine is at the cuspof a very considerable worldwidemarket, where the UK is well placedto assume a position of leadership.Success in exploiting this industrialbase will impact on the balance oftrade with our main economiccompetitors.

Implications for policy onScience, Engineering andTechnology (SET)

Sustainability of healthcare deliveryand competitiveness of the UKindustrial base must link threecomplementary strands:

•distributed research across asignificant range of priority areas andproviders in SET

•tailored specific clinical need throughthe Department of Health, and

•substantial improvements inregulatory and procurement practicesto promote uptake by medicalindustry.

Priority areas for Science,Engineering and Technology(SET)

Leadership in radically new models ofhealthcare delivery will in the futurebe even more dependent on rapidadvances in SET. While there alreadyare significant interdisciplinaryfunding initiatives with a healthcarefocus, this review has identified thefollowing priority areas for furtherconsideration:

•Translational research – metabolicphenotyping can form the basis fortargeted large-scale lifestyleinterventions as well as mappingdisease progression and response totherapy. Moreover, identification ofdisease sub-types and elucidation ofphenotypic pathways open the wayto personalised therapy includingdrug discovery, maximising responseto therapy and minimising adverseeffects. There is a considerable way togo in developing mathematicalscience and informatics for accurateand reliable modelling of these verylarge and complex biologicalnetworks.

•Multi-modal data fusion – integrationof multiscale measurement frommolecular biology through histology,electrophysiological measurement,morphological and functionalimaging, to clinical signs and indeedpopulation based hospital episodestatistics, still has vast potential fordelivery of decision support. Thisincludes tailoring patient specificphysiological models to clinical data,but extends to integration ofelectronic health records in largefederated databases that aredistributed, yet reliable and secure.Further exploration of theelectromagnetic spectrum is stillneeded to devise novel minimallyinvasive analytical imaging modalitiescapable of operating at low cost.

•Convergent platforms – inter-operability of clinical measurementplatforms of different commercialsources and operating in differentmodalities and their integration intoworkable data management systemswith multimedia patient recordsrequires wide ranging researchcovering, among others, harmonisedstandards, wireless technologies thatare reliable, efficient and effective,data fusion and informationmanagement with formal semanticontologies.

•Decision support – objectivemeasurement is still lacking in keyareas of clinical management,including cytology. It is alsorecognised that best practice needs tobe more consistent across healthcareproviders, while failure reportingmust become more systematic withsystemic filters put in place usingbetter decision support. Moreover,patient information needs to embracethe electronic age to cater for widelydifferent levels of intendedinvolvement in informed consent totreatment. This requires novelapproaches to patient information.Considerable potential exists also forinteractive models for self-care, inparticular for younger age groupswhere chronic diseases can take aheavy toll casting a long shadow.Furthermore, autonomous, privacyprotecting activity monitoring canenable independent living to a laterage, especially in the face of episodicneed for health or social caresupport.

In addition, public engagement iscrucial in enabling the development ofpre-emptive medicine to pre-empthigh cost care. This is not just toensure acceptance of novel forms ofhealthcare delivery, but also toexpedite efficiency and effectiveness indesign and deployment, the more soas models of care evolve from curativeto preventive and so from passive toparticipatory.

Engineering Challenges towardsPersonalised Medicine

Professor Paulo LisboaProfessor in Industrial Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University



Monday 16th June wasthe 150th anniversaryof the death of Dr

John Snow (1813-1858), who,at the age of 45 had alreadyachieved excellence in threeareas of medical science:anaesthesia, the epidemiologyof waterborne disease and thechemistry of variouscompounds and poisons. Hebecame the first professionalanaesthetist shortly after etherwas demonstrated as ananaesthetic in 1846 in theUSA, applying scientific method whereothers treated it as a novelty; and hisexpertise with chloroform in childbirthmade pain relief for labour respectablewhen Queen Victoria praised that“blessèd chloroform”. But in thisWHO Year of Water and Sanitation,we should applaud him particularlyfor his proof that cholera was spreadby drinking water contaminated bysewage.

In 1854, Snow was working as ananaesthetist in London when a savageoutbreak of ‘King Cholera’ occurred inSoho, killing 500 people in a few days.As a young doctor in Newcastle, Snowhad witnessed one of the first UKepidemics of cholera: in 1831 he wassent to the mining village ofKillingworth to treat the cases. Hedescribed the mine as one huge privywhere men ate without washing theirhands: his early – and at the timeoutlandish – suspicion that choleraarose from the excrement of cases wasstrengthened by studies in London,indicating higher rates of cholerawhere the water supply was morecontaminated. The 1854 Sohooutbreak supplied the final evidence:for example, brewery workers werespared because the brewery had itsown well, while others had to takewater from street pumps (so, althoughhe was a teetotaller, the pub now

bearing his name could be said tocommemorate the brewery evidence).Evidence from a map of casesimplicated the Broad Street pump: thisearly use of medical geography hasmade Snow an icon for cartographers,although Snow also realised theimportance of outlying cases, forexample a widow in Hampstead whohad resided in Broad Street and soliked the pump-water that she had aflagon of it sent to her daily: shebecame the only recorded case ofcholera in Hampstead during thatepidemic. Snow persuaded the parishguardians to take the handle off theBroad Street pump – an actcommemorated by a plaque on thepub at the site in what is now calledBroadwick Street. Later investigation ofthe pump’s well showed that sewagefrom an adjacent cesspit had seepedinto the water.

Snow published his findings in ‘On theMode of Communication of Cholera’:bacteria had not yet been isolated andthe idea of disease carried by waterwas considered laughable by many,including the medically trained editorof The Lancet. However, the problem ofcontamination of street wells wasappreciated: a Cholera InquiryCommittee concluded in 1855 that allsurface wells should be abolished andthat water companies should provide a

continuous supply of water– previously supply hadbeen limited to about 2hours a day and never on aSunday. London’s sanitationwas appalling, with sewagecontamination of theThames worsened bywidespread installation ofwater closets: scarcely amonth after Snow’s deaththe ‘Great Stink’ of July1858 prompted, at last, thelegislation required toinstall a scientifically

designed sewer system in the city.Joseph Bazalgette, Chief Engineer tothe Metropolitan Board of Works hadbeen waiting years for agreement tohis plans. The modern flushing toilet,invented in England, could nowdischarge safely and publicconveniences were also pioneered inBritish cities. Although Snow’s workprovided the essential evidence thatsewage should be kept away fromdrinking water, there is no memorialto match that of Bazalgette on theThames Embankment.

As the chair of the InconvenienceCommittee of professional Blue Badgetourist guides, I would argue that hewould have supported our campaignfor free public toilets for all visitorsand tourists as both necessary to acivilised society and based on goodhygiene science and medical need. Itprobably requires legislation and achange of view, just as was needed forthe control of wells and Bazalgette’ssewer plans – and perhaps benefactorssuch as Richard Whittington, who asMayor of the City of Londonbequeathed a large public toilet by theThames in 1423. Whether or not youagree, raise a glass of our now safedrinking water to Dr John Snow tocelebrate the anniversary of a greatBritish scientific hero.

Dr John Snow: an unsung hero ofwater and sanitation

Dr Rosalind Stanwell-SmithHon Senior Lecturer, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, scientific advisor to the Royal

Institute of Public Health and Secretary to the John Snow Society

Professor Jim Feast, President RSC; Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP; Dr RosStanwell-Smith, John Snow Society; Mr Jeremy Pelczer, WaterAid.

Photograph courtesy of RSC



Introduction

In 2005 the Secretary of State receiveda report from the Higher EducationFunding Council for England(HEFCE) that identified Science,Technology, Engineering and Maths(STEM) disciplines as bothstrategically important and vulnerable.Their vulnerability was measured by amismatch between the supply ofsuitably qualified graduates fromhigher education and the demand forsuch graduates from UK industry andcommerce. The problem becomesclear if we look at the numbers ofyoung people entering highereducation to study STEM disciplines.Data show that the numbers enteringfirst year degree programmes have, atbest, remained steady over the pasttwenty or so years. This covers aperiod of rapid expansion in thenumbers of 18 year olds enteringhigher education. Therefore, the STEMdisciplines have seen a real and drasticreduction in their market share of thecohort.

It is enlightening to look at thenumbers of applications forundergraduate science courses versusnumbers of acceptances for suchcourses. For example, in 2007 15,567people applied to study physicalsciences through the Universities andColleges Admissions Service (UCAS).However, 15,801 finally acceptedplaces in such programmes. Thus,more undergraduates are accepted onphysical science programmes thanoriginally applied for places,suggesting that many of them may noteven be very committed to theirprogramme of study. This mismatch isprobably due to the large numberswho apply for but do not get acceptedonto courses such as medicine andveterinary science.

We look to the teaching profession toinspire our next generation of

scientists. However, it is well knownthat there is a chronic shortage ofspecialised teachers of chemistry andespecially physics and many pupils arenot taught science by a subjectspecialist. The numbers of entrants toPost Graduate Certificate of Education(PGCE) courses has remained verystable despite the introduction ofincentives such as the ‘golden hello’. Itis crucially important that enoughwell-motivated, enthusiastic scientistsenter the teaching profession if thenumber and quality of undergraduatesentering Higher Education (HE) is toincrease to meet the demands ofcommerce and industry.

These issues are being tackled in someways. The enhanced ‘golden hello’ fortrainee teachers may not be increasingthe numbers entering the professionbut it may well be increasingcompetition for places of PGCEcourses which in turn will mean thatthe better qualified applicants arerecruited. There are several supportmechanisms for science teachers toenable them to take part inContinuing Professional Development(CPD) and to improve their skills. Inaddition many organisations are nowengaging directly with schoolchildrenin an attempt to enthuse them aboutscience.

Support for science teachers

The Association for Science Educationis a professional organisation thatexists solely to support scienceteachers and to improve the quality ofscience teaching. The Association runsa number of very successfulconferences and publications and hasa wide membership from within theteaching profession.

Science Learning Centres are anational network for professionaldevelopment in science teaching. TheCentres support teachers in enhancing

their professional skills by learningmore about contemporary scientificideas and in experimenting witheffective teaching approaches andgaining experience of modernscientific techniques. Their challenge isthat they have to charge for theirservices and that teachers often havedifficulty being out of school to attendevents.

Most of the professional bodies suchas the Institute of Physics and theRoyal Society of Chemistry provideresources for science teachers to use inthe classroom as well as offeringopportunities for in-service training.

Universities are increasingly offeringsupport to teachers by offering eventsfor pupils or conferences andresources for teachers themselves.Industry also provides many teachingand career education resources.

The relatively new regional STEMCentres are attempting to bringtogether all the offerings in support forSTEM in a ‘one stop shop’ approach.They provide a single contact point forteachers looking for support for anyarea of the curriculum.

Direct interaction withschool children

Academia, industry, professionalbodies and other organisations areincreasingly becoming involved withdirect interaction with schoolchildrenin an attempt to turn them on toscience. Their approach is usually via

HANDS-ON SCIENCE IN SCHOOLSMEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 22ND APRIL 2008

Hands-on ScienceTina OvertonProfessor of Chemistry Education, University of Hull andDirector, Higher Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre



curriculum enhancement andenrichment activities with a focus onproviding access to exciting hands-onactivities. These activities also oftenprovide positive role models and someinsight into science-related careers.

A selection of ‘hands-on’ focusedprojects is described here:

‘Hands-on science’ is an EU SocratesComenius-funded project that aims topromote experimental teaching ofscience as a way of improving in-school scientific education and scienceliteracy in society

‘Hands-on science’ is also the title of aHigher Education Funding Council forWales (HEFCW) funded project thataims to promote, enthuse and increasethe number of pupils studying science,maths and health-related subjectsbeyond the General Certificate ofSecondary Education (GCSE).

‘Chemistry: The Next Generation’ ismanaged by the Royal Society ofChemistry and funded by HEFCE. Itaims to promote the excitement ofchemical sciences and demonstrategood career opportunities.

‘Stimulating physics’ is managed bythe Institute of Physics and funded byHEFCE to increase the number ofpeople taking physics courses at A-level and degree level.

The HEFCE funded ‘Londonengineering project’ aims to alter thestudent uptake into engineeringcourses, provide tomorrow’sengineering workforce, allow Londonstudents to claim their place in thetechnology-based future of London.

The HEFCE-funded ‘Moremathsgrads’aims to develop, trial, evaluate meansof increasing the numbers of studentsstudying maths

Several universities have dedicatedScience communication units. Theseinclude the Universities of Surrey,Liverpool, University of the West ofEngland, Bristol (UWE), UniversityCollege London (UCL), Imperial,Bristol, Royal Holloway.

The Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council and the Science andTechnology Facilities Council alsoencourage public engagement andschools programmes.

The British Association for theAdvancement of Science (BA) existssolely to advance the publicunderstanding, accessibility andaccountability of the sciences andengineering and organises an annualnational science week and Festivals ofScience.

From the HE sector over 100universities engage in STEM outreachactivities. These work with theprimary, secondary, Further Education(FE) sectors and focus on curriculumenrichment with hands-on, whizz-bang activities. Their aim is to raiseaspirations in science, to providepositive role models and of coursehave one eye on recruitment for thefuture.

Is it working?

Overall, there is a great deal of directinvolvement between various agenciesand school children associated withhands-on science activities. There islittle evaluation of the long termimpact of these activities but there issome evidence from the publishedresearch literature which shouldinform these activities.

In 2005 the Oxford, Cambridge andRoyal Society of Arts ExaminationsBoard (OCR) carried out a survey of950 year 9, 10 and 11 students. Theyfound that 50%+ students thoughtthat science is boring, confusing, anddifficult. 25%+ of the group indicatedthat they would not progress beyondGCSE. Experiments were the mostpopular activity followed by field trips.Reading textbooks and research on theinternet were the least popularactivities.

In 2002 a survey of 218 physicsundergraduates (in Scotland)investigated the factors that affectedthe students’ choice of discipline tostudy at university. It was found that87% cited enjoyment of subject, 47%cited career opportunities, 27% citedthe teacher and only 9% citeddemonstrations, festivals, exhibitionsand visits (Reid and Skryabina, 2002).

Research by Jarvis (2002) investigatedthe effects of a visit to a science centreor similar on the attitudes of pupils. Itwas found that positive attitudesfollowing interventions only persistbeyond a few weeks if pre- and post-activities are carried out by teachers inschool.

Summary

There is no doubt that we need toswitch more young people on toscience. Research evidence clearly tellsus that experiments are the mostpopular and most effective vehicle forachieving this. Research also indicatesthat it is what happens within theschool curriculum that is mostinfluential in determining children’sattitudes. External efforts can enhanceand enrich the curriculum but theschool science curriculum and theteachers that deliver it are the onlyeffective vehicle for changing attitudesin the long term. Therefore, we needmore creative, enthusiastic, confidentscience teachers and we must createspace, time, and facilities for morehands-on science in schools.

References

The Association for Science Education

http://www.ase.org.uk/

Science Learning Centres

http://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/

Stem Support Centres

http://www.stemcentres.org.uk/

The British Association for the Advancement of

Science

http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/

EPSRC Public Engagement

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PublicEngagement/default.

htm

STFC Public and Schools

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PandS/Contents.aspx

Hands-on Science

http://www.handsonscience.org.uk/hands-on-

science.html

http://www.hsci.info/

Chemistry for our Future

http://www.rsc.org/Education/CFOF/index.asp

Stimulating Physics

http://www.stimulatingphysics.org/

moremathsgrads

http://www.moremathsgrads.org.uk/home.cfm

Attitudes Towards Physics, N Reid and E

Skryabina, Research in Science and Technological

Education, 2002, 2200, 1 67 - 81

Effect of the challenger experience on elementary

children’s attitudes to science, T Jarvis and A Pell,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2002,

3399, 10, 979-1000.



HANDS-ON SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS

Hands-On Science inSchools: TheEnhancement &Enrichment PerspectiveDr Karen BultitudeScience Communication UnitUniversity of the West of England, Bristol

Within the UK there are aremarkable range ofprogrammes and activities

on offer which seek to enhance andenrich student experience of science inschool. Offered by a wide range oforganisations, including universities,learned societies, museums, charitiesand private companies (both large andsmall), the impact of theseprogrammes is arguably greatest whenthe students are most engaged – andone of the most effective ways toachieve that engagement is throughhands-on learning.

This article will consider three separatecase studies of successfulEnhancement & Enrichment (E&E)initiatives. The purpose is to provide asnapshot of the range of activities thatare available, as well as highlight keyfeatures which lead to success.Challenges associated with E&Eactivities are also discussed, and arange of exciting new developments inthe field highlighted.

Case Study: RoboCupJunior

RoboCupJunior1 (RCJ) is a project-oriented educational initiative thatoffers local, regional and internationalrobotics events for school students. Itprovides a unique opportunity forparticipants with a wide variety ofinterests and strengths to worktogether as a team to achieve acommon goal. RCJ offers severalcompetitions, each emphasising bothco-operative and task-achievementaspects:

In RoboDance, one or more robotsperform to music, optionally

accompanied by the students. Thisallows considerable scope for artisticcreativity and is particularly appealingto girls.

In the RoboRescue challenge, robotsrace to identify ‘victims’ withinsimulated disaster scenarios.

The RoboSoccer game involves adynamic environment in which teamsof autonomous robots play on agreyscale pitch using an infraredemitting ball.

From the excitement and sheerenthusiasm of the teams involvedthere is no doubt that they enjoy thecompetition. However is it actually ofbenefit educationally? Petre & Price(2004)2 are in no doubt of itseffectiveness for ‘back door’ learning.They observed and interviewed teamsat all levels of the competition,concluding that:

“…many of the children revealed thatthey had come to terms with topics(such as programming, gearing, andmathematical representations) whichthey had previously found difficult, inorder to make the robot work. Thatdrive to build a functioning robot hadcarried them into new and sometimesdaunting territory. It had helped themto take step-by-step and systematicapproaches to learning what theyneeded to know.”

The researchers also reported thatlearning encompassed an impressivelybroad range of skills, ranging fromproblem solving and planning toimprovisation, learning from mistakes,teamwork, information sharing,interpersonal skills, and even patience.

There is also evidence of this hands-onlearning style appealing to a widerrange of learning styles andeducational needs.

Case Study: AwesomeAthletes

The immersive learning approachwhich RoboCupJunior achievesthrough the incentive of a competitioncan also be accomplished in otherways. Awesome Athletes 3 is aprogramme of ‘theme days’ forprimary children developed by theUniversity of Nottingham, basedaround the topic of ‘movement’. Theprogramme encompasses a cross-curricular approach that stimulatesengagement through problem solving,creative thinking and investigativelearning. The delivery team work inclose partnership with each school todevelop a tailored programme that isfundamentally ‘owned’ by the school.The result is that the pupils’experience is directly linked to theworld of R&D; teachers and childrenalike are excited and inspired by theidea of doing something similar to realresearch.

Feedback from schools has beenoutstanding; not only do the pupilsenjoy the activities but there is clearevidence of both educational learningand improved attitudes towards science:

“The children enjoyed what they did andlearned the best way, through hands-onexperiments. Many commented that thiswas the most fun they had in science andwished it could be like this all the time!” –Parent Governor at Middleton PrimarySchool.



“Do you know, I quite like being a scientist”– a normally unmotivated child fromLambley School

Perhaps the best outcome however,has been the evidence that a singletheme day or workshop has changedthe attitude and teaching practice ofmany teachers towards science andengineering.

“Encourages a more thematic, process-orientated. open-ended learning/teachingand working with cross age groups.” –London teacher’s workshop delegate

General feedback from teachers hasindicated that the theme days providean exciting and inspirational focus forthe students, which has longer termbenefits. For example, the childrentalk about the event weeks later, makereference to being a scientistthemselves and make links with whatthey are doing in science class andwhat they did during the activity.

Case Study: Meet the GeneMachine

The first two exemplars built upondirect hands-on interventions,however there is also a widerimplication of ‘hands-on’ that is worthconsidering, particularly in the case ofolder students. There is a great deal ofevidence4 to suggest that teenagersbecome more engaged with sciencewhen they are encouraged to consider– and actively debate – the social andethical implications, rather than justthe hard facts, leading to recentchanges in the curriculum5. Meet theGene Machine6 is a current activitybeing delivered in schools by sciencecentres throughout the UK. It aims toprovide young people (aged 14+) withan opportunity to think about, discussand debate relevant social, moral andethical issues relating to genetic testing.In addition to the drama/debate withstudents it incorporates twilightContinuing Professional Development(CPD) sessions for teachers as well as acomprehensive pack of resources forteachers to use themselves within class.

To date the programme has reachedover 9,000 pupils and over 380teachers, and teacher reception of theproject has been outstanding:

•98.4% agreed that the activitieswithin the discussion were useful

•99.2% agreed that it was good use ofstudents’ time

•100% agreed that they would involvestudents in a similar event again

Successes of Hands-OnScience E&E

Comparison of the three case studieshighlights certain key features whichare critical to success:

•interactive, participatory – the ‘hands-on’ nature adds significantly to theirsuccess

•cross-curricula approaches – studentsand teachers alike are stimulated byactivities which emphasise science ina broad context

•clear curriculum links – schools arefinding it increasingly difficult tojustify activities which are not clearlylinked to the curriculum

•building on existing networks andpartnerships – inspiration, relevanceand coherency are best achievedthrough activities which combinespecialist external expertise withinternal teacher input, and takeadvantage of existing networks

•sustainability and transfer of ownership –the most effective way to reach asmany students as possible is toembed the activity within a school;this is best achieved throughdeveloping teacher’s skills andconfidence to take ownership andadapt it to suit their own teaching

Challenges and StepsForward

By the same token, certain issues dostill remain which need to beaccommodated:

•teaching time is precious! – Schools maynot be in a position either financiallyor due to timetable constraints torelease students for participation, orteachers for training. It is also oftendifficult for teachers to be able toidentify where to source appropriateE&E activities; this is currently beingaddressed through the provision ofthe STEM Directories 7.

•frequently reliant on volunteers – Manyproviders of E&E activities do so ona voluntary basis, and often theirE&E activities are unappreciated

within their ‘normal’ jobs. In thelong-term case of research staff inhigher education this issue may beameliorated with the advent of theBeacons for Public Engagement 8.

•funding continuity – It is rare to receivepublic engagement funding for morethan two or three years, meaning thateven very successful activities oftenhave to close.

•difficult to identify longer term impacts –Partly due to the short-term fundingstructure, there are few longer-termstudies of the impact of E&Eactivities on student subject selectionand retention within the sciences.

•audience reach – Due to the nature ofthese activities they are often takenup by highly motivated teachers,which can mean that pupils indisadvantaged areas miss out. Thereare specific programmes to addressthis imbalance, eg Aim Higher9 orthe London Engineering Project10.

Conclusion

It is not within the scope of this text tooutline every current developmentwithin the field; however there are awide variety of exciting initiatives.There is a phenomenal range ofexcellent Enhancement & Enrichmentprovision available within the UK,particular in the area of hands-onscience. The challenge is to learn fromprevious key projects to ensure thatstudents of the future receive the bestpossible experience in science.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge thecontributions of Dr Donal McNally &Janice Yelland Sutcliffe (University ofNottingham); Ashley Green (OpenUniversity) and Laura Strieth(University of the West of England,Bristol).1 www.robocupjunior.org

2 Petre, M. & Price, B. (2004). ‘Using Robotics toMotivate ‘Back Door’ Learning’. Education andInformation Technologies. 9:2, 147–158.

3 https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/active-communities/html/children_details/awesome_athletes.htm

4 http://www.scienceyear.com/sciteach/review/Findings.pdf

5 http://www.gcsechanges.com/gcses_are_changing.asp

6 http://www.scu.uwe.ac.uk/projects/events/meetthegenemachine.htm

7 http://www.stemdirectories.org.uk/

8 http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/

9 http://www.aimhigher.ac.uk/home/index.cfm

10 http://www.thelep.org.uk/



HANDS-ON SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS

Remote ExperimentsDr Hugh M CartwrightChemistry Department, Oxford University

Some people have a ‘feel’ forscience. When they encounter anew problem in the physical

world, they may know almost instantlyhow it could be solved, or at least havea hunch about what a solution wouldlook like, even if they have never metit before. Using an ability to ‘thinkoutside the box’, observation andtheory can be linked in ways thatothers have not considered.

This sort of instinctive understandingis not as rare as one might imagine –many of the most productive scientistsseem to possess it – and it isparticularly valuable when scientificprogress requires knowledge of morethan one field. Medical imaging,biophysical chemistry and forensicarchaeology are examples ofapplications in which research isfacilitated by an understanding of atleast two distinct fields.

If it is so valuable to be able to thinkabout science intuitively, we shouldpromote and nurture this abilityamong our young scientists; howmight this be done? Science isinherently experimental, and aninterest in science (or a lifelong hatredof it) generally develops in primary andearly secondary school, when scienceteaching is frequently illustrated withexperiment. If, through experiment,children can ‘play around’ withscientific ideas as they meet newconcepts, they are more likely toacquire this feel for how the naturalworld behaves.

In the world of science fiction, eagerscience teachers unwrap modernequipment to illustrate and enliveneach new topic as it is introduced. Inreal schools, equipment is limited inscope and quantity, is often wellbeyond its use-by date, and might have

been inappropriate for its intendedpurpose even when purchased.Without the opportunity to engage inmodern and interesting experiments,children come to regard science aslumps of theoretical gristle that seem tohave little connection with reality.

Science theory and science experimentare part of the same fabric, so whenchildren realize that to experiment isfun, their understanding of science willdevelop; in a proportion of studentsthis will be accompanied by a growingscience intuition. Experiment thusplays a crucial part in science teaching,but schools need access to appropriateequipment and if expense or otherfactors are barriers to the provision ofsuitable materials, alternative ways torun science experiments must befound.

One of the most promising approachesis to use the Internet.

At first, though the Internet wasintriguing and novel, it was slow andone-dimensional. Its development intoan interactive medium that childrenunderstand, enjoy and feel comfortablewith has been dramatic. The webalready permits sophisticatedinteraction between a user and aremote computer and it is a logicalextension to arrange that a user, whenthey open a web browser, can connectnot to a computer, but to a piece ofequipment instead.

This is the realm of the remoteexperiment. A remote experiment isneither a simulation of an experiment,nor a storehouse of data from anexperiment run by someone else, but areal experiment that can be run on realequipment. Accessible via the web, thephysical location of the equipment isunimportant, so students anywhere inthe UK might access equipment

situated in Stockport or Toronto,Exeter or Mumbai.

Advantages of remoteexperiments

It might seem strange to propose oneshould run an experiment onequipment located thousands of milesaway, but remote experiments offermany potential advantages:

The range of experiments available tostudents may be greatly increased: all thatis required locally is a web-enabledcomputer and access to the Internet,opening a window on dozens orhundreds of experiments.

It may be possible to access equipment thatcould never be provided locally: no schoolcould expect to be able to use anelectron microscope in the schoollaboratory, or get time on ageostationary satellite, but these mightbe available through the web.

Experiments can be run at any time: anexperiment does not becomeinaccessible just because the schoollaboratory has closed its doors.Learning can extend past the end ofclass into the lunch hour or afterschool; students can continue to doexperiments and learn at home.

An experiment run through the Internetmay not seem like science: this is a crucialadvantage. Science has a modest publicrelations image compared to more sexytopics such as media studies; school



science teachers may struggle to makescience seem ‘cool’. Scienceexperiments conducted through theinternet can be fun though; indeedstudents may not think of suchexperiments as science at all, so thestigma of being identified as a geekwho enjoys science, present in someschools, evaporates.

Collaborative experiments that involvestudents from different classes and schools,even on different continents, becomepossible: collaboration among studentsand institutions in different countries isa major aim of EU education support,so this provides a possible mechanismto fund the development andpromotion of Internet-basedexperiments.

Remote experiments show particularpromise in third-world countries: in suchcountries computers are often cheapand surprisingly widespread in theeducation system. By contrast,scientific equipment is expensive andtherefore a low priority in the schoolbudget. Where the science educationof students is book-based, notexperiment-based, remote experimentscan fill the gap by offering a range ofrelevant activities.

Remote experiments can support in-serviceteacher training: many science teachersteach a topic outside their primary areaof expertise. Remote experiments offeran opportunity for them to study ingreater depth techniques such asnuclear magnetic resonance, whichthey may include in their lessons, butof which they have only limited first-hand experience.

Challenges in developingremote experiments

If remote experiments have so much torecommend them, surely the Internetshould be awash with them? Theadvantages mentioned above have notbeen overstated, but significantchallenges do exist.

The start-up cost of any experiment must bemet: costs fall upon the initialdeveloper of the experiment and maybe too great for a school to absorb if itwould like to place an experiment onthe web.

Commercial software for connectinginstruments to the web is generally difficultto use and may be vulnerable to securityattacks: there is a need to developsimpler, secure software.

Those placing equipment on the web needan understanding both of computing and ofscience: programming skills are requiredto interface equipment with the web,while an appreciation of science isneeded so that experiments arescientifically accurate and are not mereentertainment.

So what should be done?

A sound understanding of scienceencompasses both theory and itsapplication. The truly hands-onexperience, when the student performsan experiment locally, is almost alwayspreferable to a remote experiment. Butwhere the Internet can be used toexpand the curriculum and provideopportunities for students that wouldnot otherwise be available, it should be

used. We should aim to produce arange of experiments through whichchildren can enhance theirunderstanding and enjoyment ofscience. Remote experiments, just likethose performed locally, should be fun,so that, in enhancing their scientificknowledge, children also discover theexcitement of science.

An opportunity exists for the UK totake the lead in this emerging area. Asmall number of school, university, ormuseum-based centres should befunded to offer remote experiments.Serving the needs of children across arange of ages, these experimentsshould be sufficiently unusual,expensive, or hard to set up that theywould not normally be found in theschool laboratory. They should bedesigned with the needs not only ofstudents in the UK in mind but alsothose in less advanced countries.Finally, software should be developedthat is sufficiently simple and robustthat it can be used by a teacher withonly an average understanding ofcomputing to connect local equipmentto the Internet.

This is one of those rare areas ineducation in which the potential isgreat, but the field is only just openingup (and the dead hand of governmentregulation has yet to weigh down).Substantial gains in our children’sunderstanding of science are possiblethrough the promotion of Internet-based experiments; we should graspthe opportunity.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The following points were raised during discussion: ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The schools telescope project is grossly underestimated; six schools use it, but there is no follow-up research concerning itseffectiveness on young people. The Science Museum has experimental data on the impact of science learning on childrenand a website with a large number of visitors and deals with children and adults together. Access to mobile and properlyresourced science teaching can be provided through ‘lab on a lorry’. Many of the examples of work presented were teachingpeople how to be project managers rather than scientists. Unfortunately a lot of science is no longer hands-on science inschools for safety reasons which cannot be avoided. However, it is important that students have the opportunity to dothings in school which are somewhat dangerous so that they learn to evaluate risk. The effect of safety legislation has beento take out the more dangerous aspects of school science which is a pity. Tracking the benefits of primary school trainingthrough to secondary school outcomes is a ten-year project and funding councils will only fund a three-year project. Majorgovernment support is required although many projects are locally based and are designed to support teachers who alsoneed inspiration. For most scientists, curiosity is an insatiable driving need which inspires their work. Projects likeAwesome Athletes can really stimulate that sort of curiosity. It shows directly that asking questions and finding out theanswers is fun, interesting and important. Creativity, in terms of approach and application, can give children freedom toexplore and the confidence to realise that there isn’t a single right answer.



Over the past 50 years, lifeexpectancy in the UK hasincreased substantially, and

we now enjoy longer and healthierlives than ever before. This benefit hasbeen achieved principally throughadvances in science and technology,including the discovery and wide-ranging exploitation of large numbersof new chemicals. However, while thenet effect of technological progress hasbeen positive, there are notableexamples of harm to human healthand wildlife from chemicals that havebeen introduced into our food orenvironment, either deliberately (egasbestos, organochlorine insecticides)or inadvertently as by-products of newtechnology (eg motor vehicle exhaust).In looking to the future, therefore, ourchallenge is to maximise the benefitsfrom technological advances whileminimising adverse effects. Thisobjective is pursued throughappropriate risk management.

The starting point when managingrisks from chemicals is a scientificassessment of risk, which entails threemain steps:

• Hazard identification – what are thepotential adverse effects of thechemical?

• Hazard characterisation – how doesthe probability and severity of thesehazards relate to the circumstancesand level of exposure to the chemical?

• Characterisation of risk – given theexpected circumstances and levels ofexposures to the chemical, whatharm can be expected?

It should be noted that the risks fromchemicals depend importantly on thecircumstances and extent of exposure.Handling an intact lump of asbestosposes no material risk to health,whereas inhalation of microscopicasbestos fibres can cause serious lungdisease, the probability of diseasevarying according to the cumulativeamount of asbestos inhaled over time.Exposure to uranium provides anotherexample. We are all exposed daily totiny quantities of uranium in the waterthat we drink, but this is not ofconcern because the risks from suchlow levels of exposure are negligible.

Various sources of information maycontribute to risk assessment forchemicals, including:

• Knowledge of chemical structures –for example, some molecularfeatures make it more likely that asubstance will bind to the DNA incells, possibly causing cancer

• Experiments in vitro – for example,tests for mutagenicity (ability todamage DNA) in bacteria

• Experiments in laboratory animals

• Case reports and epidemiologicalstudies of exposed humans andwildlife

CHEMICALS IN FOOD, WATER AND CONSUMER PRODUCTSMEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 20TH MAY 2008

Chemicals in Food,Water andConsumer ProductsProfessor David CoggonProfessor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, University of Southamptonand Chairman of Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

• Experimental studies in humans(where these are judged ethicallyacceptable)

• Studies to assess levels of chemicalsin food, water, air, soil and otherenvironmental media

• Studies to assess the extent to whichpeople or wildlife are exposed tochemicals from different sources andby different pathways

However, even where extensivescientific data are available, there willalways be an element of uncertainty inthe assessment of risk. Uncertainty canarise because few relevant studies havebeen conducted; because availablestudies are imperfect in their design orexecution, and liable to statistical errorbecause of their limited size; and inthe extrapolation from findings in vitroand in laboratory animals to humanexposures. As would be expected,such uncertainty tends to be greaterfor new chemicals than for those thathave been present in the food orenvironment for many years.

Risk assessment therefore requires notonly an estimate of the possible risksfrom a chemical, but alsoconsideration of the uncertainty in riskestimates. In the communication ofrisk assessments it helps to distinguishbetween risk and uncertainty. The



presence of a risk implies that aproportion of exposed people (oranimals) will suffer harm asconsequence of their exposure.However, uncertainty often extends toa scenario in which there is noelevation of risk whatsoever. Forexample, currently available evidencedoes not indicate a risk of hip fracturefrom fluoridation of drinking water,but there is some uncertainty. Whileour best estimate is that there is norisk, we cannot exclude the possibilitythat a small risk has been missed bythe research conducted to date.

Risk management builds on riskassessment by comparing estimates ofthe risks, benefits and costs, and of theattendant uncertainties, for each ofseveral options (eg whether or not topermit the use of a chemical in aparticular way), and choosing the onethat is considered preferable. Thisentails the application of valuejudgements. For example, somepeople worry more about theuncertain risks of fluoridation thanothers. Thus, while risk assessment isa scientific activity, risk management isnot. Where the choices underconsideration affect only one person,risk management is ideally devolved tothe individual concerned, who canthen apply his or her own values indeciding what to do. However, wheremultiple stakeholders are affected by adecision, the weighing of risks,benefits, costs and uncertaintiesbecomes a political activity.

The Committee on Toxicity

The Committee on Toxicity providesindependent scientific advice toGovernment and to the public on theassessment of risks from chemicals infood, consumer products and theenvironment. It currently comprises achairman and 14 scientific members,mostly from academia, who areappointed on merit (according to therules of the Commissioner for PublicAppointments) on the basis of theirexpertise in relevant areas of scienceand medicine. In addition, two ‘laymembers’ bring a broader perspectiveto its deliberations and

communications. The secretariat isprovided jointly by the FoodStandards Agency (FSA) and theHealth Protection Agency. Its work isco-ordinated with that of two sistercommittees – the Committee onCarcinogenicity and the Committee onMutagenicity.

The Committee considers questions,most of which are referred to it by itstwo sponsoring departments, FSA andDH, or (less frequently) by otherGovernment departments and advisorycommittees. In addition, theCommittee carries out its ownhorizon-scanning, and may identifyother topics which it feels should beaddressed. Its main outputs arepublished statements in which itdraws conclusions and makesrecommendations on the questionsthat it has considered. Additionally, thechairman (with or without othermembers) may attend meetings withdepartmental bodies (eg the FSABoard) to discuss findings, and thepublication of statements may beaccompanied by press releases or pressconferences. The Committeeendeavours to be as open as possiblein its business, making its meetingsopen to the public and publishingminutes on its website. Exceptionsmay occur (eg because a scientificpaper under discussion is still underconsideration for publication in ascientific journal), but in thesecircumstances, full minutes arepublished once the original obstaclehas been removed.

Examples of topics on which theCommittee has recently issuedstatements, or which currently areunder consideration, include:

• Effects of mixtures of food coloursand a preservative on behaviour inchildren

• Ill-health in commercial air crew andthe cabin air environment

• Use of PAVA as an incapacitant spray

• Reproductive effects of caffeine

• Reproductive outcomes in peopleliving near landfill sites

• The Lowermoor water pollutionincident

• Possible risks from plant toxins inhoney

• Air fresheners

• Chlorination disinfection by-products in drinking water

• Safety of milk and meat fromanimals that have eaten bracken

It should be noted that the work of theCommittee is not restricted to man-made chemicals, and that several ofthe investigations listed above concernnaturally occurring substances. Thisunderlines the important message thatnatural does not imply safe. Many ofthe most toxic chemicals (eg ricin,aflatoxin) occur naturally, while manysynthetic chemicals have very lowtoxicity.

Future needs

One of the threats to the future ofchemical risk assessment in the UK isa possible shortage of scientists withthe relevant expertise in areas such astoxicology, epidemiology and exposureassessment. Applied sciences of thistype have tended to fare less well inuniversity research assessmentexercises, in part because their outputis seen as less innovative and exciting.And perhaps for the same reason, ithas become more difficult to attracthigh quality graduates into thesefields. The Medical Research Councilhas recently embarked on an initiativeto expand training in toxicology, butother diciplines also need to be re-invigorated.

Meanwhile, resources for riskassessment must be managed withcare. Substantial input is needed forchemicals that intrinsically are morehazardous (eg pesticides andmedicines), and for new products towhich exposure will be extensive. Forothers, a lighter touch is moreappropriate.



The Pesticides Safety Directorate(PSD) is the UK RegulatoryAuthority for pesticides and

detergents. On 1 April 2008 PSDtransferred to the Health and SafetyExecutive (HSE). Prior to the move toHSE, PSD was an Executive Agency ofDepartment for Environment Foodand Rural Affairs (Defra). PSD reportson operational matters to HSE and toDefra Ministers and to four otherDepartments on pesticide anddetergents policy issues. Pesticides anddetergents are regulated at bothEuropean and national level.

Detergents

Detergents legislation is primarily setto protect the environment.Companies wishing to manufactureand sell detergents must be able todemonstrate that the active ingredient(surfactant) meets the requiredstandard of biodegradation.Companies are not required to submittheir test results to PSD but mustprovide the data if asked to do so. Inexceptional circumstances, where thesurfactant does not meet the requiredstandard, companies can apply to theregulatory authority for a derogation.

Pesticides

In contrast to the detergent regime,pesticides are heavily regulated andthis relies on a scientific assessment ofthe risk. The scientific data required toget an approval to supply and use apesticide is extensive and thoroughand undergoes intensive scrutiny byPSD and other bodies. Pesticides, incommon with other chemicals, areused to benefit society but because oftheir toxic properties and the way theyare used they have to be carefullyassessed and regulated to minimise

harm to both people and theenvironment.

The active ingredients in pesticideproducts are regulated at Europeanlevel. Getting an active compound onthe approved European list involvessubmitting a detailed scientific dossier.The dossier is evaluated by a selectednational regulator and furtherscrutinised by other Member Stateregulators. The European Food SafetyAuthority’s independent experts advisethe European Commission beforeMember States vote on whether to listthe active ingredient.

Products (containing the listed actives)are approved at national level.Companies wishing to sell products inthe UK submit a data package to PSD.No pesticide can be supplied or usedwithout approval. For approval to begranted a company must be able todemonstrate that the product isefficacious and that risk to humanhealth, the environment and wildlife isminimal. Post approval monitoring isin place to ensure the controls areworking and to identify any emergingadverse effects.

Pesticides in food

The protection of the public is a keyconsideration for PSD and otherregulators such as the Food StandardsAgency, particularly in relation toresidues in food. The PSD consumerrisk assessments follow internationallyagreed scientific protocols fortoxicological studies and crop residuestudies. When assessing the consumerrisk both chronic and acute exposuresare applied to a range of ten differentpeople categories. The results fromresidue trials identify the highestresidues from proper use and these

data are used to calculate the potentialconsumer intake. Approvals aregranted only if the predicted exposureis less than the health-based referencedose. Taking an example pesticide, theAcceptable Daily Intake for KresoximMethyl is 0.4mg/kg whereas thecalculated consumer exposure is0.0012mg/kg.

Residues on produce are controlledusing the concept of the MaximumResidue Level (MRL). This is a limitbased on the residues likely to befound on produce following goodagricultural practice. It is a tradingstandard and not a health-basedstandard. Produce which has residuesabove the MRL must not be sold. Thelimits set for MRLs are oftensignificantly lower than would giverise to intakes near to health basedreference doses. From September 2008the default MRL for all residues will be0.01mg/kg (effectively zero inanalytical terms) unless specific dataare provided to support higher values.

As part of our post-approvalmonitoring we sample food forpesticide residues at a cost of about£2m pa. About 98% of samples aregenerally found to have residues belowthe MRL. Produce that repeatedlyshows up with MRL exceedences issubject to special attention by PSD.For example, some years ago testingrevealed residue levels in lettuce. PSD’sadvice to growers and otherinterventions has effectively drivendown residue levels.

The Committee on Toxicity publisheda report on the risk assessment of

CHEMICALS IN FOOD, WATER AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS

The role of the PesticidesSafety Directorate in regulating Pesticides and DetergentsDr Kerr WilsonChief Executive, Pesticides Safety Directorate



mixtures of pesticides and suggestedthat a methodology should bedeveloped for cumulative riskassessment. PSD is supporting theEuropean Food Safety Authority indeveloping an approach for assessingcumulative risk.

Pesticides in water

Protection of water courses frompesticides is an important aspect ofPSD’s work. The standard we areworking to is to ensure any pesticideresidue in drinking water is less than0.1µg/litre. Pesticides which aresprayed on crops may drift into watercourses or leach through the soil intoground water. Point sources ofcontamination can be majorcontributors to pollution. PSD hasbeen active in commissioning R&Dinto possible sources of contamination,particularly field drains and pointsources. Research has shown thatcontamination to water from sprayersat the end of an operation is significantand the use of bio-beds can reducecontamination significantly. Even thewashings from a single pair of glovescan contaminate a water ditch 100mx1m x 1m to a level in excess of the

0.1µg/litre limit. PSD validated modelsare used to predict the likelihood ofconcentrations exceeding 0.1 limit in arange of vulnerable soil and climatescenarios.

PSD works closely with theEnvironment Agency who has anextensive surface and groundwatermonitoring programme throughoutEngland and Wales. Out of ninecommonly detected pesticides, twohave been withdrawn and two will bephased out by 2009. The remainderwill be reviewed when they appear forre-registration.

Current issues

The availability (or non-availability) ofpesticides is moving up the politicalagenda because of concerns over foodsupply and food security. The issue ofpesticide availability has come aboutlargely as a result of the EuropeanReview of pesticides. A large numberof pesticides have been taken off themarket some for safety and some forcommercial reasons. Approximately60% of pesticides have been removedfrom the approved list. Existinglegislation and proposed new

European legislation will inevitablyhave further implications for pesticideavailability.

The UK is an active participant in theEuropean negotiations on proposednew pesticide legislation and aSustainable Use Directive and we arewell ahead in having developed ourown national strategy. The UK strategycovers five areas – human health,water, biodiversity, amenity use andavailability. Working groups drawnfrom a wide group of stakeholders aretaking these workstreams forward.

Finally, the move of PSD into HSE willput chemical regulation into one singlebody. Over the next year PSD will beworking with colleagues engaged onbiocides and chemicals (REACH)regulation to share best practice and toexplore how we can make best use ofour combined expertise. Maintainingour internationally respected UKregulatory science expertise will beessential if we are to play our partprotecting people and the environmentwhilst recognising the benefits thatmodern technology can bring tosociety and the economy.

CHEMICALS IN FOOD, WATER AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Why should we be concerned about our exposure to chemicals?Gwynne LyonsCHEM Trust 1

There is insufficient informationavailable on the toxicity of manyindustrial chemicals on the

market today to undertake even abasic assessment of the risks they poseto human health and the environment.Therefore, to some extent, protectionof the public is based on wishfulthinking rather than good science. Yetthe stakes are high, because there isubiquitous exposure to many of these

chemicals from their extensive use inconsumer products, and from air,water or food contamination.

Of course, not all chemicals are bad,but there are mounting concerns aboutthose which have endocrine disruptingproperties. Such chemicals can mimicor de-rail the normal functioning ofhormones, which are the body’s ownchemical messengers.

Over the last decade, in response tothe mounting worry about possiblewidespread effects, the EuropeanCommission has spent a total of€161m (around £125m) on researchinto endocrine disruption. Manyexcellent UK scientists are contributingto world class research in this area.

The main concerns that have beenidentified include reproductive

1 CHEM (Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring) Trust is a new charity set up with initial funding from WWF-UK, with a mission to protect wildlife and humans fromharmful chemicals.



disorders in men (including decliningsperm quality and quantity, anddefects in baby boys’ genitalia), andincreases in breast and testis cancer.The rate of increase in cancers of thebreast and testis is such that it cannotsolely be due to genetic factors. Someenvironmental factor(s) (which couldinclude life-style) are also at play,because genes in a population justdon’t change that quickly.

Hormonal action is key to the originor progression of these disorders, andso it is likely that hormone disruptingchemicals are involved. The suspicionthat certain chemicals play a role isunderpinned by information from in-vitro studies and animal experiments.Indeed, some scientists point out thatthe ‘phthalate syndrome’ which is agroup of symptoms (including un-descended testes, shortened ano-genital distance, and reduced spermcounts) caused by de-masculinizationof laboratory animals by phthalates, isremarkably similar to many of theproblems which now seem to beincreasing in men. Phthalates havemany uses, particularly in plastics, andsome have well known anti-androgenic properties. However,proving which chemicals are causingeffects in humans is problematic.Many interacting influences may play apart, and it is generally only possibleto uncover the role of a particularchemical when it exerts, by itself, avery strong impact on the diseaseprocess. Some epidemiological studiesare, however, adding to the weight ofevidence. For example, a US studyfound baby boys with shorter ano-genital distance and impairedtesticular descent (both markers of de-masculinization) were born to motherswith higher exposure to certainphthalates during pregnancy.

Similarly, with regard to breast cancer,it is suspected that oestrogenmimicking chemicals may be involved,as it is well established that factorswhich increase a woman’s lifetimeoestrogen exposure, increase her riskof breast cancer. Now, studies inwomen exposed to oestrogenicpesticides are backing up that concern.For example, a study in Spain hasfound an increased breast cancer riskin some women with higher totalexposure to several oestrogenmimicking pesticides measured as thetotal effective man-made oestrogenicburden.

Hormone disruptingchemicals found inconsumer products

People can be simultaneously exposedto large numbers of hormonedisrupting chemicals. Chemicals withendocrine or hormone disruptingproperties are found in a vast array ofconsumer products. A few notableones include:

some phthalates used to makeplastics flexible;

certain parabens, such as butylparaben, an antioxidant used in somecosmetics;

benzophenone and 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor, UV filters usedin sun-screens;

bisphenol A, which can leach frompolycarbonate and from the epoxyresin lining used on the inside offood tins.

some brominated compounds usedas flame retardants.

Pesticides with hormonedisrupting properties

Moreover, many endocrine disruptingpesticides, even those long sincebanned in the EU, can still be found asfood contaminants, either because ofillegal usage, or due to theirenvironmental persistence, or becausethey are still used on importedproducts grown outside of the EU.

There is much more information onthe toxic properties of pesticides ascompared to many other chemicals,and the active ingredients used in theEU have been subject to review. Thus,some pesticides with hormonedisrupting properties, such as thevinclozolin and atrazine (where theconcern was groundwater pollution)are now no longer permitted. Otherssuch as procymidone (used, forexample, on plums and cucumbers)and fenarimol (used on tomatoes,peppers, melons, aubergines etc) arestill allowed, although due to beremoved from the authorised list afterJune 2008. Nevertheless, vinclozolin,procymidone and fenarimol, all ofwhich have anti-androgenic properties,can still be used outside the EU andcan be found as residues in importedproduce.

Currently, the EU plant protectionproducts legislation is being updatedand negotiations are ongoing. Theproposed text of this new legislation

could lead to EU usage of otherendocrine disrupting pesticides beingprohibited unless human exposure isnegligible. However, the final wordingof the legislation, and how it will beimplemented has yet to be seen.

Need for better testmethods and improvedmethods of assessment

Many pollutants now recognised ashormone disruptors, such as TBT andcertain phthalates, were only identifiedthrough scientific studies, not byroutine safety testing. There istherefore a need to develop novel,regulatory test methods, and toimplement the best available testmethods in legislative frameworks, andto subject the test methods used toregular review.

Few chemicals have been adequatelyinvestigated using even the testmethods available now, which aresufficient to identify at least somechemicals with endocrine disruptingproperties.

Furthermore, even when someinformation is available, the currentmethods of assessing a chemical’ssafety may not be suitable for assessinghormone disrupting chemicals. Inparticular the assumption of athreshold may not be tenable becausethese chemicals act together withnatural hormones already present.Even small amounts of hormonedisrupting chemicals may thereforeadd to the overall effects, andmoreover, it is likely that due to thelimited sensitivity of established testmethods, such effects are overlooked.

In addition, at the nub of much of theconcern is the knowledge that we arenow exposed to many hormonedisrupting chemicals, which areknown to be able to act additively.Experiments have shown that severaloestrogen mimicking chemicals cancause effects, even when each is belowits individual threshold for effect. Anti-androgenic chemicals and thyroiddisrupting chemicals have also beenshown to have additive effects. Therehave been some attempts to get togrips with concurrent exposures andthe cocktail effect, and notable is theUK Committee on Toxicity’s WorkingGroup on Risk Assessment of Mixturesof Pesticides. Unfortunately, this hasnot led to adequate policy reform toaddress the issue, which needs to bedealt with in EU-wide guidance. Forexample, an oestrogen mimickingchemical, such as bisphenol A, is



assessed by itself, with no due regardto the knowledge that many otherchemicals have similar mechanisms ofaction.

Expert interpretation of thescience highlights the needfor action

Networks of excellence, internationalconferences, and years of painstakingresearch have enabled many scientistsin this field to develop a broadunderstanding of endocrine disruptionand the effects of chemicals with suchproperties. Concerned about what thescience was telling them, in 2005,hundreds of scientists working at thecutting edge of research into endocrinedisruption signed the PragueDeclaration. In this Declaration,scientists outlined what they hadfound, gave their interpretation of thescience, and made somerecommendations. They noted thatwhile causality was well established fordetrimental effects in wildlife, therewere inherent difficulties inestablishing causal links in humans.Furthermore, they concluded:

“In view of the magnitude of the potentialrisks associated with endocrine disrupters,

we strongly believe that scientificuncertainty should not delay precautionaryaction on reducing the exposures to and therisks from endocrine disrupters.”

Anyone concerned about public healthmight like to read the full seven-pagePrague Declaration, which is availableat the following web site:http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10517/suppl.pdf

The Declaration went beyond theconcerns about male reproductivehealth and hormone related cancers,and highlighted the in-uterosusceptibility of the immune system tocertain pollutants. It also flaggedpotential effects on brain developmentand brain ageing, as scientistsconjectured that problems could beexpected based on their knowledge ofthyroid hormone physiology. The needfor further investigation of the role ofhormone disrupting chemicals inobesity and stress related disorderswere similarly noted.

There is an important rolefor politicians

Expert judgement is therefore thatthere is a need to reduce exposures to

hormone disrupting chemicals wherepossible, but it will take political will inmany EU countries to take thatforward on all fronts. To this end,CHEM Trust has written to selectedMember States, including UKrepresentatives, urging them to draftdossiers to put some chemicals withhormone disrupting properties ontothe candidate list for priorauthorisation under REACH (the newEU Chemicals Regulation concerningthe Evaluation, Authorisation andRestriction of Chemicals). This wouldsubject these non-pesticide hormonedisrupting chemicals to much strictercontrols, and would stimulate the useof safer alternatives.

It is sometimes difficult to gainconsensus amongst the EU’s 27Member States, and controls overchemicals can be thwarted by apowerful industry lobby. However,with some political leadership from theUK, and with policies based on goodscience and expert interpretation ofthat science, there may be just a chanceof preventing much future suffering.


Testicular cancer is certainly on the increase. However mortality statistics have been increasing since the 1930s. Hencecausative factors must have been established as early as 1910. The later appearance of endocrine disruptors does not appearto account fully for the overall increase in this disease. Regarding breast cancer the role of increased oestrogen exposure iscertainly correct. Regarding trends for breast cancer, other factors also need to be taken into account such as the effect of adelay in the timing of the first pregnancy, and the effect of screening which increases incidence.

Mixtures or combined exposures to chemicals are widely raised and a report is in preparation by COT. Interactions or thejoint effects of two chemicals may generate a combined exposure effect which may amount to more than an additive effect.

What was the level of maternal smoking in 1910? Was this an important factor in testicular cancer in 1910? Why ismultiple sclerosis in Orkney and Shetland twice as high as it is in the south of England? Is it related to latitude? Is thefalling sperm count in men and gynaecomastia (breast development) in young boys, which is now a major problem, relatedto oral contraceptive in the water supply? Are organo-phosphate pesticides responsible for neurological damage now totallyoff the market?

Chemicals certainly do not account for all the evidence as with multifactorial disease it is difficult to evaluate the full weightof evidence. One can only speculate that polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were around in the early part of the 20thcentury and they are endocrine disruptors. The data from epidemiological studies and those on animals need to becombined to understand the processes involved. The roles of asbestos and tobacco can be difficult to identify and theproblems become much more difficult when many chemicals are involved. Hence the importance of the Prague Declarationcalling for reduction in exposure to chemicals which come from a multiplicity of sources often from objects in everyday use.The possible relationship between low levels of oestrogen in water and men with mammary tissue is a hypothesis requiringfurther work.

The impression has been created that the REACH programme is not doing what it was intended to do or it is not stringentenough and that regulation is not working. Implementation of REACH is now under the control of the 27 member states.Regulation should be based on the full range of evidence and on risk, not on hazard and there are uncertainties in thescience. The highest risk generation of men at risk from smoking and lung cancer were born in 1905 and for women thoseborn in 1925 so smoking does not relate to testicular cancer rates. Multiple sclerosis is latitude related and is an effect inearly life, possibly due to infection by epstein barr virus. Risk analysis on multiple chemicals is difficult to estimate due tothe additive effect. Hence hazard may sometimes be the only useful guide to risk. If we regulate on hazard we need to findout if there is a benefit to be gained which outweighs disadvantages and balances risk. The Precautionary Principle is ageneral rule relating to uncertainty in risk and politicians wish to make sure they have set up institutional arrangementswhich provide a mechanism for managing risk in a well informed manner.



validated. If this cannot be validated,an efficacy study in an appropriateindication is required.

If the reference product has multipletherapeutic indications, the biosimilarmanufacturer may extrapolate fromother indications if the mechanism ofaction is the same and if appropriatelyjustified. The guidance requiresimmunogenicity data to be providedbefore approval, and product-specificannexes provide details forerythropoietin, granulocyte colonystimulating factor, insulin and growthhormone. It is important thathealthcare practitioners are aware thisdata is extrapolated from otherindications when choosing whichproduct to prescribe.

To ensure safety within thisframework, pharmacovigilancesystems need to be robust enough tocope with the introduction ofbiosimilars. This means they need toensure traceability. Therefore,company and regulatory agency (inthe UK the MHRA) pharmacovigilancereporting systems should distinguishone manufacturer’s product fromanother. If biosimilars have the sameInternational Non-proprietary Name(INN) as the originator product, it iseven more important thatpharmacovigilance systems are strictlyenforced. To prevent repeateduncontrolled substitution, biosimilarsshould be prescribed by brand namealone with a strict ban on substitution.

In addition to these precautions, thereare many simple ways in whichinadvertent substitution of biosimilarscan be prevented, including makingphysicians, pharmacists and patients

There are currently more than150 biotechnology medicines onthe market. Over 325 million

patients worldwide use biotechmedicines and 50% of medicines inclinical development are biotechmedicines. The first biotechnologymedicines have now reached, or areapproaching, the end of their patentlife, providing an opportunity forproducts which are similar to theoriginal product to be produced. Inthe past 12 months, an additional 5biosimilar medicines have beenintroduced onto the UK market.

There are significant differencesbetween the biotechnology andchemical medicines. Biotech medicinesare made from living cells, whereaschemical medicines are made from achemical process meaning that biotechmedicines are more complex proteins.Additionally, biotech medicinescontain a mixture of related moleculeswhich are more difficult to characterisethan chemical medicines, which havea simple and well-defined structure. Inaddition, biosimilar medicines aremade with a different cell-line and adifferent manufacturing andpurification process from theoriginator product. The differentmanufacturing processes lead tosimilar, but not identical, biophysicalcharacteristics.

In the debate surrounding theintroduction of ‘biosimilars’, somemanufacturers of biosimilars wouldrather they were referred to as‘biogenerics’, as if to suggest they werea usual generic product. Generally,there is no issue with the substitutionof generics; however, as the Europeanregulatory body the EuropeanMedicines Agency (EMEA) recognise,due to the complexity of biological orbiotechnology-derived products, thegeneric approach is scientifically not

appropriate for these products. TheEMEA, and the UK regulatory body,the Medicines and Healthcare productsRegulatory Agency (MHRA), bothclassify follow-on biological medicinalproducts as ‘biosimilars’.

In considering the introduction ofbiosimilars there are four distinct areasthat need to be carefully considered bygovernment and regulators. These are:1) the molecular properties: asdescribed above, biotech medicines aremore complex than chemicalmedicines; 2) the manufacturingprocess which is extremely sensitive tochanges in manufacturing orproduction – minor variations couldproduce vastly different products; 3) safety aspects: the long term safetyprofile of biosimilars needs to beestablished, which needs to be broughtto the attention of prescribers andpatients; and 4) the efficacy of themedicine, which can differsignificantly with small changes inprotein biophysical characteristics orin formulation of the drug product.

The EMEA has introduced a guidelineon Similar Biological MedicinalProducts, which seeks to considerthese four areas and sets anoverarching ‘umbrella’ guideline on theapproach to bringing biosimilarproducts to market. This guidelineindicates that biosimilar manufacturersneed to identify a single referenceproduct and conduct tests todemonstrate biophysical similarity andaccepts that “it is not expected that thequality attributes … will be identical”1

to the reference product. There iscurrently an EMEA requirement toprovide non-clinical and clinical datato demonstrate clinical similarity tothe reference product, however;surrogate endpoints 2 may be used toshow similar clinical characteristicsonly if the endpoint is appropriately

SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINESINTO UK HEALTHCAREPARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE BREAKFAST BRIEFING ON TUESDAY 13TH MAY 2008

The Introduction of Biosimilar MedicinesDr Antonio PagliucaKings College Hospital, London



aware of the data available to support amedicine; making Patient InformationLeaflets (PILs) transparent and clear;providing a defined reference product;describing clinical data for approvalincluding unique safety data andoffering substitution advice.

SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINESINTO UK HEALTHCARE

Biosimilars and Patient issuesMichael SummersVice Chairman, The Patients Association

The Patients Association is anational charity providingpatients with an opportunity to

raise concerns and share experiencesof healthcare. We are committed tomaking a difference to the ‘PatientJourney’, educating our members,patients, healthcare practitioners andpoliticians about the key issuesaffecting patients, including advancesin technology and the impact this willhave on patients.

As part of this representation, we feelthe introduction of biosimilarmedicines to patient care in the UKraises important issues for patients andpatients’ organisations. The significantadvance in available treatmentsnecessitates caution during theirintroduction until all participants arefully familiar with these products.

Whilst safe and effective biosimilarshave the potential to play a role instimulating competition, andbroadening treatment options forpatients, it remains important fordoctors and patients to recognise thatbiosimilars are not directlysubstitutable in the same way thattraditional generic medicines aresubstituted for chemical medicines.Biosimilars may bring benefits topatients, including lower cost to theNHS; however, it is not yet known

how significant the cost savings will becompared with originator medicinesbut it seems the differences areunlikely to be as great as those seenwith generics of chemical medicines.

Due to current gaps in knowledge,there have been a number ofmovements by patient organisations toimprove patient understanding oftreatment with biotechnology, andbiosimilar, medicines. The NationalPatient Safety Association haslaunched a ‘Please Ask’ campaignencouraging patients to ask about theirtreatment and discuss options withhealthcare staff. Meanwhile, theInternational Alliance of Patients’Organisations (IAPO) has launched aneducational programme on biosimilarmedicines to help patient organisationsmake informed judgements on theirvalue and the scientific, social, ethicaland economic issues.

A patient survey conducted by IAPOin 2006 showed that whilst patientswere concerned by the cost ofmedicines, their main concerns relatedto efficacy and safety. Whilst there wasa positive interest in biosimilars, allpatient groups called for biosimilars tobe introduced in a safe andappropriate way. This was summed upby Charles Gore, President of theEuropean Liver Patients’ Association

who said “Biosimilars offer a tremendousopportunity to reduce medicinal costs butoffer equally important challenges – theymust offer true comparability with theoriginal products because ultimately safetycomes first. We do not want to giveourselves a dangerous legacy”. Inaddition, this survey indicated thereshould be a risk assessment oflabelling and packaging of dispensedmedicines to minimise harm from‘look-alike’ products.1

Low levels of awareness of biosimilarmedicines hinders the role of patients,and patient groups, in engaging in thisdebate. In turn, this restricts patientknowledge in discussing health needswith their healthcare providers. Wherebiosimilars are available, patients mustunderstand the choice they are makingand be involved in that choice.Transparent and clear information andinvolvement of patients in policydebates is essential to build trust innew medicines.

The importance of easy tracing andclear indications of side-effects will beessential to patient safety in the eventof adverse drug reactions (ADR). The

Biotechnology medicines are awelcome part of the future healthcarelandscape and will become a familiarphenomenon. A regulatory approvalprocess has been established in Europeand both the MHRA and theGovernment have committed to arobust pharmacovigilance system

1 EMEA Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived proteins as Active Substance: Quality Issues. 22 February 2006, London .EMEA/CHMP/BWP/49348/2005 http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/biosimilar/4934805en.pdf

2 Outcome measures that are not of direct practical importance but are believed to reflect outcomes that are important are called surrogate outcomes.

whilst we continue to learn more aboutbiosimilar medicines; however,awareness of the differences betweenoriginal biotech medicines andbiosimilars is essential for healthcareprofessionals and patients to ensureappropriate introduction into clinicalpractice.



patient has an important role, andresponsibility, in this. To help patients,medicines must be clearly marked,easily identifiable and well labelled toenable tracing in the event of an ADR.Clear educational material will beessential and healthcare staff have akey role to play in making surepatients are aware of any associatedrisks. They must understand both thepositive and negative side-effects ofany treatment, ie patients need to be‘risk-literate’, so they understand theactual risks associated with atreatment, in realistic terms. There is aresponsibility on all participants in the

health agenda to make sure thisinformation is conveyed in the clearestand most effective way.

The Government and health regulatorybodies need to take all necessaryactions to protect patient safety duringthe introduction of biosimilars. Thisshould include:

o A programme that ensures cliniciansare aware of the possible risks andthat these should be fully discussedwith patients.

o Many more biotechnology productsare due to come on to the market inthe coming years. Patients should be

made aware of the differencebetween traditional medicines andbiotechnology medicines.

o Patients should be made aware oftheir role in ensuring fullpharmacovigilance with any newmedicines. They should alsounderstand why it is important thatthey report adverse reactions andhow these should be reported.

1 Biosimilar Medicines, The Views and Roles of Patientsand Patients’ Organisations, Jo Harkness, InternationalAlliance of Patients Organisations, 4th EGAsymposium on Biosimilar Medicines, 19 May 2006,London, UK


This is an awareness session following on from the Panel discussion and a recent Adjournment Debate designed to drawattention to the potential danger inherent in the use of powerful, largely protein based drugs, which differ from genericdrugs in their inherent variability among several other factors.

Is there possibility of regulatory creep in relation to a defined reference point? The greatest danger arises from confusion. Anexample was then presented where two cancer patients died very rapidly. They were receiving an antifungal agent(amphotericin B) to treat a fungal infection. This was the standard drug for this treatment 30 years ago. However,amphotericin, which has evolved as a drug over the years, was prescribed currently by a doctor recently transferred from adifferent hospital where different practices applied. An amphotericin B dose was then delivered at 5 times the strengthrequired for treatment over one hour instead of six hours and the two patients were dead within twelve hours. Similarproblems arising from confusion are likely to arise where a product becomes known by a single name irrespective of severalsignificant changes in performance over time and confusion arises over the appropriate dose required for treatment from theversion of the drug actually prescribed, which could be very toxic to the patient. The question arises as to where theresponsibility for such a situation lies. Is it the pharmacist or the GP?

The actual version of a drug selected for treatment such as erythropoietin, for example, which is used by renal physicians,may be subject to financial drivers on drug purchase operating at a high level, such as the London Purchasing Authority forexample, where the consideration is primarily financial rather than considerations of the safety of patients exposed to arange of differing variants of a given drug, who may be subsequently informed that their drug has been switched, withouttheir involvement or any further justification of reasons. Drug firms should take more interest in the way their products areused. Diagnostic laboratories also need to be aware that patients are taking differing versions of the same drug.

The knowledge base of biosimilars among clinicians and physicians and laboratory doctors and nurses is generally very low.It is not a topic considered suitably attractive for international meetings. A high degree of upskilling is required of themedical professionals involved in treatment with biosimilars. What is the method of characterisation of the biosimilar drugsused by the companies that produce them? Companies all go through the same assessment process in order to satisfy therequirements of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). Most products are hospital-driven products. A patient withkidney failure comes into hospital and is started on erythropoietin and then moves out into primary care. The MHRA isresponsible for monitoring drugs approved for use within the EU by the EMEA. Prices of biosimilars will become cheaperby about 20% in future.

Treatment of, for example, Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria, which is a rare and devastating disorder will be carriedout using Eculizumab, an Ultra Orphan drug produced by Alexion. This is a new anti-complement C5 antibody costing£250,000 per patient, per year, and treatment will be prescribed, following the Darzi reforms, at Leeds and Kings but willalso be available more widely through clinics based at local hospitals managed and run by major hospitals. It has beenreported that this year the NHS have treated more patients for less for the first time. However new biotech drugs couldprove very expensive in future.

It was recommended at the Panel established to consider biosimilars that they should carry a black triangle. If an innovativeproduct is approved by NICE then it is unlikely that they will be involved with the assessment of biosimilars. There may bea health technology assessment. However, a single group of hospitals may decide jointly to select a single product for theiruse to reduce the complexity of managing the supply of five different variants, for example. This reduces patient choicealthough some patients may respond differently to each of the variants. In addition, the NHS are treating 25 differentnationalities with differing responses due to the varying background of different individuals.

Communication needs to be continually improved together with upskilling of all those involved in the management ofbiosimilars. Biosimilar copy companies are primarily concerned with the financial benefits of their products followingregistration with the EMEA, but they rarely engage with the medical community once that approval for use has been obtained.



BOOK REVIEW

This is an intriguing book. Professor Jane Plant isProfessor of Environmental Geochemistry at ImperialCollege London, and her co-author, Janet Stephenson, is apsychologist who works as a therapist in the NHS and inprivate practice. The authors point out that one person insix may suffer from chronic anxiety or depression, andmany others do so temporarily. They explain in detailhow they each suffered from both anxiety and depression,and how they felt that doctors, both in primary and insecondary care, failed to deal effectively andsympathetically with their problems. Jane experiencedyears of chronic anxiety after taking benzodiazepines tocounteract the stress of cancer treatment, while Janetsuffered from psychosis which followed postnataldepression, and led to her spending several months in afrightening mental institution. The authors explain howthey managed, with help, to overcome their problems. Ina thoughtful foreword, Professor Stephen Holgate remarksthat the authors gained clear insight into their owndifficulties and how to resolve them, while concurrentlyapplying scientific rigour to understand and convey whatprocesses may have caused their problems. The authorsclaim that readers of this book will discover:a) risk factors and how to reduce them; b) how mental health problems can be diagnosed more

effectively; c) how to ensure the best possible treatment; d) how to acquire information on alternative approaches;e) the ten lifestyle factors that can decrease the chances of

mental illness; f) the ten food factors that can improve mental wellbeing.

I have tried, as a neurologist with some experience intreating mood disorders, to assess the extent to which theauthors have succeeded. I believe that they have achievedmost if not all of their objectives. First, they deploy aremarkable understanding of neuroscience and the waysin which biochemical changes in the brain can result inthe genesis and persistence of mood disorders. They alsodescribe the complex symptomatology of anxiety anddepression, and outline a classification much in line withscientific thought. Neurotransmitter function anddysfunction in mental illness are well described, as aretheir outlines of brain/mind/body interactions and modernneurophysiology, although I was surprised to find thatacetylcholine as a neurotransmitter was not mentioneduntil page 201. Their outline of risk factors in chapterfour is largely indisputable, as are their views on gettingthe best treatment in chapter five; they pay appropriate lipservice, not only to the role of drugs, but also to the

physical factors which may influence the mood, while alsostressing the important role of counselling, cognitivebehavioural therapy and other psychotherapeuticmethods.

Where they are on less certain ground is in theiracceptance of the role of measuring urinarycatecholamines and other metabolites in diagnosis, andtheir espousal of amino acid therapy, based largely on thework of Lechin, whose views are not totally in tune withcurrent neuroscience thought. They are, however, right tocriticise electro-convulsion therapy and psychosurgery,while recognising that trans-cranial magnetic stimulationand deep brain stimulation may sometimes be useful intreating depression. Most of their comments on lifestylechanges and the value of exercise and rest and relaxationare unexceptionable, but they are less convincing in theircomments on environmental issues, not least in relation tothe potential harmful effects of pesticides. Allneuroscientists appreciate the hazards produced byorgano-phosphorus insecticides, but when the authorssuggest, for example, the possible risks from exposure topesticides when walking a golf course, they have a lessfirm scientific foundation (I write as a golfer). I was alsomildly discomforted by their comprehensive chapter onnutrition and the role of food factors. This chaptercontains much common sense, but their espousal of theorganic food movement, along with their view that mostprotein in our diet should be from plant and not animalsources, have a less secure scientific foundation. They are,of course, fully entitled to express their personal opinionsupon what they have found useful and helpful, but I wasa little concerned to find that, whereas 90% of this bookoffers recommendations based upon sound scientific factand reasoning, the authors espouse enthusiastically somewhich are not in my opinion evidence-based or in tunewith well-accepted scientific principles.

These are relatively minor quibbles, as this is an admirablebook which should do much, as Stephen Holgate says, toalleviate the fear, helplessness and hopelessness whichmany feel when suffering from mental ill health. Thebook ends with a helpful list of organisations working inmental health, and there are useful lists of scientificreferences as well as a recommended list of books forfurther reading. There is also a good index. I mustconclude therefore that many sufferers from stress, anxietyand depression will find in this volume invaluableinformation, guidance and comfort.

Lord Walton of Detchant

Beating Stress, Anxiety & DepressionGroundbreaking Ways to Help You Feel Better

By Jane Plant and Janet Stephenson. Foreword by Stephen Holgate

Published by Piatkus, £12.99, 1 May 2008



Ihave led theFCO’s IndiaScience and

Innovation team fornearly three years. Asa job and place it has

never disappointed. India is a diverseland of contradictions and in thecourse of this article I will explorewhat that means for us in the scienceand innovation community.

The dragons and tigers of the Far Eastmay be cunning, ruthless and fast, butthe Indian elephant stands squarely onits feet making its steady if ponderousprogress unstoppable. India the re-emerging powerhouse is a fact. Abillion plus people working togethermakes a big impact, but India’scontinually forward momentum is alsodown to their ability to be focused inspite of the trials of everyday life.

This tenacity is as true for the sciencesector as any other. India does nothave the biggest research output, farfrom it, but it continues to grow. TheIndian Government wisely spends itseconomic windfalls on its biggest asset– its youth. India is a country with ayoung population, with 60% of thepeople under 40. Yet only 50% of thepopulation are educated to a basiclevel. To overcome this, the IndianGovernment has instigated anexpansion of its education system thatwould be staggering to all, but China.For around 50 years India has had justseven elite Indian Institutes ofTechnology (IIT) and a solitary IndianInstitute of Science (IISc) for ahundred years. This year theGovernment will break ground onnew IITs and five new Indian Institutesof Education and Research, along withseven new Indian Institutes of

Management, 20 Indian Institutes ofInformation Technology, and 30 newcentral universities. This pyramidalrelationship carries on right down tothe secondary school level with 6,000on the drawing board.

This massive expansion is one of thereasons that I am here as Head of theFCO’s India SIN team. We need toensure that the UK is part of thischange and I feel strongly that effortnow, at the beginning, will pay hugedividends for us in the future, much asit did a hundred years ago when theRoyal Society was instrumental in thesetting up of the IISc.

This is not the only role of the SINnetwork in India as we work on awide range of projects that are moreshort term in their outlook, but willhave far reaching implications for thefuture. For example, DfID Indiarecently launched its new action planin which it describes three faces ofIndia. The poorest 400 million live on$1 a day; the developing India of 500million who live on less than $2 a day;and the ‘Global India’, who answer ourbanking or computer enquiries andinvest heavily in the UK and gold.Despite its advances these figuresshow that India still faces problemsthat it cannot deal with all by itself.So, climate change has the potential toimpact seriously on the annualmonsoon that brings life to thesubcontinent, without which it wouldresemble the deserts of Arabia. To theoverwhelming majority this would becatastrophic.

India has a tremendous capacity toinnovate and use technology whereappropriate. The Science Network isworking with teams to develop

beyond 3G networks that have thecapacity to connect even the remotestof villages. This is not just bringingcommunication to the far flung places,but also jobs.

It is not all about the UK assisting withIndia's problems. We firmly believe inmutually beneficial collaboration asthere is a great deal that India canteach us. The hottest topic these daysis outsourcing. This phenomenon inIndia is not based solely on lowerlabour costs. The many knowledgeprocess outsourcing companies thathave come into existence have done soon the back of innovation. This is notinnovation in the classic sense thatresults in a fancy gadget orgroundbreaking discovery. It isinnovation that removes the cost ofmanufacturing that gadget, orinnovation that removes the cost fromthe company processes that supportthe manufacture of the gadget. It isinnovation that helps us to seeproblems from a completely differentangle and provide low cost solutions.It seems so simple yet we have yet toembrace fully these concepts as wecontinually strive for the “Rolls Royce”solution.

In conclusion I need not hesitate insaying that I have spent a rewardingand useful three years in India. I willleave my post satisfied that I am achanged man and have made adifference. But I will also leavethinking that there is so much more todo and that this was just the tip of theiceberg, or perhaps that should be thetip of the trunk. As much as I havetried those who succeed me will stillhave a long and probably potholedroad to travel. My simple advice is “bepatient”.

Three years in DelhiDr Rob Daniel, Head of Science and Innovation British High Commission, New Delhi



House of Commons Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills

Under the Standing Orders, the Committee’s terms of reference are to examine “the expenditure, administration and policy” of the Departmentfor Innovation, Universities and Skills and its associated public bodies. This includes the Government Office for Science, headed by the

Government Chief Scientific Adviser.

The new Committee was nominated on 8th November 2007. The current Members of the Committee are: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Lab, City of Durham), Mr Tim Boswell (Con, Daventry), Mr Ian Cawsey (Lab, Brigg and Goole),

Mrs Nadine Dorries (Con, Mid Bedfordshire), Dr Ian Gibson (Lab, Norwich North), Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem, Oxford West and Abingdon),Dr Brian Iddon (Lab, Bolton South East), Mr Gordon Marsden (Lab, Blackpool South), Dr Bob Spink (UKIP, Castle Point), Ian Stewart (Lab,Eccles), Graham Stringer (Lab, Manchester, Blackley), Dr Desmond Turner (Lab, Brighton Kemptown), Mr Rob Wilson (Con, Reading East)and Mr Phil Willis (Lib Dem, Harrogate and Knaresborough). Mr Phil Willis was elected Chairman of the Committee at its first meeting on

14th November 2007.

Oral Evidence

The Leitch Review of SkillsOn 28th April 2008 the Committee held a one-off sessionwith Lord Leitch and Louise Tilbury, former leader of theLeitch Review team to discuss the Leitch Review of Skills.

The Office for Fair Access (OFFA) On Monday 2nd June the Committee held a one-offsession with Professor Sir Martin Harris, Director of FairAccess at the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). OFFA’s aim isto promote and safeguard fair access to higher educationfor under-represented groups following the introductionof variable tuition fees in 2006-07. The session focused onhow effective OFFA is in promoting and safeguarding fairaccess to higher education for under-represented groupsand how the effects of OFFA’s work are measured.

Current Inquiries

Biosecurity in UK research laboratories

On 6th December 2007 the Committee announced aninquiry into biosecurity in UK research laboratories. Theinquiry has focused on the capacity for research ondangerous pathogenic material in the UK, the state ofbiological containment facilities, inspection regimes andthe licensing system, maintenance and recording practices,storage and transportation of dangerous pathogens andthe measures implemented when pathogenic materialcannot be accounted for, as well as both biosafety trainingand the role of universities in overseeing securityclearance for research students working with dangerouspathogens.

The Committee has held three evidence sessions, hearingfrom the regulators, funding agencies, organisationsrunning high containment laboratories, scientists workingin this area, biological safety officers and Ministers. AReport was published on 25th June.

Engineering

On 29th January 2008 the Committee announced aninquiry into engineering. The inquiry focuses on the roleof engineering and engineers in UK society, the role ofengineering and engineers in UK's innovation drive, thestate of the engineering skills base in the UK, includingthe supply of engineers and issues of diversity (forexample, gender and age profile), the importance ofengineering to R&D and the contribution of R&D toengineering and the roles of industry, universities,professional bodies, Government, unions and others inpromoting engineering skills and the formation anddevelopment of careers in engineering.

As part of the main inquiry the Committee has held threeevidence sessions, hearing from young engineers,academics, academic institutions, bodies representingengineers, employers and industry, and otherorganisations with an interest in engineering. Furtherevidence sessions will take place over the coming months.

The inquiry will be wide-ranging and the Committee willexplore some of the themes using case studies, two ofwhich have already been announced. The first of these isplastic electronics and focuses on the current and futureroles of engineers in the field of plastic electronics, thepotential for plastic electronics in the UK/global economy,how universities, industry, venture capital andGovernment are involved in the development of the UKplastic electronics sector and whether the UK engineeringand manufacturing sector are set up to handle growth inthis area. The second case study is nuclear engineeringand focuses on the UK's engineering capacity to build anew generation of nuclear power stations and carry outplanned decommissioning of existing nuclear powerstations, the value in training a new generation of nuclearengineers versus bringing expertise in from elsewhere, therole that engineers will play in shaping the UK’s nuclear



future and whether nuclear power proves to beeconomically viable and the overlap between nuclearengineers in the power sector and the military.

After Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training Policies

On 4th March 2008 the Committee announced an inquiryinto the implementation of skills and training policiesfollowing the Leitch Report and how responses to theagenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broaderstructures of further education, higher education andlifelong learning. The inquiry focuses on the responses ofRDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured theseare, what the existing regional structures of delivery areand what sub-regional strategies may be required, the roleof the Learning and Skills Council and Sector SkillsCouncils in this context, the respective roles of the furthereducation and higher education sectors in delivering aregion-based agenda for Leitch and their co-ordinationwith one another and the impact on students of theseinitiatives, particularly in the context of policies forlifelong learning.

The Committee has held two evidence sessions. Theinquiry began with an evidence session in Leeds todiscuss planning and delivery of skills in the Yorkshireand Humberside region. At the second evidence session,in Westminster, the Committee heard from academics andrepresentatives from industry. Three further evidencesessions are planned, at which the Committee will hearfrom the UK Commission for Employment and Skills,Sector Skills Councils, Employment and Skills Boards,Regional Development Agencies, the Learning and SkillsCouncil, representatives of further and higher education,unions and Ministers.

Reports

Science Budget Allocations

On 30th April 2008 the Committee published its FourthReport of Session 2007-08, Science Budget Allocations,HC 215.

Renewable electricity-generation technologies

On 19th June 2008 the Committee published its FifthReport of Session 2007-08, Renewable electricity-generation technologies, HC 216.

Government Responses

One Government Response to a Report by the formerScience and Technology Committee has been received bythe Innovation, Universities, Science and SkillsCommittee.

Investigating the Oceans

On 15th May 2008 the Innovation, Universities, Scienceand Skills Committee published its Fourth Special Reportof Session 2007-08: Investigating the Oceans:Government Response to the Science and TechnologyCommittee’s Tenth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 506.

Three Government Responses have been received by theInnovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee.

The work and operation of the Copyright Tribunal

On 16th June 2008 the Innovation, Universities, Scienceand Skills Committee published its Fifth Special Report ofSession 2007-08: The work and operation of theCopyright Tribunal: Government Response to theCommittee’s Second Report of Session 2007-08, HC 637.

Withdrawal of funding for equivalent or lower levelqualifications (ELQs)

On 17th June 2008 the Innovation, Universities, Scienceand Skills Committee published its Sixth Special Report ofSession 2007-08: Withdrawal of funding for equivalent orlower level qualifications (ELQs): Government Responseto the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007-08, HC638.

Science Budget Allocations

On 17th June 2008 the Innovation, Universities, Scienceand Skills Committee published its Seventh Special Reportof Session 2007-08: Science Budget Allocations:Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Reportof Session 2007-08, HC 639.

Further Information

Further information about the work of the Innovation,Universities, Science and Skills Committee or its currentinquires can be obtained from the Clerk of theCommittee, Dr Lynn Gardner, the Second Clerks, GlennMcKee and Edward Waller or from the CommitteeAssistant, Ana Ferreira on 020 7219 2792/8367/0859/2794; or by writing to: The Clerk of the Committee,Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee,House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA.Inquiries can also be emailed to [email protected] wishing to be included on the Committee’smailing list should contact the staff of the Committee.Anyone wishing to submit evidence to the Committee isstrongly recommended to obtain a copy of the guidancenote first. Guidance on the submission of evidence can befound athttp://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm.The Committee has a website: www.parliament.uk/iuswhere all recent publications, terms of reference for allinquiries and press notices are available.



House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee

The members of the Committee (appointed 13 November 2007) are Lord Colwyn, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Haskel, Lord Howie of Troon,Lord Krebs, Lord May of Oxford, Lord Methuen, the Earl of Northesk, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, Lord Patel, the Earl of Selborne,Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (Chairman), Lord Taverne and Lord Warner. Baroness Walmsley and Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

were co-opted on 14 January 2008 for the purposes of the Systematics and Taxonomy inquiry and Lord Broers and the Earl of Erroll wereco-opted on 25 March 2008 for the purposes of the Personal Internet Security follow-up.

Personal Internet Security

The Committee’s report on Personal Internet Security waspublished on 10 August 2007, and was widely reported inthe broadcast and print media. The inquiry, chaired byLord Broers, looked at a broad range of security issuesaffecting private individuals when using the Internet. Keyrecommendations included:

• Increasing the resources and skills available to the policeand criminal justice system to catch and prosecute e-criminals;

• Establishing a centralised and automated system,administered by law enforcement, for the reporting of e-crime;

• Incentivising banks and other companies trading onlineto improve data security by establishing a data securitybreach notification law;

• Encouraging better security standards in new softwareand hardware by taking the first steps towards theestablishment of legal liability for damage resulting fromsecurity flaws;

• Encouraging Internet service providers to improve thesecurity offered to customers by establishing a ‘kitemark’ for Internet services.

The Government response to the Committee’s report waspublished as a Command Paper (Cm 7234) on 24October 2007. The Committee has sought comments onthe Government response from those who gave oralevidence during the original inquiry. The Committee willpublish a short follow-up report in July and it is expectedthat both the original report and the follow-up report willbe debated by the House by the end of the year.

Allergy

The Committee’s report on allergy was published inSeptember 2007. The Government published its responseon 27 November and a debate took place in the House on8 May. (Summary on page 47).

Radioactive Waste Management

The Select Committee’s report Radioactive WasteManagement: an update was published on 4 June 2007 andGovernment’s response was received on 25 June. TheCommittee’s report was debated on 29 October 2007. TheGovernment response was published on 7 February 2008.

Air Travel and Health

The Committee’s report on Air Travel and Health – anUpdate was published on 12 December 2007 and waswidely reported in the media. The Government responsewas received at the end of February and was publishedwith a commentary on 19 May 2008. It is expected thatboth the report and the commentary will be debated bythe House by the end of the year.

Waste Reduction

Last year the Select Committee appointed a Sub-Committee, chaired by Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, toinquire into Waste Reduction. In November andDecember the Committee heard from civil servants,academic experts and the Environment Agency on thevarious types of legislation which impact upon wastereduction. Since January, the Sub-Committee has lookedin more detail at the various roles that designers,manufacturers and retailers can play in reducing waste.The inquiry has examined a range of sectors and evidencehas been heard from industry organisations includingBritish Glass, the Aluminium Federation, the EngineeringEmployers’ Federation, the Manufacturers’ Organisation,the Chemical Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network,Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, theBuilding Research Establishment and Institution of CivilEngineers. In addition, evidence has also been takendirectly from companies, including Hewlett Packard,Panasonic, Sony, Philips, Proctor and Gamble, Unilever,Marks and Spencer, Nissan and Volkswagen.

Genomic Medicine

The Select Committee has appointed a second Sub-Committee, chaired by Lord Patel, to hold an inquiry intogenomic medicine. The call for evidence was published on



25 February with a deadline for submissions of 21 April.The inquiry will examine the policy framework in thisarea, the latest research and scientific developments,translation opportunities into the clinic, genomicdatabases and the use of genetic information in ahealthcare setting. The Committee has held a number ofpublic meetings since late April and has taken evidencefrom, amongst others, the Medical Research Council, theDepartment of Health, the Wellcome Trust, CancerResearch UK, and the Royal College of Physicians.

In early June 2008, Members visited the National HumanGenome Research Institute in Washington DC where theyspoke to experts in fields including population genomics,ethics, and translational research. They also met withrepresentatives from other organisations including theFood and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School,and the American Society of Human Genetics. It isexpected that the Committee’s report will be published inspring 2009.

Systematics and Taxonomy

The Select Committee is about to complete a short inquiryinto systematics and taxonomy. A call for evidence waspublished in December. The inquiry is a follow-up

investigation from the Committee’s past inquiries into thissubject (in 1991 and 2002) and is looking at the UK’scapability in this field, taxonomic data collection andmanagement, and the skills base. The inquiry is alsolooking at the application of taxonomic data, for example,in environmental change monitoring. The Committee hastaken evidence from, among others, Government officials,the Research Councils, the Royal Botanic Gardens Kewand Edinburgh, the Natural History Museum, theSystematics Association and Linnean Society of London.In May, the Committee took evidence from three Ministers(Ian Pearson, Lord Rooker and Margaret Hodge). It isexpected that the Committee’s report will be published inJuly 2008.

Further information

The written and oral evidence to the Committee’s inquiriesmentioned above, as well as the Calls for Evidence on theCommittee’s new inquiries, can be found on theCommittee’s website www.parliament.uk/hlscience.Further information about the work of the Committee canbe obtained from Christine Salmon Percival, Clerk([email protected] or 020 7219 6072). TheCommittee’s email address is [email protected].

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Recent POST Publications

Research Ethics in Developing CountriesApril 2008 POSTnote 304

The UK funds an increasing amount of biomedical researchin developing countries. Research proposals are reviewedby research ethics committees, usually in both the UK andthe countries where research is to take place. Exact ethicalrequirements vary according to national policy, fundingbody and research institution. A key internationaldocument on research ethics, the Declaration of Helsinki,will be revised in 2008. This POSTnote describes the typesof research conducted in developing countries, the ethicalreview process and the issues arising.

Next Generation Broadband AccessApril 2008 POSTnote 305

The UK has comparatively high coverage and take-up ofbroadband access, but several other countries have begun

to deploy ‘next generation’ infrastructure to support fasteraccess. This POSTnote examines next generation access(NGA) technologies, demand for them and deploymentsworldwide. It looks at the debate over who should investin NGA and when, and considers policy issues such asinternational competitiveness and geographical variations.

Electricity StorageApril 2008 POSTnote 306

Storing electricity on a large scale enables power generatedwhen demand is low to be stored for release at peakdemand periods. Storage may become more importantbecause renewable energy sources such as wind and solardo not produce constant levels of power. This POSTnoteexamines existing and proposed methods for large scaleelectricity storage, examines the technical challenges anddiscusses the economics of storage relative to othermethods of providing electricity reserves.



Wildlife DiseasesApril 2008 POSTnote 307

Wildlife diseases can have negative consequences forbiodiversity, human and livestock health, animal welfareand the economy. At present UK wildlife diseasesurveillance is poorly co-ordinated. The lack of a cohesiveapproach stems from a division of responsibility and adominant focus on livestock and human health. ThisPOSTnote examines the impacts of wildlife diseases, thecurrent status of surveillance in the UK and the options tostrengthen policies.

Alternatives to Custodial SentencingMay 2008 POSTnote 308

There has been considerable recent debate aboutovercrowding in UK prisons. The system is struggling toaccommodate the growing number of young offendersbeing given custodial sentences. This POSTnote sets outthe scale of the problem and looks at recent trends insentencing, with a particular focus on young offenders. Itexamines the factors linked with offending and askswhether better understanding of these can be used totarget early actions aimed at deterring young people fromoffending. Finally, the note examines alternatives tocustodial sentencing and assesses how successful thesehave been in practice.

International Migration of Scientists and EngineersJune 2008 POSTnote 309

Global competition for scientists and engineers (S&Es) isrising as their role in economic development isincreasingly recognised. Many countries are looking toS&Es from overseas to address skills gaps: in February2008 introduction of new immigration laws favouringsome categories of skilled migrant began in the UK. Thisnote looks at the causes and impacts of migration ofS&Es, focusing on the developing world, where they playa key role in tackling poverty reduction.

Marine Conservation ZonesJune 2008 POSTnote 310

The proposed Draft UK Marine Bill aims to combinelegislation on activities and conservation in the marineenvironment into a single framework. This includes thedesignation of a network of Marine Conservation Zones(MCZs) in UK waters, a form of marine protected area(MPA). MPAs are described as any area of intertidal orsubtidal terrain, together with its overlying water andassociated flora or fauna, historical or cultural features,which are protected by legal or other effective means. ThisPOSTnote examines the possibility of using a MCZnetwork to manage the impacts of human activities on themarine environment.

Current work

Biological Sciences – Assisted Reproduction, Single EmbryoTransfer, Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence,Vaccine Capacity in the UK, New Anti-Infectives

Environment and Energy - Marine Conservation Zones,Biological Indicators and Future Nuclear Technologies

Physical sciences and IT – Digital preservation, E-democracyand Big Science

Seminars

During the period POST organised two highly successfulreceptions in the Members’ Dining Room, one on robotics,partnered by the Institute of Physics, the association“Walking with Robots” and the journal Science. Thesecond was held in collaboration with the inter-universityOmega consortium on 3rd June and was on “UnlockingGreener Aviation”.

Smaller seminars were held on Wildlife Diseases, InvasiveNon-native Species, and Adult Autism Policy

Staff, Fellows and Interns at POST

POST doctoral fellows:Nathalie Doswald, Durham University, NaturalEnvironment Research Council

Simon Evans, University of Bristol, Royal Society ofChemistry

Will Fletcher, University College London, Engineering andPhysical Sciences Research Council

Fiona McEwan, Kings College London, Medical ResearchCouncil

Eleanor O’Rourke, University of Liverpool, NaturalEnvironment Research Council

Stella Cridge, London School of Economics, Economicand Social Research Council (Stella worked with theDIUSS committee on its current inquiry into engineeringskills)

International activitiesDr O’Brien was an observer at the 1st Annual Pisces(Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security),and CAG (Consortium Activity Group) meeting inTanzania. Dr Nath has continued her part-timesecondment to work on POST’s Africa programme, whilethe Association of Commonwealth Universities hasawarded a scholarship to POST to bring a Ugandanparliamentary researcher to the UK on a three-monthCommonwealth Professional Fellowship.



Selected Debates and Parliamentary Questions & Answers

Following is a selection of Debates and Questions and Answers from the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Full digests of all Debates, Questions and Answers on topics of scientific interest from 21st April to 22nd May 2008 fro mboth Houses of Parliament can be found on the website:

www.scienceinparliament.org.uk

Please log in using the members’ and subscribers’ password (available from the Committee Secretariat)and go to Publications: Digests

Education

Science and Discovery Centres (Funding)Debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 15 May

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I amextremely pleased to open this debate on the subject ofthe eleventh report of the former Science and TechnologyCommittee, published in October 2007. I pay tribute tothe hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr Iddon) whonot only encouraged the Committee to conduct thisinquiry, but, as a director of the Bolton technologyinnovation centre, has been a committed advocate ofscience and discovery centres and their vital role in thescience agenda. There are more than 100 science centres

in the UK, attracting some 19.5 million visitors a year.They range in size from huge centres, such as the ScienceMuseum in London and the Eden Project in Cornwall, tovery small ones, such as the Armagh Planetarium inNorthern Ireland and the Scottish Seabird Centre in thefirth of Forth.

The Committee decided to conduct the inquiry for threereasons: first, because the hon Member for Bolton, South-East constantly said that we should. The second reasonwas the widespread concern over the financial securityand future of science centres. Of the 18 science centresgiven capital grants by the Millennium Commission, twohave already closed – the Earth Centre, in Doncaster, andthe Big Idea, in Ayrshire. Furthermore, the Explore-At-

House of Commons Library Science and Environment Section

Research Papers

The following are summaries of papers produced forMembers of Parliament.

Information and copies of papers can be obtained fromMichael Crawford at the House of Commons Library on0207 219 6788 or through www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/research_papers.cfm

Health and Safety (Offences) Bill: Committee StageReport

Research Paper 08/50

The Bill is sponsored by Keith Hill, who drew ninth placein the 2007/8 ballot for Private Members’ Bills. The Billwould increase sentences for various offences under theHealth and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It hasGovernment and cross-party support. The Bill was notamended in Committee.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]:Committee Stage Report

The Bill would revise and update legislation for assistedreproduction and also change the regulation and licensingof the use of embryos in research and therapy. It includesprovisions for research on different types of embryos, andproposes changes to definitions of legal parenthood forcases involving assisted reproduction.

The provisions of the Bill covering issues of “savioursiblings”, “admixed embryos” and “need for a father” andnew clauses or schedules relating to abortion werecommitted to a Committee of the whole House on 19 and20 May 2008. The remainder of the Bill was scrutinised bya Public Bill Committee.

The Bill was not substantially altered in Committee thoughGovernment amendments to the definition of embryos wereagreed as were Government amendments on the use andstorage of cells from those lacking capacity (either aschildren or adults) or where the donor can no longer beidentified or has died.



Bristol centre has partially closed after it shut down its“wildwalk” facility and IMAX attraction. Since our inquiry,yet another has closed – the Inspire in Norwich. Inaddition, the future of Jodrell Bank which set up one ofthe first science centres in the world, back in 1965, hangsin the balance. Catalyst, at Widnes, which during thisacademic year delivered 575 science lessons to more than17,000 children, struggles to survive and has been withina few days of closure on several occasions in the past fiveyears, despite tremendous involvement from the chemicalindustry, local authorities and Members of this House.

The third reason why we looked at this subject was toexamine what role science centres had within theGovernment’s agenda for science, technology, engineeringand mathematics – STEM – to which, to their credit, theyremain highly committed. They have acknowledged theimportant role that science centres play in promoting toyoung people STEM subjects and careers in science. Yetthe bulk of our recommendations on science centres wererejected out of hand by the Government, and sciencecentres continue to struggle.

The Minister for Science and Innovation (Ian Pearson):I am grateful to the hon Member for Harrogate andKnaresborough (Mr Willis) for introducing the debate. Iam also grateful to the other contributors to it, particularlymy hon Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (DrIddon) and for Norwich, North (Dr Gibson), who, over along period, have shown a deep interest in the issuesunder discussion. I shall set out the Government’s viewson science centres and our plans for the future. I stressthat it is a Government-wide view. We acknowledged inthe response to the Select Committee’s report that theDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills willtake the lead on science centre issues within Government,but we will work closely with the Departments forCulture, Media and Sport and for Children, Schools andFamilies, because they share an interest in that agenda.Indeed, both DIUS and the DCSF funded Ecsite-uk’srecent science centre enrichment activity grant scheme,and officials from all three Departments maintain contacton the issues and worked together to formulate theresponse to the Committee’s recommendations.

I understand the arguments about museums and thecomparisons drawn between science centres andmuseums, whether they relate to their public engagementwork or their funding. I stress that museums clearly havea public engagement role; they are not just aboutcollections. However, it is important to dispel somemisconceptions about museums and science centres. I donot think that those misconceptions are found amongmembers of the Select Committee, but they might befound in the wider community.

The first misconception is that the two types of institutionare essentially the same. It is true that a number ofmuseums, perhaps most notably the Natural HistoryMuseum and the Science Museum, are affiliates of theEcsite-uk network and can be classified as science ordiscovery centres. However, in the Government’s mind,there is an important distinction between a museum and

another type of visitor attraction: the possession of acollection.

The second misconception arises from the fact that manypeople believe that the Government fund free access to allmuseums in England and are therefore duty-bound tofund a similar scheme for all science centres. The simplefact is that only a small number of museums in Englandare funded directly by central Government. The MuseumsAssociation estimates that there are about 2,000 museumsin England. The vast majority either are funded by localauthorities – 689 museums in total – or are independentcharities; that is the case for 811 museums. The policy onadmission prices for those museums is a matter for therelevant council, its councillors and the local community,or the trustees of the organisation, depending on itsstatus. I see no possibility that the DCMS will open up itsbudget to science centres.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Energy

Geothermal PowerQuestion and Written Answer on Monday 21 April

Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central): To ask the Secretary ofState for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform whatestimate he has made of the potential thermal generationcapacity of geothermal technologies in the UK; and if hewill make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks: Between 1976 and the early 1990s theUK carried out a major Geothermal Research Programmeat a cost in excess of £50 million. The key conclusionsfrom the programme were that the UK was unlikely to seemajor developments based upon geothermal aquifers orthe hot dry rock (HDR) method due to a limited resource,limited scope for their application and unfavourableeconomics.

The programme produced estimates of the potentialgeothermal resource for both HDR and aquifers. Its finalreport estimated the accessible HDR resource in the UKregardless of cost to be 1,500 Terawatt hours of electricity,that if exploited over 25 years would result in 60TWh/year or 7,600 MW of net output power at 90 percent availability. However, once possible constraints weretaken into account it estimated that the practicable HDRresource could be as low as 4 TWh/year or 500 MW over375 years.

A final report of the Geothermal Aquifers Programmeestimated the UK resource for three temperature ranges:Temperature range Mtce (million tonnes coal equivalent)

Over 60C 183

40 to 60C 1771

20 to 40C 2285

Although these figures are large the report estimated thatthe exploitable resource was much smaller when takingaccount of the coincidence of high heat load density andresource. It estimated that the possible take-up of theresource based on a total of 100 schemes being developed



would produce a total saving of 0.35 Mtce per annum.

To make geothermal power a more attractive economicprospect in the UK now would depend on addressing thetechnical and practical constraints identified by thisprevious Geothermal Programme.

Notes:1. Geothermal Hot Dry Rock UK Government R and D

Programme 1976-1991, ETSU-R-59, 1992

2. Geothermal Aquifers Department of Energy R and DProgramme 1976-1986, ETSU-R-39, 1986

Renewable Energy: Seas and OceansQuestion and Written Answer on Wednesday 30 April

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): To ask the Secretary ofState for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform whatassessment he has made of (a) the potential to deriveenergy from ocean swell and (b) designs which arecapable of capturing energy from very large ocean swell;and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks: The Carbon Trust has estimated that thetotal resource for wave and tidal stream/range generationin the UK is around 43 GW. They have estimated that,ultimately, around 15-20 per cent of the UK’s currentelectricity demand could be supplied by wave and tidalstream technologies. Of this, 10-15 per cent could befrom ocean swell (ie wave) energy.

There are a wide range of devices being developed togenerate electricity from ocean waves but none has yetprogressed to a stage where they are ready for deploymentat a commercial scale. The Government have providedsupport for research and development into wave energy tomeet the needs of innovation at all stages of technologyreadiness. This includes funding through the Engineeringand Physical Sciences Research Council “SuperGen”programme, the Technology Strategy Board, the newEnergy Technologies Institute (ETI) and the Carbon Trust.The ETI’s first call for expressions of interest, launched inDecember 2007, included proposals for research intowave and tidal energy.

In addition, BERR has £42 million funding availableunder the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund tosupport the commercial demonstration of full scale waveand tidal energy devices. When they are deployed, theywill be supported by the renewables obligation, underwhich they will receive an enhanced level of support.

Government support for wave and tidal energytechnologies will be reviewed as part of the UK RenewableEnergy Strategy Consultation which is due to bepublished in the summer.

Biofuels: ResearchQuestion and Written Answer on Tuesday 13 May

Mr Greg Knight (Yorkshire East): To ask the Secretary ofState for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what thevalue was of grants made by his Department for research

into biofuels since 1 January 2006; and to whichorganisations they were given.

Mr Woolas: DEFRA’s bio-energy R and D focuses on thegenetic improvement and selection of biomass crops suchas willow and miscanthus. Current spend is about£900,000 per year, which provides underpinning R and Dfor both second generation biofuels and solid biomass forenergy. Other relevant work is being funded jointly withindustry to breed wheat and oilseed rape varieties thatrequire reduced fertiliser inputs (£331,000 in 2008-09and approximately £814,000 in 2006-07 and 2007-08combined).

It is difficult to separate out the work exclusively onbiofuels, but a specific project was funded in 2007 toassess ‘Greenhouse gas emissions and environmentalsustainability of international biofuels production and use’(£37,000).

Organisations funded by DEFRA since 2006 areAberystwyth University (IBERS), Rothamsted Research,AEA Technology, the National Institute of AgriculturalBotany (NIAB), Warwick HRI and ADAS.

DEFRA, through the International SustainableDevelopment Fund, are also funding two (desk) studiesinto Brazilian biofuels and their sustainability. One is bythe university of Campinas, into bioethanol, and the otheris by the university of Sao Paulo, into biodiesel. They arearound £50,000 each.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Environment

Metals Recycling IndustryDebate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 22 April

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): As a society, weare consuming natural resources at an unsustainable rate.If every country consumed natural resources at the ratethe UK does, we would need three planets to live on. Ouraim must be to reduce waste by making products withfewer natural resources. We must break the link betweeneconomic growth and waste growth. Most productsshould be re-used or their materials recycled. Energyshould be recovered from other wastes where possible.For a small amount of residual material, landfill will benecessary.

The object of a waste strategy, in a world of depletingnatural resources is to stop waste materials entering thewaste stream. If we cannot do that, the next best thing isto ensure that they can be reused with as little energyexpenditure as possible, thereby stopping the entry intothe system of virgin materials that might have beenproduced at great energy cost with the consequence of thefurther depletion of natural resources.

Through the operation of protocols setting out howmaterials are to be stewarded and processed, we canprevent many materials from being categorised andtreated as waste. Metal is one material that fits that



description almost exactly. By recovering and reprocessingferrous and non-ferrous metals, we can supply all that weneed for remaking metal products, and we can do so overand over again with no real deterioration in the quality ofthe recovered material. That means that the energy thatwe use in the process – and hence carbon emissions – ishugely reduced in comparison with that resulting fromthe use of virgin material.

The chief danger arises from the fact that the metalsrecycling industry is still classed as a waste industry,despite the overwhelming evidence that protocols couldbe established that would class the industry as a resourceprovider. There are no protocols, however, and metals donot feature on the list of materials for which theEnvironment Agency is providing protocols. Not evenmetal shavings and offcuts escape that classification, withall the issues that are then involved – quite rightly formuch waste – in the operation of the EU waste frameworkdirective, including handling restrictions, processingprecautions and the certification processes thataccompany waste on its way to landfill, hazardous wastetips or inert disposal. Hardly any metals go along thisroute, and yet they are classified as if they do.

Tony Baldry (Banbury): In the UK, metal recycling is awell established, £4 billion to £5 billion industry.Recovering 15 million tonnes a year, it is the UK’s biggestrecycling industry. As we process far more metal thandomestic manufacturers need, we are one of the world’slargest exporters of recovered metals, it goesunrecognised.

The industry faces several challenges. There is theproblem – resulting, rather bizarrely, from a EuropeanCourt judgment on the EU packaging directive – thatrecovered metal is classified as waste under European law.That approach means that the industry has been subjectedto an increasing burden of waste regulation, which applieseven when metal has been fully separated and prepared assecondary raw material. The need for redefinition hasbecome urgent with the introduction of the new 2007regulations on trans-frontier shipment of waste, becausethey are creating trade barriers, shipment delays andadvantages for non-European competitors. It is somewhatbizarre to provide opportunities for non-EU states. Giventhe UK’s leading position in export trade, the situation isparticularly damaging to UK metal recycling.

The revised EU waste framework directive, which iscurrently having its Second Reading in the EuropeanParliament, creates an opportunity for long-term change.The directive will enable reconsideration of the point atwhich certain materials cease to be waste. Reclassificationis urgently needed, and the European Commission hascarried out a metals case study in anticipation that metalswill be one of the first materials to be considered.Amendments threaten to introduce new administrativehurdles, and could prevent the “end of waste” outcome.Our only locus in this issue is for us to lobby or makesubmissions to the Minister, who has a locus throughmembership of the Council of Ministers. However, there is

no forum in which we get alongside Members of theEuropean Parliament and say to our colleagues there thatthis issue is of significance to the UK and to UK industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Joan Ruddock): Ishare the view that the benefits of metal recycling areconsiderable. Such materials can be used time and again,and in doing so we use our natural resources wisely andavoid using the energy involved in extracting rawmaterials. The industry is vital to our achieving our EUtargets on packaging, on end-of-life vehicles, on batteriesand on electrical and electronic equipment.

Members raised a number of issues relating to howenvironmental regulation affects the metals recyclingindustry such as the European Court judgment by whichwe are all bound. Possibly the most significant issuerelates to the question of when waste stops being waste.The revised waste framework directive addresses thatquestion. The common position agreed by the Councilproposes the development of end-of-waste specificationsand criteria. That position identifies scrap metal as one ofthe categories of waste for which such criteria should bedeveloped. The aim of the proposal is to facilitate the useof waste that has undergone recovery, while continuing tomaintain high levels of environmental protection. Thecommon position provides that waste that ceases to bewaste under that procedure would also stop being wastefor the purpose of the recovery and recycling targets inother EU waste legislation.

Over the next few years we face challenging EU targets onrecovery and recycling. The target to reuse, recover orrecycle 95 per cent of the materials used in a car by 2015is demanding by any standards. This year, a new advisorybody was established on waste electrical and electronicequipment. There is also a waste strategy stakeholderforum. A plethora of bodies is involved in recycling thosematerials that concern us today. We believe that, togetherthose groups will provide the long-term strategic approachneeded to enable us to achieve our targets.

Antarctic: Tourist ShipsDebate in Grand Committee on Thursday 15 May

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked whether thepassenger safety and environmental protection regulationscovering tourist ships in Antarctic waters are satisfactory.On 15 January last year, in the short debate on theInternational Polar Year 2007-08, he drew attention to theincrease of shipping during the Antarctic summer touristseason, and the risk of accidents. Sadly, this was all tooprescient as within a month, the MS “Nordkapp” ranaground, sustaining a big gash in her bow. In Novemberlast year, the Liberian registered ship “Explorer” hit aniceberg and sank. The crew and passengers were allevacuated to lifeboats, but they were open lifeboats. Veryfortunately, the sea was calm and they were all picked upseveral hours later. If the weather conditions had been lessfavourable – high seas are quite frequent in that part ofthe world – they would have survived only a few minutesin the sub-zero water.



We need to know what measures are being taken toensure that there are adequate controls on the numberand quality of the tourist ships visiting Antarctica. TheBritish Government do not control this matter, but we areimportant members of the International MaritimeOrganisation, located in London, and supporters of theBritish Antarctic Survey located in Cambridge. The issuewas raised by the UK at the Antarctic treaty consultativemeeting in Delhi last year, and I hope that it will be raisedagain at the Kiev meeting in June.

Other questions include: should ships burning heavy fueloil be banned? It would be very damaging if leaksoccurred. Should ships without ice-strengthened hulls bebanned? Are crew training standards adequate? The UKcannot issue mandatory instructions to foreign-flaggedvessels in international waters. The IMO is the only bodythat can impose international standards coveringequipment and procedures. An IMO sub-committee hasbeen appointed to consider design and equipment in ice-covered waters but that it is not expected to report untilsome time next year.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Antarctic is a place of greatbeauty and wonder – a pristine environment like no otheron earth. It is an area of global significance due to itsprofound impact on the world’s climate and oceansystems. With climate change being to the fore of ourthinking, that significance and its importance areincreasing. The land mass occupies something like a tenthof the overall land mass of the globe and has a profoundeffect on the environment. The area is attracting anincreasing number of tourists. A record 4 millionEuropeans took a cruise last year, of which 1.3 millionpassengers came from the United Kingdom. The rate ofgrowth is currently 17 per cent per annum.

Cruising is a success story and the United Kingdomindustry and our citizens are benefiting significantly fromthe opportunities afforded by this growth. It is a benigngrowth but one with challenges. It is benign because itextends and raises our interest levels and awareness of thewider world and globalisation. The Antarctic region is alsobecoming a destination of choice for many cruise shipoperators. Until recently, few people other than scientistsand explorers had ever visited Antarctica. In the past fewyears, however, the region, particularly the AntarcticPeninsula, has become a common destination on manycruise itineraries.

The UK recognises tourism as a legitimate activity underthe Antarctic Treaty and supports the self-regulatoryframework established by the International Association ofAntarctica Tour Operators. Nevertheless, we areconcerned to ensure that there is proper management ofthe tourism industry in the Antarctic and to set strictenvironmental guidelines. We are also concerned toensure that tourism to the Antarctic is carefully plannedand monitored to ensure the safety of those involved aswell as to minimise the environmental impact of theiractivities.

Environment Agency: Flood ManagementDebate in the House of Lords on Tuesday 20 May

Lord Rotherwick asked what assessment has been madeof the risks of flooding from inland rivers in the UnitedKingdom and the role of the Environment Agency as thedelegated body for managing it. Last year this countrysuffered considerable flooding. The statistics show thatfive people died, 600 were injured, 3,500 people wererescued, 27,000 houses were flooded, 6,710 of thesehouseholds were still displaced by March this year, 5,000businesses were flooded, 858 schools were damaged, and42,000 hectares of agricultural land were flooded.

The fire brigade’s rescue efforts were the biggest inpeacetime Britain. These floods led to the biggest loss ofcritical infrastructure since World War II. Ministerialestimates last August put the cost of the flood damage at£2.7 billion. The insurance industry has concerns that thisis not a one-off but a worsening trend. Claims in the UKfor storm and flood damage in the five years up to 2003were £6.2 billion, double the figure for the previous fiveyears, and it is estimated that these costs could triple by2050.

Between 1997 and 2005, some 120,000 dwellings werebuilt in England in designated flood-risk areas, whichrepresents some 9 per cent of all dwellings built over thisperiod. In 2005, 21 major planning applications wereapproved against the Environment Agency’s guidance. Aproportion of the 3 million houses discussed in theGovernment’s July 2006 Housing Green Paper will bebuilt on flood plains, notably in the Thames Gateway. TheGovernment’s stated policy is to avoid inappropriatedevelopment in flood-risk areas. Has that policy changed?

The Environment Agency is responsible for strategicoverview of all flood and coastal erosion risk management,and, as of January this year, the inland flooding role wasstill being developed. The management of large rivers andareas of low-lying coastline are its responsibility. TheDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,Defra, delegates to the EA the management of rivers in theinterest of wildlife and having regard to flooding. There isa lack of clarity where the needs of wildlife conflictdirectly with the interests of human communities.

The Environment Agency estimates that it will have spent£65 million in support of flood-risk management in thelast financial year. In the current financial year some £439million has been allocated to the EA for flood-riskmanagement, and a further £21 million to localauthorities and internal drainage boards for capitalimprovement projects to reduce flood risk. Other fundingis available from the Department for Communities andLocal Government for non-capital flood-risk managementactivities and from Defra to local authorities for capitalprojects to reduce the risk of coastal erosion.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I think that your Lordshipswould want to express sympathy with all those whosuffered so grievously last summer in the devastating floodevents. We all know that flooding is one of the most



devastating events that can occur in people’s homes andthat many suffered then.

The Environment Agency is not held responsible for theproblems of last summer. We look to the EnvironmentAgency to deal with coastal erosion problems, which arenot part of this debate. The Government are in the closestdiscussions with the insurance industry to ensure that weprovide adequate insurance provision for the future. Thatrequires householders to change attitudes. With majorproblems, agencies can play their part and theGovernment have a critical role to play, but we need tocondition the public’s response and increase awareness ofwhat is necessary so that people can safeguard theirproperties. We ought to look at agricultural funding sothat landowners are more aware of the necessity for watermanagement in the development of their land. Paymentsto farmers and the structure of the way in whichlandowners and farmers are remunerated are massiveproblems.

I am not going to shy away from building on flood plains.There is no way in which we can house our people andpretend that we will not build on flood plains. The issueis how we manage water matters in areas that we create.Due regard must be paid to this dimension of the problemwhen building new housing. The Government areextremely active in efforts to improve the way in whichflood risk is managed. We have been for some years, butwe need to increase those efforts. Nevertheless, we intendto increase expenditure in this area, mindful of the factthat the problems require us to address the issuescreatively.

LandfillQuestion and Written Answer on Thursday 22 May

Dr Fox (Woodspring): To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment hehas made of the merits of using incineration to reduce useof landfill; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ruddock: Recovering energy from waste (includingvia incineration) can offer a considerable climate changebenefit compared to the alternative of landfill. This isprimarily through avoided landfill methane emissions,with energy generated from the biodegradable fraction ofwaste also offsetting fossil fuel power generation.

While incineration is preferable to landfill, this should notdisplace waste from management further up the hierarchy(eg minimisation, reuse, recycling/composting).

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Health

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: ResearchQuestion and Written Answer on Monday 21 April

Mr Maude (Horsham): To ask the Secretary of State forHealth if he will establish an independent scientificcommittee to oversee research into myalgicencephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.

Ian Pearson: I have been asked to reply.

There are currently no plans to establish an independentscientific committee to oversee research into myalgicencephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).However, the Medical Research Council (MRC) isplanning to set up a panel of experts from differentdisciplines to look more closely at the area. The panel willcome from varied fields including neuroscience,immunology, toxicology and imaging, and will involveinterested parties and focus on the subtypes and causes ofME/CFS.

Mr Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if hewill take steps to ensure that Government funding forbiomedical research on ME/CFS is equal to Governmentfunding for psychological research on MyalgicEncephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Ian Pearson: I have been asked to reply.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is committed tofunding scientific research into all aspects of myalgicencephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)including evaluations of other treatments and studies intothe biological and psychological basis of the condition.The amount provided by the MRC to each type ofresearch depends on the quality and number of proposalsreceived.

Allergy (Science and Technology Committee Report)Debate in the House of Lords on Thursday 8 May

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff rose to move that the Housetakes note of the report of the Science and TechnologyCommittee on Allergy (6th Report, Session 2006-07, HLPaper 166). The report and its recommendations havebeen warmly received in the allergy community byprofessionals and patients alike and extensively covered inthe media. Several authoritative reviews of clinical allergyservices preceded the report, and all of them noted seriousdeficiencies. As the inquiry developed, it becameshockingly apparent just how severely allergic diseasescould impair people’s quality of life and how, despite atrack record of high-quality research in the field, allergyservices in the UK lag far behind those of other Europeancountries through a severe shortage of allergy specialists.

There are only 26.5 whole time-equivalent allergyspecialists, many of whom are clinicians funded throughresearch rather than the NHS, compared with severalhundred specialists in some European countries. Of the94 allergy clinics in England, only six are led by a full-time allergist. The others are uni-disciplinary clinics,which are held a couple of times a week and led by organ-specific specialists working in relative isolation. Pitifullyfew services of any sort are available in the north andwest.

The lack of allergy-service infrastructure is mirrored by aserious lack of allergy knowledge amongst clinicians at alllevels, particularly in primary care. Even when a GPrecognises that a patient needs to be referred, it is hard toidentify who to refer to, and some patients resort to



attempting self-diagnosis using inappropriate andunproven tests. Furthermore, the answer to betterdiagnosis in primary care is not pedalling diagnostic kits,but education, education, education, because misleadingfalse positives abound without an accurate history and aproper clinical examination.

Lord Haskel: Perhaps we were at fault in addressing ourconcerns to the Department of Health. Allergy issues aremuch broader than that. The Government’s responseincludes contributions from other departments: business,regulation, children and families, communities, localgovernment, environment, food, work and pensions,health and safety. It is a very broad topic. That is why somany people are aware of it and why so many of them areconcerned. Will the Minister look at this report again, notfrom the point of view of administration, but from thepoint of view of a Government who are in touch with thepublic, listen to their concerns and want to know what isbeing done by all those different parts of government todeal with those concerns?

The Earl of Selborne: The most startling thing of all isthat we do not seem to know why the incidence of allergyand allergic disease is rising. It is clearly linked to someaspect of the more prosperous living conditions we haveenjoyed since the 1960s. Dramatic increases were seenbetween 1964 and 1980, and there have been continuingincreases since then. In Germany following reunification,and in other parts of Eastern Europe, there has been anincrease in the incidence of allergic diseases right acrossthe former Iron Curtain countries. It seems that there is acritical window of exposure in the first year of life duringwhich the child’s immune system can be influenced, andtheir risk of allergic disease substantially reduced. Yet oncechildren pass their first birthday, the same factors thatwould have prevented them from becoming allergic nolonger operate, implying that any intervention to changethe prevalence of allergy would have to target that veryearly phase of life and not be brought in some five yearslater.

Lord May of Oxford: This Select Committee report isparticularly timely and it produced a thorough, thoughtfuland constructive review of the rising incidence of allergiesin the United Kingdom and produced a set of constructiveand sensible recommendations. The Government’sresponse is disappointing in parts and in some casesdismissive and I also ask for the report to be read again,recognising that it contains important commentsexpressed thoughtfully by a lot of well informed people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departmentof Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): I am a hay feversufferer and, for years, living from April to July has alwaysbeen hell. Allergies affect the lives of millions of people inthis country. Around one third of the population suffersfrom an allergy at some point in their lives. Theestablishment of the All-Party Parliamentary Group onAllergy will help us make further progress. Allergies arecommon and on the increase. In addition to the obvioushealth effects, allergic reactions can make unavoidable

daily activities very difficult. They can compromise asufferer’s performance at work and hinder children’seducational progress. Clearly, allergic conditions representa huge challenge, not just for our healthcare system, butfor society as a whole. It is for these reasons that theGovernment welcomed the committee’s report, whichhighlighted very clearly that allergy is an issue that needsto be addressed by a wide range of stakeholders. TheDepartment of Health published a report of its review onallergy services. The review looked at the epidemiology ofallergic conditions; the demand for, and provision of,treatments; and the effectiveness of interventions. Thisreview was a crucial first step in building a programme ofimprovements that would be based on sound evidence,and would reflect the views of patients and healthcareproviders. Our review concluded that one key lever forchanging allergy services in future will be local rather thannational action. Due to the pressure of time today, it willnot be possible to run through every recommendation andall the actions that have been taken. The most importantones are as follows:

A lead Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should develop apilot allergy centre on a hub-and-spokes model. ProfessorSir Bruce Keogh, the recently appointed NHS medicaldirector, has written to the 10 SHAs inviting them to takean interest in this important matter. Manchester will be astrong contender.

Five centrally funded training posts for allergy and five forimmunology were created last year. The workforce reviewteam will be reminded of the need for increasing trainingnumbers in relation to allergy as part of its annual reviewprogramme.

We encouraged the royal colleges to work with otherbodies responsible for medical training to enhance theknowledge and expertise of those working with peoplewith allergies. Deaneries and trusts have been asked toconsider the need to commission more local training postsfor allergy.

Skills for Health have been commissioned to work withstakeholders to develop national occupational standardsfor allergy for the UK in order to improve the quality andconsistency of patient care.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health hasbeen commissioned to scope and develop care pathwaysfor children with allergy symptoms to ensure that childrenwith allergic reactions are given timely and appropriatecare.

The Medical Research Council and the Food StandardsAgency are collaborating to fund a clinical interventionstudy on the effects of early weaning on food allergy. TheNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) hasprovided £4.7 million over five years for research onasthma and allergy and funded a project on primaryprevention of asthma by allergen avoidance in infancy.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellencehas also produced appraisals of allergic conditions and



clinical guidelines for atopic eczema. We are and will beworking with NICE to develop more focused allergy topicproposals.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) workshops raiseawareness of food allergy issues among enforcementofficers. The evidence base on avoidance of peanuts inearly life and the subsequent development of peanutallergy has changed since the Government issued advicein 1998. The FSA has commissioned a review of thescientific evidence that has become available since thattime.

National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellenceDebate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 8 May

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): We found that in theeight years since it was established, in response to internaland external review, NICE has shown itself ready tochange. Initially, it appraised technologies, mainlymedicines, and produced clinical guidelines. Its remit wassoon expanded to cover interventional procedures.Subsequently, technology appraisals were mademandatory and the single technology appraisal wasestablished to speed up the evaluation process. Since2004, it has also examined public health issues. It is in noway an organisation that has been static since it was setup. Indeed, it has responded positively to many issues.

NICE is carrying out many of its functions effectively.However, NICE also has its critics, which is one of thereasons we undertook the inquiry. We examined threemain areas of concern – the evaluation process, theaffordability of guidance and implementation. In addition,after the Office of Fair Trading report on thepharmaceutical price regulation scheme, we decided toconsider NICE’s potential role in such a new system.

We identified several problems with the evaluationprocess. The first is topic selection. Only a few selectedmedical technologies are chosen as suitable for assessmentas technology appraisals. There is also far too littleemphasis on disinvestment. Because NICE selects what itassesses, we might be able to disinvest more than we do.The wider benefits of treatment to society – for example,issues involving the cost of carers – are not included inNICE’s cost-benefit analyses.

We made a number of recommendations to address theproblems. Key among them was that a system is neededunder which all medicines are assessed at launch. In orderto ensure that NICE has the information that it needs, itshould have access to the same material used by thelicensing body, clinical trials should be registered andNICE and the pharmaceutical industry should work moreclosely. We recommended that more be done to encouragedisinvestment. No evaluation of older, possibly cost-ineffective therapies has taken place to date, although twoare under way. We also recommended that the legislationbe changed to accommodate the need to ensure thatassessments of products take account of the wider benefitsto society.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (DawnPrimarolo): I welcome the Committee’s broad support forNICE and the important work that it undertakes, and Icertainly want to add to the compliments about theexcellent work that NICE does. I want to take us back tothe time before NICE, when there was a lack oftransparency and accountability and a variable local healthservice. For most of the time, patients were lucky if theycould find anything out in the first place. NICE is aboutproviding guidance to the national health service andclinicians on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newtreatments.

A constructive, productive working relationship with thepharmaceutical industry is vital. NICE should adopt ashorter and faster provisional appraisal process to enable itto publish guidance on all new treatments at the time oflaunch, proceeding to a more detailed appraisal oncemore evidence is available. NICE has established aninternational reputation for the thoroughness of itsappraisal process and for the consultative approach that ittakes in the development of guidance, which includes anopportunity for anyone registered as a stakeholder toappeal against the appraisal committee’s decisions.

We also introduced new topic selection arrangements in2006, which give NICE a greater role in the early stages oftopic selection. They are intended to ensure thatimportant new drugs and other technologies are moreconsistently identified at an early stage. Even morerecently the cancer reform strategy, published inDecember 2007, proposed the default position that allnew cancer drugs should be referred to NICE forappraisal, if there is sufficient evidence and a large enoughpatient population. Although the principal aim of thatmeasure is to improve equity of access to cancertreatments, I have recently agreed a change to the topicselection process for cancer topics, which should have theadditional benefit of speeding up the referral process.

Liver DiseaseDebate in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 21 May

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): We have only oneliver, and it is a vital organ. It processes all our wastemetabolic products after the body has abstracted the vitalcarbohydrates, fats and proteins and the essential vitaminsand minerals on which our life depends. If it begins tofail, a backlog of toxic chemicals throughout our systemcauses us all sorts of problems, and multiple organ failureresults in death if those toxic products are not removed.We cannot ignore that vital organ – it is precious and wehave only one.

Liver disease is caused by inflammation of the liver, orhepatitis, which can be provoked by alcohol or otherdrugs or by various viruses. It can also be provoked byantibodies directed at the liver. That is called auto-immune liver disease, and it predominates in women andis possibly genetically linked. Other causes of liver diseaseare excessive iron or fat deposition in the liver and avariety of much rarer diseases that are difficult to detect.Inflammation can become chronic and progress through



cirrhosis of the liver, which is a scarring of the tissue,otherwise known as fibrosis, and has a high mortality rate,to cancer of the liver.

A number of viruses affect the liver, the most commonbeing hepatitis A, B, C, D and E. Only B, C and D cancause long-term disease, and the hepatitis D virus cansurvive in our bodies only if we are also infected with thehepatitis B virus. Carriers of those viruses might notexhibit symptoms of the disease, and indeed they can becarried for long periods. There are simple tests to detectthem, which can be followed by a liver function test ifnecessary, and even by a liver biopsy, which is not apleasant procedure, or a less interventional procedureknown as ultrascan.

There is a staggering 500 per cent projected increase indemand for liver transplantation in the next six to 10years, which is a very short time span, and a similarprojected increase in the incidence of liver cancer. Evenwith a vigorous organ donation campaign, there will notbe enough livers to save all the lives that will be at risk.That is one reason why I have supported stem-cellresearch, which might allow us to grow tissues in thelaboratory for the repair of organs such as the liver. Some38 people die from liver disease every day in this country,and 100 people on the waiting list for liver transplants dieevery year. The huge shortage of livers for transplantationmeans that early diagnosis and treatment of liver disease isa far better option.

A further reason for my interest in the debate comes frommy interest in the misuse of drugs. Whether they arecontrolled, prescription or over-the-counter drugs makesno difference. I am the chairman of the all-party group ondrugs misuse. Some 80 per cent of those who contract thehepatitis C virus, which I shall call HCV, do so as a resultof injecting drugs and sharing syringes and otherparaphernalia with other people. That is particularly thecase in prisons, where we could do much more to preventthe spread of blood-borne diseases. Anyone in contactwith the blood of an HCV or hepatitis B carrier is likely topick up the viruses, as they are readily transmittedthrough contact with blood.

We chose to request the debate this week because it isnational tackling drugs week – I shall be spending sometime with the co-ordinator of our drug and alcohol teamin Bolton on Friday – and because last Monday, 19 May,was the first ever world hepatitis day. It involved 200patient groups in 15 countries and was co-ordinated bythe Hepatitis C Trust, helped by all the organisations withan interest in liver disease.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Government recognise theimportance of liver disease as a public health issue, andthe need to ensure that we have appropriate services inplace to prevent, diagnose and treat its various forms. Aswe heard, liver disease is the fifth most common cause ofdeath in this country, for both men and women. It is theonly one of the big killers for which the mortality rate issteadily rising. The United Kingdom is the only major

developed nation with an upward trend in mortality andwe need to understand why.

In principle, liver disease is almost entirely preventable.The Government are concerned about the increasingincidence of and mortality from liver disease. A substantialprogramme of work is already ongoing to tackle liverdisease and its main causes, which are alcohol, viralhepatitis, and obesity. In addition, we are considering thedevelopment of a specific programme of work on liverdisease to cover health promotion as well as the full rangeof health services. To inform those decisions, officials haveundertaken preliminary work on a range of things,including commissioning a rapid critical review of existingevidence on liver disease epidemiology, treatment andservices; asking an ad-hoc group of experts chaired byProfessor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physiciansto produce an overview report of clinical issues; andholding a series of informal meetings with key stakeholderindividuals and groups.

That preliminary work culminated in a one-day workshoplast week that was attended by health servicecommissioners, clinicians and representatives of patientorganisations. The participants were asked to identify andprioritise areas for future action. It will be no surprise thatthe top suggestion was for an action plan or nationalstrategy for liver disease—all contributors to the debatementioned that.

Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North): Does my hon Friendagree that liver disease as a cancer is part of the reformedcancer strategy? It is sometimes described as a rarercancer, but, nevertheless, prevention is part of thereformed strategy. It should be inclusive and there shouldbe joined-up thinking about the causes that leadeventually to cancer.

Mr Lewis: I agree entirely. The cancer strategy would beless than effective if we did not recognise the direct linksbetween the two. If we develop a national liver diseasestrategy, a relationship between those two things would beessential. More generally, we are concerned about theincreasing incidence of, and mortality from, alcohol-related liver disease, and we are committed to tackling theproblem. Identifying harmful drinkers as early as possiblewill help to avoid the serious damage that harmfuldrinking has on the health of the individual. Drinking alsohas a major impact on the wider community and society.We are all concerned about antisocial behaviour, which isincreasingly fuelled by alcohol abuse, in our localcommunities.

The Government are also investing £650,000 in trainingwhich could, within 10 years, produce 60,000 newdoctors trained to identify and advise or treat people whoare drinking too much. Independent reviews intoevidence of the relationship between the pricing andpromotion of alcohol and harm, and unit labelling,including advice to women on alcohol and pregnancy, areunder way. The reviews will form the basis of a publicconsultation later in the year and may require legislationin future.



NHS Infectious DiseasesQuestion and Written Answer on Thursday 22 May

Philip Davies (Shipley): To ask the Secretary of State forHealth what his Department’s procedure is for theintroduction of new infection control technologies in theNHS following a recommendation from its Rapid ReviewPanel.

Ann Keen: The Rapid Review Panel (RRP) was set up in2004 to review new health care associated infectionrelated technologies. The RRP provides a promptassessment of new and novel equipment, materials, andother products or protocols that may be of value to thenational health service in improving infection preventionand control. The RRP has already reviewed over 200products, providing feedback and opinion in one of sevencategories, with recommendation 1 being the highestcategory where the efficacy of a product has been provedscientifically and in use.

A wide range of new programmes is being implemented tosupport the RRP as a consequence of the HealthcareAssociated Infection Technology Innovation Programmelaunched in the “Clean, safe care” strategy (January 2008).Technologies with a RRP recommendation 1 are beingplaced in showcase hospitals around the country forperiods up to six months for the purpose of evaluating in-use features and providing feedback to the NHS in theform of ready made adoption business cases. Suchtechnologies are also subject to an accelerated placementin the NHS Supply Chain catalogue.

Uptake will be reviewed through information provided bythe NHS Supply Chain where this is appropriate. Plans arealso being developed to provide support to technologiesthat have RRP Panel two and three recommendations.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

International Development

International Development (Sanitation and Water)Debate in Westminster Hall Thursday 1 May

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I am glad to have theopportunity to debate the Sixth Report from theInternational Development Committee, Session 2006-07,HC126-I, and the Government’s response, HC854. Itwould be an appropriate outcome of the debate to getinformation from the Minister on how the Department forInternational Development is moving forward on theissues of sanitation and water. The Department hadindicated that it would publish a paper, and perhaps hewill give us a timetable for that in his response.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): I want to pointout that the Government say in their response that theywill produce a policy update by the end of 2007. Fourmonths on, that policy update has not been produced, asfar as I am aware. Too often in the House, SelectCommittees produce reports on issues that they neverrevisit. Will the Chairman of the Committee give anundertaking that he will at least consider revisiting the

subject at the end of this year or next year to see whataction the Government have taken as a result of thereport?

Malcolm Bruce: I want to stress that the Committee feltthat it had a contribution to make by placing the emphasison sanitation. Water is always talked about, but sanitationis often an add-on; it is the second part of “Water andSanitation”. Water is delivered by Environment or PublicWorks Ministers, and it is a civil engineering project, buthealth, education and other Departments should lead onsanitation. There needs to be a cross-departmental,integrated approach to bring those things together.

Sanitation is part of millennium development goal 7, butmany of the other MDGs depend on the delivery of goodsanitation. It is a fact – this problem, of course, relates towater as well – that many girls will not go to schoolbecause of poor sanitation. Even if they go to school, ithas been reported to us that teenage girls who aremenstruating will not go, because it is all too difficult.They stay away for at least one week a month, and insome cases they stay away altogether. In addition, girls areoften the key fetchers of water. Poor sanitation in schoolsand the requirement for girls to fetch water from somedistance away are two factors that combine to keep themaway from school, diminishing performance on anotherMDG.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forInternational Development (Mr Gareth Thomas): Iwelcome the opportunity to debate the IDC’s report.Governance is the central problem that has constraineddevelopment in the past. It is why the Governmentcontinue to give as much attention as we do to governancein developing countries; why we made it the central featureof the 2006 White Paper, “Eliminating World Poverty:making governance work for the poor”; and why weestablished a £130 million fund on governance andtransparency. I am sure that all hon Members will bepleased to know that WaterAid, which does excellent workin this area alongside a series of other NGOs, has receivedfrom the fund a further £5 million for work on governancein water sectors around the world.

We are at a critical stage, not only for the water andsanitation MDGs, but the MDGs more generally. That iswhy the Prime Minister talks of there being an MDGemergency and has sought, through the UN, to make 2008a year of action on the MDGs. If we are to reach the MDGson water and sanitation, we need to get water to an extra300,000 people each day and better sanitation to an extra450,000 people each day.

Mr Cash (Stone) Does the Minister agree that it would be agood idea to encourage the World Service, and the BBCmore generally, in that regard?

Mr Thomas We should not downplay the importance ofParliament as a vehicle for discussion. However, I suspectthat I am expressing a view held by all hon Memberswhen I say that we would like the media to give evenmore serious attention to the debates that we have – not



Parliamentary and Scientific Committee News

New Member

We are delighted to welcome Lord Krebs as a member ofthe Committee.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Membership Survey

The officers are very grateful to all those members whotook part in the recent Membership Survey. The full reportis available in the Discussion Forum on the Committee’swebsite www.scienceinparliament.org.uk – log in using themembers’ password and go to Forum.

Points from the Executive Summary of the report are setout below:

Awareness

Members of the Committee have high awareness ofCommittee activities with 96% of respondents aware;indicating the regard that they hold for its existence.

Value

The value of the Committee to its members is very high,with over 75% of Parliamentarians and 58% of othermembers agreeing very strongly that there is value in thecurrent activities that the Committee offers.

Key Beneficial Activities

Forum for Parliamentarians, academia & industry: 79% ofrespondents agreed that this was of most benefit to them asmembers, providing them with the opportunity to integrateand come together in this forum.

Informal Networking: This appeared the most popularamongst industrial and university members, indicating theirneed to network with other Committee members.

Evening Meetings and Debates: Industrial members favoured

these most, with 61% of this category ranking highly – eithera 4 or 5 in benefit. However location and timings of theseevents do pose issues for many members. A considerationcould include rotating these events across UKestablishments.

Visits to Scientific Organisations: Time constraints appear a keyfactor in attracting members to these visits. It is suggestedthat frequency of visit is considered, as visits are notregarded as a key benefit for members at present.

High Profile Speakers: 63% of all respondents agreed thatthese are a great benefit to them as members, highlightingthe importance of attracting such individuals to Committeeevents.

Annual Lunch: The annual lunch is regarded highly by justunder a third of all respondents. Parliamentarians favouredthis event the most. A closer look at the format of this eventmay well encourage more members to attend.

Science in Parliament Magazine: This is received very well byover half of all members. The articles and insight providemembers with excellent information, however there is stillsome room for improvement with the publication.

Area of Science that Interests Members MostThe Environment was cited as an area of key interest bymembers, with 123 out of 184 (67%) respondentsinterested in this topic. Biology and Medicine came secondand third respectively with 105 (57%) and 103 (55%)members interested in these scientific areas.

Attendance at Committee Meetings78% of members who responded confirmed that they haveattended a Committee meeting.

Non-AttendanceThe members surveyed who had not attended cited time ofday and diary clashes as the main reason. Relevance of topicis also key to attendance.

only the debates on the Floor of the House, but those inWestminster Hall. No doubt BBC Parliament will have theopportunity to look at our proceedings in due course, andthat is helpful. There will be a focus on the MDGs at a UNsummit on 25 September this year, so there will be an

opportunity for the world’s media, not just the BBC, tofocus on progress that is being made towards meeting allthe MDGs. The G8 meeting in July will provide a furtheropportunity for attention to be focused on the issues.

Progress of Legislation before Parliament

A comprehensive list of Public Bills before Parliament, giving up-to-date information on their progress through Parliament,is published regularly when Parliament is sitting in the Weekly Information Bulletin, which can be found at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmwib.htm



Improving Committee MeetingsIn general, the format and length of meeting seemspopular with members. The key factor determiningwhether a member will attend is the topic relevance. Thiswill be the hardest to address, due to the diverseorganisations and audiences that the Committee appealsto. Consideration of suggested topics may influence evenmore members to attend.

Annual EventAttendance: Around half of the members who weresurveyed have attended the annual lunch at some time.

Non-Attendance: Some members appeared unaware of theevent, (but this may include new members who have nothad the opportunity to attend yet). The guest speakerrelevance is also key when deciding whether to attend.High profile speakers are likely to attract a widermembership to the annual event.

Format: The luncheon is still the preferred option formembers surveyed, but there is some interest in thethemed event which could be incorporated into thisformat. There is also significant interest in an eveningoccasion, with around a third (32%) of respondentspreferring this type of event.

Venue: The most preferred venue is a Parliament building.

Payment: Payment should remain in the £50 - £100bracket – any significant increase could alienate members.

Timing: Timing preferences were extremely varied, but themost popular month is October, with many membersrequesting avoidance of the busy December period.

Guest Speaker: The most popular choice appeared to be ahigh profile scientist, but many members explained thatthey would be pleased to see a Politician, CommercialLeader or Scientist speak. The possibility of the rotation ofspeakers could be considered.

Reward for Outstanding Contribution to the Work of theCommittee: The suggestion of an award was generally wellreceived, with over half of members (54%) agreeing thatthis should be featured at the annual event (as long as thiswas constructed carefully). The format of the event mustbe taken into account – eg if it remains a luncheon, timeconstraints must be considered.

Increased Participation of Young Members32% of members surveyed believe that the most effectiveway of encouraging new members to attend is by allowingthem to display their work. This could be in the form of a‘Young Person’s Forum’. Some members feel that theCommittee may appear elitist and off-putting to youngermembers, so offering a less formal setting could breakdown some of these barriers.

The members also believe that ‘hot topics’ are key inengaging this younger membership.

Topics and Themes to be coveredDue to the diversity of membership, the suggestionsoffered varied widely. The full list of suggestions can be

seen in the Appendix. 19% of members surveyed wantedto see Environment, Oceans and Climate Change featuredin the next 12 months. Medicine, Health and Disease wasrequested by 15%.

WebsiteGenerally this still has low awareness, with 64%confessing to not using it. Many of those who weresurveyed were going to ‘take a look’ following the survey.

Science in Parliament Magazine85% of Parliamentarians and 82% of other memberssurveyed do read this publication.

55% of respondents have high regard for the magazine,with the content praised.

However a large proportion of members commented onthe look of the magazine. Many find it old fashioned anddated, especially the font that is used with limited colour,which may not attract a younger readership.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Earthquake in China

At a ceremony at the Chinese Embassy on 21st May,Professor H Peter Jost, on behalf of the Parliamentary &Scientific Committee, expressed the Committee’scondolences at the suffering of the people caused by theearthquake in the Sichuan Province, and the Committee’sadmiration for the prompt action taken by the Chinesegovernment in responding quickly to the needs of thepeople.

HE Mme Fu Ying, the Ambassador (shown with Dr Jost)expressed her appreciation to the P&S Committee for thesentiments expressed.



sought: further research or development support.http://cordis.europa.eu/marketplace > search > offers > 383

Reliability of rural electrification systems

The sustainable development of the world’s rural areas involves theprovision of a reliable, cost-effective energy source. Accordingly,partners in the Taqsolre project have analysed the reliability ofstand-alone photovoltaic (PV) systems.

The electrification of rural areas in developing countrieswould give people access to a range of energy servicespreviously not available to them. Small systems wouldpower domestic appliances such as lights, television sets,mobile phones and computers. On a community scale, thedevelopment of schools and health care would be facilitated.Residential life, farming and irrigation could all bemechanised and upgraded. PV solar energy is considered tobe the most promising system to deliver electrification torural communities. Unfortunately, the introduction of PVsystems is hampered by technical, social and economicbarriers that tend to limit dissemination of the technology.The scope of the project was therefore broad, but EU-fundedTaqsolre aimed to identify the root causes of the problems ina drive to find solutions.

Project partners at Universidad Politécnica de Madridtackled the issue of dependability of stand-alone PV systems.For reliability of a system, the ability to maintain it and theavailability of replacement parts are also relevant. Theanalysis also took into account the effect of componentfailure. One innovative approach was inclusion of the effectof loss of power or load probability. To aid theimplementation of PV systems, the team also provided aquality reference for the inverter as a guide for users andprocurers. The inverter effectively manages the power andcreates a flow of supply that is sufficiently strong andconsistent. In addition to the reliability criterion, safety,energy performance, ease of use, installation andmaintenance were covered. Future targets of research will nodoubt build on the progress of systems set up in LatinAmerica, Africa and Asia that are actively using the results ofthis project. As part of the initiative, the Madrid team set upa practical seminar in Lima for technicians involved in thisscheme whose objective was to set up 1,000 solar homesystems. The results of the analysis are available and havebeen targeted towards researchers and systems designers.These have been distributed through peer journals,conferences and a hands-on approach at workshops. Forinterested parties, a website which gives details of objectivesand schemes through a photo gallery can be accessed at:http://www.taqsolre.net

Funded under the FP5 programme EESD (Energy,environment and sustainable development). Collaborationsought: further research or development support.http://cordis.europa.eu/marketplace > search > offers > 382

Euro-NewsCommentary on science and technology within the European Parliament and the Commission

Bumblebee disease studied

The health of commercial colonies of bumblebees used for pollinatinggreenhouse crops is in jeopardy due to transportable parasiticinfections. To help combat this threat, a European study hasanalysed the genome of one fungal parasite.

Bumblebees (Bombus spp) are very effective pollinators, bothcommercially and in natural ecosystems. Their feedingactivities indirectly promote genetic variation andbiodiversity. Moreover, insect pollination is essential for theproduction of seed from species that rely on outbreedingmechanisms. However, there is evidence that there is aconsistent decline in numbers (with possible extinction) insome bumblebee species, which is naturally of concern toconservationists and ecologists.

Bumblebee rearing has developed into a commercial successdue to the insect’s efficacy in pollinating greenhouse crops.However, development of hundreds of thousands of coloniesof bumblebees is bound to be accompanied by an ecologicalprice. One of these is the parasitic disease Nosema bombi, afungal disease that produces spores primarily in theexcretory and nervous system of the bee. Apart fromphysiological effects including diarrhoea and a swollenabdomen, the queen is inhibited from mating and theviability of infected bees decreases.

Colonies of bumblebees are bred worldwide and transportedbetween countries and continents. To avoid introduction ofnonendemic species of parasites, it is essential to investigatethe genetic make-up of the invader. With commercialinterests in mind, together with the future of the Europeanbumblebee population generally, the Pollinator projectconducted a study of Nosema bombi. The team at Queen’sUniversity, Belfast, specifically investigated the genome of theparasite for host-specific variation and possible geneticmarkers. The scientists created a genomic library to provideDNA regions that could be investigated for their suitability asgenetic and phylogeographical markers.

Illuminating results were produced when genetic sequenceswere isolated from only two spores of the fungus foundwithin one bumblebee. Amplification, cloning andsequencing revealed that there were multiple ribosomal RNAcopies that would give rise to different or non-homologousDNA sequences.

The implications of this are that concerted evolution has notproduced identical genetic sequences within one spore.Exotic parasite introductions have a habit of creating havocwithin established ecosystems. Armed with results of thisnature, science may be one step ahead of the geneticevolution of the fungus and more able to control the parasitewithin commercial populations of the bumblebee.

Funded under the FP5 programme ‘Life quality’ (Quality oflife and management of living resources). Collaboration



Science DirectoryAerospace and AviationC-Tech InnovationEPSRCSemtaNational Physical Laboratory

AgricultureBBSRCCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationInstitute of BiologyLGCNewcastle UniversityPHARMAQ LtdSCISociety for General MicrobiologyUFAW

Animal Health and Welfare,Veterinary ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBritish Veterinary AssociationInstitute of BiologyThe Nutrition SocietyPHARMAQ LtdUFAW

Astronomy and Space ScienceNatural History MuseumSTFC

Atmospheric Sciences, Climate andWeatherNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNewcastle UniversitySTFC

BiotechnologyBBSRCBiochemical SocietyBiosciences FederationCampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationC-Tech InnovationInstitute of BiologyLGCLillyNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

Brain ResearchABPILillyNewcastle University

Cancer ResearchABPILillyNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle University

CatalysisC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersRoyal Society of Chemistry

ChemistryC-Tech Innovation

EPSRCInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISTFC

Colloid ScienceLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreRoyal Society of Chemistry

Construction and BuildingEPSRCInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle UniversitySCI

Cosmetic ScienceSociety of Cosmetic Scientists

Earth SciencesInstitute of BiologyNatural EnglandNatural History MuseumNewcastle University

Ecology, Environment andBiodiversityAMSIThe British Ecological SocietyCABIEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilFreshwater Biological AssociationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersKew GardensLGCNational Physical LaboratoryNatural EnglandNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

Economic and Social ResearchEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilNewcastle University

Education, Training and SkillsABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiosciences FederationBritish Association for theAdvancement of ScienceThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for Antimicrobial

ChemotherapyCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationClifton Scientific TrustC-Tech InnovationEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEPSRCThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardInstitute of Biology Institute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistryRoyal Statistical SocietySemta

EnergyC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISTFC

EngineeringC-Tech InnovationEPSRCThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Academy of EngineeringSCISemtaSTFC

Fisheries ResearchAMSIFreshwater Biological AssociationInstitute of BiologyPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnership

Food and Food TechnologyBiosciences FederationBritish Nutrition Foundation

CABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationC-Tech InnovationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCNewcastle UniversityThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

ForensicsLGCRoyal Society of Chemistry

GeneticsABPIBBSRCHFEAInstitute of BiologyLGCNatural History MuseumNewcastle University

Geology and GeoscienceAMSIInstitution of Civil EngineersNatural Environment ResearchCouncil

Hazard and Risk MitigationHealth Protection AgencyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil Engineers

HealthABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBiosciences FederationBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEPSRCHealth Protection AgencyHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of Physics and Engineeringin MedicineLGCLillyMedical Research CouncilMerck Sharp & DohmeNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle UniversityThe Nutrition SocietyRoyal InstitutionRoyal Society of ChemistrySociety for General Microbiology

Heart ResearchABPILilly

Hydrocarbons and PetroleumNatural History MuseumNewcastle UniversityRoyal Society of Chemistry

Industrial Policy and ResearchAIRTO

DIRECTORY INDEX



Economic and Social ResearchCouncilInstitution of Civil EngineersRoyal Academy of EngineeringSCISTFC

Information ServicesAIRTOCABI

IT, Internet, Telecommunications,Computing and ElectronicsEPSRCInstitution of Civil EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyNational Physical LaboratoryNewcastle UniversitySTFC

Intellectual PropertyABPIThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysC-Tech InnovationLillyNESTANewcastle University

Large-Scale Research FacilitiesCampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationC-Tech InnovationLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural History MuseumSTFC

LasersNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

ManufacturingABPIAMSIEPSRCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratorySCI

MaterialsC-Tech InnovationEPSRCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratoryRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Medical and Biomedical ResearchABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyCABIHFEAInstitute of BiologyLillyMedical Research CouncilMerck Sharp & DohmeNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipUFAW

Motor VehiclesLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreSemta

OceanographyAMSINational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment ResearchCouncilPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnership

OilC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGC

Particle PhysicsSTFC

PatentsThe Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneysNESTA

PharmaceuticalsABPIBritish Pharmacological SocietyBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyC-Tech InnovationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersLGCLillyMerck Sharp & DohmePHARMAQ LtdRoyal Society of ChemistrySCI

Physical SciencesCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationEPSRCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical Laboratory

PhysicsCavendish LaboratoryC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitute of PhysicsNational Physical LaboratorySTFC

Pollution and WasteABPIAMSIC-Tech InnovationInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNational Physical LaboratoryNatural Environment ResearchCouncilNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnership

PsychologyBritish Psychological Society

Public PolicyBiosciences FederationThe British Ecological Society British Nutrition FoundationBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Civil EngineersNESTAProspect

Public Understanding of ScienceAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBritish Association for theAdvancement of ScienceThe British Ecological Society British Nutrition FoundationBritish Society for AntimicrobialChemotherapyClifton Scientific TrustEPSRCThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Engineering andTechnologyMedical Research CouncilNESTANewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipProspectResearch Councils UKRoyal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Quality ManagementCampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationLGCNational Physical Laboratory

Radiation HazardsHealth Protection AgencyLGC

RetailMarks and Spencer

Science PolicyABPIAcademy of Medical SciencesBiochemical SocietyBiosciences FederationBritish Association for theAdvancement of ScienceThe British Ecological SocietyBritish Nutrition FoundationBritish Pharmacological SocietyCABIClifton Scientific TrustEconomic and Social ResearchCouncilEPSRCThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardHFEAInstitute of BiologyInstitute of PhysicsInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCLillyMedical Research CouncilNESTANational Physical LaboratoryPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipProspectResearch Councils UKRoyal Academy of EngineeringRoyal InstitutionThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society of ChemistrySemtaSTFCUFAW

Seed ProtectionCABI

Sensors and TransducersAMSIC-Tech InnovationSTFC

SSSIsKew GardensNatural England

StatisticsEPSRCThe Engineering and TechnologyBoardRoyal Statistical Society

Surface ScienceC-Tech InnovationSTFC

SustainabilityBiosciences FederationThe British Ecological SocietyCABIC-Tech InnovationEPSRCInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNatural EnglandNewcastle UniversityPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipSCI

Technology TransferCABICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationC-Tech InnovationLGCLondon Metropolitan PolymerCentreNESTANational Physical LaboratoryResearch Councils UKRoyal Society of ChemistrySTFC

Tropical MedicineHealth Protection AgencySociety for General Microbiology

VirusesABPIHealth Protection AgencySociety for General Microbiology

WaterAMSICampden & Chorleywood FoodResearch AssociationC-Tech InnovationFreshwater Biological AssociationInstitute of BiologyInstitution of Chemical EngineersInstitution of Civil EngineersLGCPlymouth Marine SciencesPartnershipRoyal Society of ChemistrySCISociety for General Microbiology

WildlifeBiosciences FederationThe British Ecological SocietyInstitute of BiologyNatural EnglandNatural History MuseumUFAW



Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research CouncilContact: Dr Monica Winstanley Head of External RelationsBBSRC, Polaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1UH. Tel: 01793 413204E-mail: [email protected]: www.bbsrc.ac.ukThe BBSRC is the UK’s leading funding agency foracademic research in the non-medical life sciences andis funded principally through the Government’sScience Budget. It supports staff in universities andresearch institutes throughout the UK, and funds basicand strategic science in: agri-food, animal sciences,biomolecular sciences, biochemistry and cell biology,engineering and biological systems, genes anddevelopmental biology, and plant and microbialsciences.

Research Councils UKContact: Alun RobertsCommunications ManagerResearch Councils UKPolaris HouseNorth Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1ET

Tel: 01793 444474E-mail: [email protected]: www.rcuk.ac.uk

Each year the Research Councils invest around £3 billion in research covering the full spectrum ofacademic disciplines from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry andengineering, social sciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities.

Research Councils UK is the strategic partnerships of the seven Research Councils. It aims to:

• increase the collective visibility, leadership and influence of the Research Councils for the benefitof the UK;

• lead in shaping the overall portfolio of research funded by the Research Councils to maximise theexcellence and impact of UK research, and help to ensure that the UK gets the best value formoney from its investment;

• ensure joined up operations between the Research Councils to achieve its goals and improveservices to the communities it sponsors and works with.

ArtsandHumanitiesResearch CouncilContact: Jake GilmoreCommunications ManagerAHRC, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol,BS1 2AETel: 0117 9876500E-mail: [email protected]: www.ahrc.ac.ukEach year the AHRC provides approximately£100 million from the Government to supportresearch and postgraduate study in the arts andhumanities, from archaeology and Englishliterature to dance and design. Awards are madeafter a rigorous peer review process, to ensurethat only applications of the highest quality arefunded. The quality and range of researchsupported by this investment of public fundsnot only provides social and cultural benefitsbut also contributes to the economic success ofthe UK.

Economic andSocial ResearchCouncilContact: Lesley Lilley, Senior Policy Manager,Knowledge Transfer,Economic and Social Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue,Swindon SN2 1UJTel: 01793 413033 Fax 01793 [email protected]://www.esrc.ac.uk

The ESRC is the UK’s leading research and trainingagency addressing economic and social concerns. Wepursue excellence in social science research; work toincrease the impact of our research policy andpractice; and provide trained social scientists whomeet the needs of users and beneficiaries, therebycontributing to the economic competitiveness of theUnited Kingdom, the effectiveness of public servicesand policy, and quality of life. The ESRC isindependent, established by Royal Charter in 1965,and funded mainly by government.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilContact: Jenny Whitehouse, Public Affairs Mamager, EPSRC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1ETTel: 01793 442892 Fax: 01793 444005E-mail: [email protected]:www.epsrc.ac.ukEPSRC invests more than £740 million a year inresearch and postgraduate training in the physicalsciences and engineering, to help the nation handlethe next generation of technological change. Theareas covered range from mathematics to materialsscience, and information technology to structuralengineering.We also actively promote public engagement withscience and engineering, and we collaborate with awide range of organisations in this area.

MedicalResearchCouncilContact: Simon Wilde 20 Park Crescent, London W1B 1AL.

Tel: 020 7636 5422 Fax: 020 7436 2665E-mail: [email protected]: www.mrc.ac.uk

The Medical Research Council (MRC) isfunded by the UK taxpayer. We areindependent of Government, but work closelywith the Health Departments, the NationalHealth Service and industry to ensure that theresearch we support takes account of thepublic’s needs as well as being of excellentscientific quality. As a result, MRC-fundedresearch has led to some of the mostsignificant discoveries in medical science andbenefited millions of people, both in the UKand worldwide.

NaturalEnvironmentResearch CouncilContact: Judy ParkerHead of CommunicationsPolaris House, North Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1EUTel: 01793 411646 Fax: 01793 411510E-mail: [email protected]: www.nerc.ac.uk

The UK’s Natural Environment Research Councilfunds and carries out impartial scientific researchin the sciences of the environment. NERC trainsthe next generation of independent environmentalscientists.

NERC funds research in universities and in anetwork of its own centres, which include:

British Antarctic Survey, British Geological Survey,Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, NationalOceanography Centre and Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

Science &TechnologyFacilities CouncilContact: Nigel CalvinSTFCPolaris HouseNorth Star AvenueSwindon SN2 1SZTel: 01793 44 2176 Fax: 01793 44 2125E-mail: [email protected]: www.stfc.ac.uk

Formed by Royal Charter in 2007, the Science andTechnology Facilities Council is one of Europe's largestmultidisciplinary research organisations supportingscientists and engineers world-wide. The Counciloperates world-class, large-scale research facilities andprovides strategic advice to the UK Government ontheir development. It also manages internationalresearch projects in support of a broad cross-section ofthe UK research community. The Council also directs,co-ordinates and funds research, education andtraining.



British NutritionFoundationContact: Professor Judy Buttriss, Director General52-54 High Holborn, London WC1V 6RQTel: 020 7404 6504Fax: 020 7404 6747Email: [email protected]: www.nutrition.org.uk

2007 was the 40th Anniversary of theBritish Nutrition Foundation. This scientificand educational charity promotes the well-being of society through the impartialinterpretation and effective dissemination ofscientifically based knowledge and adviceon the relationship between diet, physicalactivity and health.

Association of the BritishPharmaceuticalIndustry Contact: Dr Philip WrightDirector of Science & Technology 12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DYTel: 020 7747 1408Fax: 020 7747 1417E-mail: [email protected]: www.abpi.org.uk

The ABPI is the voice of the innovativepharmaceutical industry, working with Government,regulators and other stakeholders to promote areceptive environment for a strong and progressiveindustry in the UK, one capable of providing the bestmedicines to patients.The ABPI’s mission is to represent the pharmaceuticalindustry operating in the UK in a way that:● assures patient access to the best available

medicine;● creates a favourable political and economic

environment;● encourages innovative research and development; ● affords fair commercial returns

Association of Marine Scientific Industries Contact: Karen Gray, SecretaryAssociation of Marine Scientific Industries4th Floor, 30 Great Guildford StreetLondon SE1 0HSTel: 020 7928 9199 Fax: 020 7928 6599 E-mail: [email protected]: www.maritimeindustries.org The Association of Marine Scientific Industries(AMSI) is a constituent association of the Societyof Maritime Industries (SMI) representingcompanies in the marine science and technologysector, otherwise known as the oceanology sector.The marine science sector has an increasinglyimportant role to play both in the UK and globally,particularly in relation to the environment,security and defence, resource exploitation, andleisure. AMSI represents manufacturers,researchers, and system suppliers providing a co-ordinated voice and enabling members to projecttheir views and capabilities to a wide audience.

Contact: Mrs Mary Manning, Executive DirectorAcademy of Medical Sciences10 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AHTel: 020 7969 5288 Fax: 020 7969 5298E-mail: [email protected]: www.acmedsci.ac.uk

The Academy of Medical Sciences promotesadvances in medical science and campaigns toensure these are converted into healthcarebenefits for society. The Academy’s Fellows arethe United Kingdom’s leading medical scientistsand scholars from hospitals, academia, industryand the public service. The Academy providesindependent, authoritative advice on publicpolicy issues in medical science and healthcare.

AIRTOContact: Professor Richard BrookAIRTO Ltd: Association of IndependentResearch & Technology Organisations Limitedc/o CCFRA, Station Road, Chipping Campden,Gloucestershire GL55 6LD.Tel: 01386 842247Fax: 01386 842010E-mail: [email protected]: www.airto.co.uk

AIRTO represents the UK’s independentresearch and technology sector - memberorganisations employ a combined staff of over20,000 scientists and engineers with aturnover in the region of £1.5 billion. Workcarried out by members includes research, consultancy, training and global informationmonitoring. AIRTO promotes their work bybuilding closer links between members andindustry, academia, UK government agenciesand the European Union.

Biochemical SocietyContact: Dr Chris Kirk

Chief Executive,

16 Procter Street, London WC1V 6NX

Tel: 020 7280 4133 Fax: 020 7280 4170

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.biochemistry.org

The Biochemical Society exists to promote and supportthe Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. We have nearly6000 members in the UK and abroad, mostly researchbioscientists in Universities or in Industry. The Societyis also a major scientific publisher. In addition, wepromote Science Policy debate and provide resources,for teachers and pupils, to support the biosciencecurriculum in schools. Our membership supports ourmission by organizing scientific meetings, sustainingour publications through authorship and peer reviewand by supporting our educational and policyinitiatives.

Contact: Dr Richard Dyer, Chief Executive

Biosciences Federation

PO Box 502, Cambridge, CB1 0AL

Tel: 01223 400181

Fax: 01223 246858

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.bsf.ac.uk

The Biosciences Federation is a singleauthority representing the UK’s biologicalexpertise. The BSF directly represents 51bioscience organisations, and contributesto the development of policy and strategyin biology-based research – includingfunding and the interface with otherdisciplines – and in school and universityteaching by providing independentopinion to government.

British Associationfor the Advancementof Science - the BAContact: Sir Roland Jackson Bt, Chief Executive The BA, Wellcome Wolfson Building,165 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5HD.E-mail: [email protected]: www.the-BA.netThe BA (British Association for the Advancement ofScience) exists to advance the public understanding,accessibility and accountability of the sciences andengineering. The BA aims to promote openness aboutscience in society and to engage and inspire people directlywith science and technology and their implications.Established in 1831, the BA is a registered charity whichorganises major initiatives across the UK, including theannual BA Festival of Science, National Science andEngineering Week, programmes of regional and localevents, and the CREST programme for young people inschools and colleges.

The BritishEcologicalSocietyContact: Ceri Margerison, Policy OfficerBritish Ecological Society 26 Blades Court, Deodar Road, Putney,London, SW15 2NUTel: 020 8877 0740 Fax : 020 8871 9779Website: www.BritishEcologicalSociety.orgEcology into Policy Bloghttp://ecologyandpolicy.blogspot.com/

The British Ecological Society’s mission is toadvance ecology and make it count. The Societyhas 4,000 members worldwide. The BESpublishes four internationally renownedscientific journals and organises the largestscientific meeting for ecologists in Europe.Through its grants, the BES also supportsecologists in developing countries and theprovision of fieldwork in Schools. The BESinforms and advises Parliament and Governmenton ecological issues and welcomes requests forassistance from parliamentarians.



CABIContact: Dr Joan Kelley, Executive Director Bioservices, CABI Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TYTel: 01491 829306 Fax: 01491 829100Email: [email protected]: www.cabi.org

CABI is an international not for profitorganization, specialising in scientificpublishing, research and communication. Ourmission is to improve peoples’ lives worldwideby finding sustainable solutions to agriculturaland environmental issues. Activities range fromassisting national policy makers and informingworldwide research to supporting income poorfarmers. We also house and manage the UK’sNational Collection of Fungus Cultures whichwe are exploring for potential new drugs,enzymes and nutraceuticals.

Campden &ChorleywoodFood ResearchAssociationContact: Prof Colin Dennis, Director-General CCFRA, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire GL55 6LD.Tel: 01386 842000 Fax: 01386 842100E-mail: [email protected]: www.campden.co.ukAn independent, membership-based industrial researchassociation providing substantial R&D, processing,analytical, hygiene, best practice, training, auditing andHACCP services for the food chain worldwide.Members include growers, processors, retailers,caterers, distributors, machinery manufacturers,government departments and enforcement authorities.Employs over 300; serves over 2,000 member sites;and has a subsidiary company in Hungary. Activitiesfocus on safety, quality, efficiency and innovation.Participates in DTI’s Faraday Partnerships andcollaborates with universities on LINK projects andstudentships, transferring practical knowledgebetween industry and academia.

CavendishLaboratoryThe Administrative Secretary, The Cavendish Laboratory,J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK.E-mail: [email protected]://www.phy.cam.ac.uk

The Cavendish Laboratory houses the Department of Physics ofthe University of Cambridge.

Its world-class research is focused in a number of experimentaland theoretical diverse fields.

Astrophysics: Millimetre astronomy, optical interferometryobservations & instrumentation. Astrophysics, geometricalgebra, maximum entropy, neutral networks.

High Energy Physics: LHC experiments. Detectordevelopment. Particle physics theory.

Condensed Matter Physics: Semiconductor physics, quantumeffect devices, nanolithography. Superconductivity, magneticthin films. Optoelectronics, conducting polymers. BiologicalSoft Systems. Polymers and Colloids. Surface physics, fracture,wear & erosion. Amorphous solids. Electron microscopy.Electronic structure theory & computation. Structural phasetransitions, fractals, quantum Monte Carlo calculationsBiological Physics. Quantum optics.

BritishVeterinaryAssociation

Contact:Chrissie Nicholls7 Mansfield Street, London W1G 9NQTel: 020 7908 6340E-mail:[email protected]

BVA’s chief interests are:* Standards of animal health* Veterinary surgeons’ working practices* Professional standards and quality of service* Relationships with external bodies, particularly

governmentBVA carries out three main functions which are:* Policy development in areas affecting the

profession* Protecting and promoting the profession in

matters propounded by government and otherexternal bodies

* Provision of services to members

British Societyfor AntimicrobialChemotherapyContact: Tracey Guest, Executive OfficerBritish Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy11 The Wharf, 16 Bridge Street,Birmingham B1 2JS.Tel: 0121 633 0410Fax: 0121 643 9497E-mail: [email protected]: www.bsac.org.uk

Founded in 1971, and with 800 membersworldwide, the Society exists to facilitate theacquisition and dissemination of knowledge inthe field of antimicrobial chemotherapy. TheBSAC publishes the Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy (JAC), internationally renowned forits scientific excellence, undertakes a range ofeducational activities, awards grants for researchand has active relationships with its peer groupsand government.

The BritishPsychological SocietyContact: Dr Ana PadillaParliamentary OfficerThe British Psychological Society30 Tabernacle StreetLondon EC2A 4UETel: 020 7330 0893Fax: 020 7330 0896Email: [email protected]: www.bps.org.uk

The British Psychological Society is anorganisation of over 45,000 members governedby Royal Charter. It maintains the Register ofChartered Psychologists, publishes books, 10primary science Journals and organisesconferences. Requests for information aboutpsychology and psychologists fromparliamentarians are welcome.

Contact: Kate BaillieChief ExecutiveBritish Pharmacological Society16 Angel Gate, City RoadLondon EC1V 2PTTel: 020 7417 0113Fax: 020 7417 0114Email: [email protected]: www.bps.ac.uk

The British Pharmacological Society has now beensupporting pharmacology and pharmacologistsfor over 75 years. Our 2,000+ members, fromacademia, industry and clinical practice, aretrained to study drug action from the laboratorybench to the patient’s bedside. Our aim is toimprove the quality of life by developing newmedicines to treat and prevent the diseases andconditions that affect millions of people andanimals. Inquiries about drugs and how theywork are welcome.

Chartered Institute of Patent AttorneysContact: Michael Ralph -Secretary & RegistrarThe Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys95 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1DTTel: 020 7405 9450Fax: 020 7430 0471E-mail: [email protected]: www.cipa.org.uk

CIPA’s members practise in intellectual property,especially patents, trade marks, designs, andcopyright, either in private partnerships orindustrial companies. CIPA maintains the statutory Register. It advises government andinternational circles on policy issues and provides information services, promoting thebenefits to UK industry of obtaining IP protection, and to overseas industry of usingBritish attorneys to obtain internationalprotection.

Clifton Scientific TrustContact: Dr Eric AlboneClifton Scientific Trust 49 Northumberland Road, Bristol BS6 7BATel: 0117 924 7664 Fax: 0117 924 7664E-mail: [email protected]: www.clifton-scientific.org

Science for Citizenship and Employability,Science for Life, Science for Real

We build grass-roots partnerships betweenschool and the wider world of professionalscience and its applications• for young people of all ages and abilities • experiencing science as a creative,

questioning, human activity • bringing school science added meaning and

notivation, from primary to post-16• locally, nationally, internationally (currently

between Britain and Japan)Clifton Scientific Trust Ltd is registered charity 1086933



Institute ofPhysics andEngineeringin MedicineContact: Robert Neilson, General SecretaryFairmount House, 230 Tadcaster Road,York, YO24 1ESTel: 01904 610821 Fax: 01904 612279E-mail: [email protected]: www.ipem.ac.uk

IPEM is a registered, incorporated charity for theadvancement, in the public interest, of physics andengineering applied to medicine and biology. Itaccredits medical physicists, clinical engineers andclinical technologists through its membership register,organises training and CPD for them, and providesopportunities for the dissemination of knowledgethrough publications and scientific meetings. IPEM islicensed by the Science Council to award CSci and bythe Engineering Council (UK) to award CEng, IEngand EngTech.

Contact: Public Relations Department76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NTTel: 020 7470 4800E-mail: [email protected]: www.iop.org

The Institute of Physics supports the physicscommunity and promotes physics togovernment, legislators and policy makers.

It is an international learned society andprofessional body with over 35,000 membersworldwide, working in all branches of physicsand a wide variety of jobs and professions –including fundamental resarch, technology-based industries, medicine, finance – andnewer jobs such as computer games design. The Institute is active in school and highereducation and awards professionalqualifications. It provides policy advice andopportunities for public debate on areas ofphysics such as energy and climate changethat affect us all.

C-TechInnovationLimitedContact: Paul RadageCapenhurst Technology Park,Capenhurst, Chester, Cheshire CH1 6EHTel: +44 (0) 151 347 2900Fax: +44 (0) 151 347 2901E-mail: [email protected]: www.ctechinnovation.com

An independent innovation and technologydevelopment organisation. Activities range fromcontract and grant funded research tocommercialisation of technology, exploitation ofintellectual property, multi-disciplinaryinnovation consultancy and process andproduct development.

C-Tech now has almost 40 years experience ofthe management and delivery of majortechnology and innovation based businesssupport projects both nationally and regionally.

TheEngineeringand Technology BoardContact: Clare Cox2nd Floor, Weston House246 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EXTel: 020 3206 0434Fax: 020 3206 0401E-mail: [email protected]: www.etechb.co.uk

The Engineering and Technology Board (ETB) isan independent organisation that promotes thevital role of engineers, engineering and technologyin our society. The ETB partners business andindustry, Government and the wider science andtechnology community: producing evidence onthe state of engineering; sharing knowledgewithin engineering, and inspiring young peopleto choose a career in engineering, matchingemployers’ demand for skills.

FreshwaterBiologicalAssociationContact: Dr Michael Dobson, Director.Freshwater Biological Association, The Ferry Landing, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 0LP, UK.Tel: 01539 442468 Fax: 01539 446914www.fba.org.uk [email protected] Charity Number : 214440

The FBA welcomes collaboration with Governmentand Agencies. Founded in 1929 the Associationpromotes freshwater science through; innovativeresearch, serviced facilities, a programme ofmeetings, scientific publications, and soundindependent advice. The FBA houses one of theworld’s finest freshwater information resourcesand is the custodian of long term data sets fromsites of scientific significance. Membership isoffered on an individual or corporate basis.

Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority

Contact: Tim Whitaker21 Bloomsbury StLondon WC1B 3HFTel: 020 7291 8200Fax: 020 7291 8201Email: [email protected]: www.hfea.gov.uk

The HFEA is a non-departmental Governmentbody that regulates and inspects all UK clinicsproviding IVF, donor insemination or thestorage of eggs, sperm or embryos. The HFEAalso licenses and monitors all human embryoresearch being conducted in the UK.

Health ProtectionAgencyContact: Justin McCracken, Chief ExecutiveHealth Protection Agency Central Office7th Floor, Holborn Gate, 330 High HolbornLondon WC1V 7PPTel: 020 7759 2700/2701Fax: 020 7759 2733Email: [email protected]: www.hpa.org.uk

The Health Protection Agency is an independentorganisation dedicated to protecting people’s health inthe United Kingdom. We do this by providing impartialadvice and authoritative information on healthprotection uses to the public, to professionals and togovernment.

We combine public health and scientific expertise,research and emergency planning within oneorganisation. We work at international, national andregional and local levels and have many links with manyother organisations around the world. This means we canrespond quickly and effectively to new and existingnational and global threats to health including infections,environmental hazards and emergencies.

InstituteofBiologyContact: Prof Alan Malcolm, Chief Executive9 Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EFTel: 020 7936 5900Fax: 020 7936 5901E-mail: [email protected]: www.iob.org

The biological sciences have truly come ofage, and the Institute of Biology is theprofessional body to represent biology andbiologists to all. A source of independentadvice to Government, a supporter ofeducation, a measure of excellence and adisseminator of information - the Instituteof Biology is the Voice of British Biology.



Marks &Spencer PlcContact:David GregoryWaterside House 35 North Wharf RoadLondon W2 1NW.

Tel: 020 8718 8247E-mail: [email protected]

Main Business ActivitiesRetailer – Clothing, Food, Home and FinancialServices

We have over 620 UK stores, employing over75,000 people - 278 stores internationally in39 countries.

We are one of the UK’s leading retailers, withover 21 million people visiting our stores eachweek. We offer stylish, high quality, great valueClothing and Home products, as well asoutstanding quality foods, responsibly sourcedfrom around 2,000 suppliers globally.

Institution of Civil EngineersContact: Vernon Hunte, Senior Public Relations Executive,One Great George Street, Westminster,London SW1P 3AA, UKTel: 020 7665 2265Fax: 020 7222 0973E-mail: [email protected]: www.ice.org.uk

ICE aims to be a leading voice in infrastructureissues. With over 80,000 members, ICE actsas a knowledge exchange for all aspects of civilengineering. As a Learned Society, theInstitution provides expertise, in the form ofreports, evidence and comment, on a widerange of subjects including infrastructure,energy generation and supply, climate changeand sustainable development.

London MetropolitanPolymer Centre

Contact: Alison Green, London Metropolitan University166-220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DBTel: 020 7133 2189E-mail: [email protected]: www.polymers.org.uk

The London Metropolitan Polymer Centre providestraining, consultancy and applied research to the UKpolymer (plastics & rubber) industry. Recently,LMPC has merged with the Sir John CassDepartment of Art, Media & Design (JCAMD) toprovide a broad perspective of materials science andtechnology for the manufacturing and creativeindustries. JCAMD contains Met Works, a uniquenew Digital Manufacturing Centre, providing newtechnology for rapid prototyping and manufacture.The new department will offer short courses inpolymer innovation, print technology andsilversmithing & jewellery.

LGC

Queens Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex, TW11 0LYTel: +44 (0)20 8943 7000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8943 2767E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lgc.co.uk

LGC, an international science-based company, is Europe’sleading independent provider of analytical and diagnosticservices and reference standards. LGC’s market-leddivisions – LGC Forensics, Life & Food Sciences, Research& Technology and LGC Standards – operate in a diverserange of sectors for both public and private sectorcustomers.

Under arrangements for the office and function of theGovernment Chemist, LGC fulfils specific statutory dutiesand provides advice for Government and the wideranalytical community on the implications of analyticalchemistry for matters of policy, standards and regulation.

LGC has its headquarters in Teddington, South WestLondon, and other UK operations in Bury, Culham,Edinburgh, Leeds, Risley, Runcorn and Tamworth. It alsohas facilities in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain,Sweden and India.

Institution ofEngineering and TechnologyContact: Tony HendersonInstitution of Engineering and TechnologySavoy Place, London WC2R 0BLTel: 020 7344 8403E-mail: [email protected]: www.theiet.org

The Institution of Engineering and Technologywas formed in 2006 by the Institution ofElectrical Engineers and the Institution ofIncorporated Engineers. The IET has more than150,000 members worldwide who work in arange of industries. The Institution aims to leadin the advancement of engineering andtechnology by facilitating the exchange ofknowledge and ideas at a local and global leveland promoting best practice.

TheNationalEndowment forScience, Technologyand the ArtsContact: Nicholas BojasHead of Government Relations1 Plough PlaceLondon EC4A1DETel: 020 7438 2500Fax: 020 7438 2501Email: [email protected]: www.nesta.org.uk

NESTA’s aim is to transform the UK’s capacity forinnovation. We work across the human, financial and thepolicy dimensions of innovation. We invest in early stagecompanies, inform innovation policy and encourage aculture that helps innovation to flourish. The uniquenature of our endowed funds means that we can take alonger term view, and develop ambitious models tostimulate and support innovation that others canreplicate or adapt. NESTA works across disciplines,bringing together people and ideas from science,technology and the creative industries.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories

Contact: Dr Tim SpareyLicensing & External Research, EuropeHertford RoadHoddesdonHerts EN11 9BUTel: 01992 452838Fax: 01992 441907e-mail: [email protected]

Merck Sharp & Dohme is a UK subsidiary ofMerck & Co Inc a global research-drivenpharmaceutical company dedicated toputting patients first. Merck discovers,develops, manufactures and marketsvaccines and medicines in over 20therapeutic categories directly and throughits joint ventures. Our mission is to providesociety with superior products and servicesby developing innovations and solutionsthat improve the quality of life.

Sir John Cass Department of Art, Media & Design

Lilly and Company LimitedContact: Dr Karin Briner, Managing Director, Eli Lilly & Company, Erl Wood Manor,Windlesham, Surrey, GU20 6PH Tel: 01256 315000 Fax: 01276 483307 E-mail:[email protected] Website:www.lilly.com or www.lilly.co.uk

Lilly UK is the UK affiliate of major Americanpharmaceutical manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Companyof Indianapolis. This affiliate is one of the UK's toppharmaceutical companies with significantinvestment in science and technology including aneuroscience research and development centre andbulk biotechnology manufacturing operations.

Lilly medicines treat schizophrenia, diabetes, cancer,osteoporosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,erectile dysfunction, severe sepsis, depression,bipolar disorder, heart disease and many otherdiseases.

The mission of Kew is to inspire and deliverscience-based plant conservation worldwide,enhancing the quality of life. Kew isdeveloping its breathing planet programmewith seven key activities:•creating global access to essential information•identifying species and regions most at risk•helping implement global conservationprogrammes

•extending the Millennium Seed Bank’s globalpartnership

•establishing a global network for restorationecology

•identifying and growing locally appropriatespecies in a changing climate

•using botanic gardens as shop-frontopportunities to inform and inspire

Contact: Prof Simon J. OwensTel: 020 8332 5106Fax: 020 8332 5109Email: [email protected]: www.kew.orgTwo stunning gardens-devoted to building andsharing knowledge



NaturalHistoryMuseumContact: Joe BakerExternal Relations ManagerNatural History MuseumCromwell RoadLondon SW7 5BDTel: +44 (0)20 7942 5478Fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5075E-mail: [email protected]: www.nhm.ac.uk

The Natural History Museum is the UK’s premierinstitute for knowledge on the diversity of thenatural world, conducting scientific research ofglobal impact and renown. We maintain anddevelop the collections we care for and use themto promote the discovery, understanding,responsible use and enjoyment of the worldaround us.

The Nutrition Society Contact: Frederick Wentworth-Bowyer, Chief Executive, The Nutrition Society,10 Cambridge Court, 210 Shepherds Bush RoadLondon W6 7NJTel: +44 (0)20 7602 0228Fax: +44 (0)20 7602 1756Email: [email protected]

Founded in 1941, The Nutrition Society is the premierscientific and professional body dedicated to advancethe scientific study of nutrition and its application to themaintenance of human and animal health.Highly regarded by the scientific community, the Societyis the largest learned society for nutrition in Europe.Membership is worldwide and is open to those with agenuine interest in the science of human or animalnutrition.Principal activities include: 1. Publishing internationally renowned scientificlearned journals2. Promoting the education and training of nutritionists3. Promoting the highest standards of professionalcompetence and practice in nutrition4. Disseminating scientific information through itspublications and programme of scientific meetings

NewcastleUniversityContact: Dr Douglas RobertsonNewcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RUTel: 0191 222 5347 Fax: 0191 222 5219E-mail: [email protected]: www.ncl.ac.uk

Newcastle University has a well-balancedportfolio of research funding with one of thehighest levels of research projects funded byUK Government Departments, as well as a verysignificant portfolio of FP6 EU activity of morethan 140 projects involving some 1,800partners. A member of the Russell Group,Newcastle University is committed to'excellence with a purpose' - a commitment it istaking further through the development ofNewcastle Science City and as a partner in theN8 group of Northern research-intensiveuniversities.

Natural EnglandContact: Dr Tom TewChief ScientistNatural EnglandNorthminster HousePeterboroughPE1 1UA Tel: 01733 455056Fax: 01733 568834Email: [email protected] Website: www.naturalengland.org.uk

Natural England has the responsibility to

enhance biodiversity, landscape and wildlife in

rural, urban, coastal and marine areas; promote

access, recreation and public well-being, and

contribute to the way natural resources are

managed so that they can be enjoyed now and

by future generations.

PHARMAQ LtdContact: Dr Lydia A BrownPHARMAQ Ltd Unit 15 Sandleheath Industrial Estate,Fordingbridge Hants SP6 1PA.Tel: 01425 656081Fax: 01425 655309E-mail: [email protected]: www.pharmaq.nohttp://www.pharmaq.co.uk/shop

Veterinary pharmaceuticals specia-lising in aquatic veterinary products.Fish vaccines, anaesthetics, antibioticsand other products.

PlymouthMarineSciencesPartnershipContact: Liz HumphreysThe Laboratory, Citadel HillPlymouth PL1 2PB

Tel: +44 (0)1752 633 234Fax: +44 (0)1752 633 102E-mail: [email protected]: www.pmsp.org.uk

The Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnershipcomprises seven leading marine science andtechnology institutions representing one of thelargest regional clusters of expertise in marinesciences, education, engineering and technologyin Europe. The mission of PMSP is to deliverworld-class marine research and teaching, toadvance knowledge, technology andunderstanding of the seas.

Contact: Philip Greenish CBE, Chief Executive3 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5DGTel: 020 7766 0600 E-mail: [email protected]: www.raeng.org.ukAs Britain’s national academy forengineering, we bring together the country’smost eminent engineers from all disciplinesto promote excellence in the science, art andpractice of engineering. Our strategicpriorities are to enhance the UK’sengineering capabilities; to celebrateexcellence and inspire the next generation;and to lead debate by guiding informedthinking and influencing public policy.

ProspectContact: Sue Ferns, Prospect Head of Research and SpecialistServices, New Prospect House8 Leake St, London SE1 7NNTel: 020 7902 6639 Fax: 020 7902 6637E-mail: [email protected]

Prospect is an independent, thriving andforward-looking trade union with 102,000members. We represent scientists,technologists and other professions in thecivil service, research councils and privatesector.

Prospect’s collective voice champions theinterests of the engineering and scientificcommunity to key opinion-formers andpolicy makers. With negotiating rights withover 300 employers, we seek to secure abetter life at work by putting members’ pay,conditions and careers first.

National Physical LaboratoryNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonMiddlesex TW11 0LWTel: 020 8943 6880 Fax: 020 8614 1446E-mail: [email protected]: www.npl.co.uk

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is theUnited Kingdom’s national measurementinstitute, an internationally respected andindependent centre of excellence in research,development and knowledge transfer inmeasurement and materials science. For morethan a century, NPL has developed andmaintained the nation’s primary measurementstandards - the heart of an infrastructuredesigned to ensure accuracy, consistency andinnovation in physical measurement.



Contact: Dr Faye StokesMarlborough House, Basingstoke Road,Spencers Wood, Reading RG7 1AG.Tel: 0118 988 1830 Fax: 0118 988 5656E-mail: [email protected]: www.sgm.ac.uk

SGM is the largest microbiological society inEurope. The Society publishes four journals ofinternational standing, and organises regularscientific meetings.

SGM also promotes education and careers inmicrobiology, and it is committed to representmicrobiology to government, the media and thepublic.

An information service on microbiological issuesconcerning aspects of medicine, agriculture,food safety, biotechnology and the environmentis available on request.

Society ofChemicalIndustryContact: Andrew Ladds, Chief ExecutiveSCI International Headquarters14-15 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8PSTel: 020 7598 1500 Fax: 020 7598 1545E-mail: [email protected]: www.soci.org

SCI is an interdisciplinary network for science,commerce and industry. SCI attracts forward-thinking people in the process and materialstechnologies and in the biotechnology, energy,water, agriculture, food, pharmaceuticals,construction, and environmental protection sectorsworldwide. Members exchange ideas and gainnew perspectives on markets, technologies,strategies and people, through electronic andphysical specialist conferences and debates, andour published journals , books and the respectedmagazine Chemistry & Industry.

UniversitiesFederation for Animal WelfareContact: Dr James Kirkwood, Scientific DirectorThe Old School, Brewhouse HillWheathampstead, Herts. AL4 8AN.Tel: 01582 831818. Fax: 01582 831414.Email: [email protected]: www.ufaw.org.uk Registered Charity No: 207996

UFAW is an internationally-recognized independentscientific and educational animal welfare charity. Itworks to improve animal lives by:• supporting animal welfare research.• educating and raising awareness of welfare

issues in the UK and overseas.• producing the leading journal Animal Welfare and

other high-quality publications on animal care and welfare.

• providing expert advice to governmentdepartments and other concerned bodies.

Society of Cosmetic Scientists Contact: Lorna Weston,Secretary GeneralSociety of Cosmetic ScientistsG T House, 24-26 Rothesay Road, Luton, BedsLU1 1QXTel: 01582 726661Fax: 01582 405217E-mail: [email protected]: www.scs.org.uk

Advancing the science of cosmetics is the primaryobjective of the SCS. Cosmetic science covers a widerange of disciplines from organic and physicalchemistry to biology and photo-biology, dermatology,microbiology, physical sciences and psychology.

Members are scientists and the SCS helps themprogress their careers and the science of cosmeticsethically and responsibly. Services includepublications, educational courses and scientificmeetings.

The RoyalInstitutionContact: Dr Gail CardewHead of ProgrammesThe Royal Institution21 Albemarle Street, London W1S 4BSTel: 020 7409 2992 Fax: 020 7670 2920E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.rigb.org

The core activities of the Royal Institution centrearound four main themes: science research,education, communication and history. It acts as aunique forum for engaging people in scientificdebate, and has a UK-wide programme of informalscience learning and mathematics enrichment. Thebuilding has been closed for the last three years,and will open in summer 2008 when the publicwill have access to an extended museum, newsocial spaces and upgraded facilities in the historiclecture theatre. There will also be a new focus forthe Davy Faraday Research Laboratories.

The Royal Societyof ChemistryContact: Dr Stephen BennParliamentary AffairsThe Royal Society of ChemistryBurlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BATel: 020 7437 8656 Fax: 020 7734 1227E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.rsc.orghttp://www.chemsoc.org

The Royal Society of Chemistry is a learned,professional and scientific body of over 46,000members with a duty under its Royal Charter“to serve the public interest”. It is active in theareas of education and qualifications, sciencepolicy, publishing, Europe, information andinternet services, media relations, publicunderstanding of science, advice and assistanceto Parliament and Government.

Contact: Dr David J WinstanleySpecial Advisor for ScienceSemta, Wynyard Park House, Wynyard Park, Billingham, TS22 5TBTel: 01740 627021 Mobile: 07973 679 338E-mail: [email protected]: www.semta.org.uk

Semta (Science, Engineering and ManufacturingTechnologies Alliance) is the Sector Skills Council for thescience, engineering and manufacturing technology sectors.

Our mission is to ensure that our industry partners have theknowledge and skills required to meet the challenges facedby the workforce of the future.

Our sectors account for a significant proportion of the UKeconomy. There are about 2 million people employed inabout 76,000 establishments in the core Science,Engineering and Technology sectors, and currentlycontributes over £74 billion per annum – about ten per cent– of total UK GDP.

The Royal StatisticalSocietyContact: Mr Andrew GarrattPress and Public Affairs OfficerThe Royal Statistical Society12 Errol Sreet, London EC1Y 8LX.Tel: +44 20 7614 3920Fax: +44 20 7614 3905E-mail: [email protected]: www.rss.org.ukThe RSS is a leading source of independent advice,comment and discussion on statistical issues. Itplays a crucial role in promoting publicunderstanding of statistics and acts as an advocatefor the interests of statisticians and users ofstatistics. The Society actively contributes togovernment consultations, Royal Commissions,parliamentary select committee inquiries, and tothe legislative process, most notably during thepassage of the Statistics and Registration ServiceAct 2007.

The Royal SocietyContact: Dr Peter CotgreaveDirector of Public AffairsThe Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5AG.Tel: 020 7451 2502 Fax: 020 7930 2170Email: [email protected]: www.royalsociety.org

The Royal Society is the UK academy of sciencecomprising 1400 outstanding individualsrepresenting the sciences, engineering andmedicine. As we prepare for our 350th anniversaryin 2010, our strategic priorities for our work atnational and international levels are to:· Invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation

· Influence policymaking with the best scientificadvice

· Invigorate science and mathematics education

· Increase access to the best science internationally

· Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder andexcitement of scientific discovery.



ScienceDiaryThe Parliamentary andScientific CommitteeContact: Annabel Lloyd020 7222 7085:[email protected]

There will be evening discussionmeetings on the following dates,subjects and speakers to be confirmed:

Tuesday 21 October 17.30Tuesday 18 November 17.30Tuesday 9 December 17.30Tuesday 20 January 2009 17.30

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Royal Institution

The Royal Institution’s lecture theatrehas reopened, and the rest of itsrefurbished building will open inSeptember 2008. All events take placeat the Royal Institution unlessotherwise stated. See www.rigb.org ortelephone 020 7409 2992 for fulldetails and to book tickets.

Saturday 2 August drop in between 11.00and 16.00Family fun day

Thursday 7 August 20.00Star trek II: the wrath of KhanFilm screening

Monday 11 August 19.00The fiction lab

Saturday 6 September drop in between11.00 and 16.00Family fun day

Monday 8 September 19.00The fiction lab

Thursday 25 September 19.00Science today, health tomorrow

Friday 3 October 20.00Advertising - the science ofpersuasion?Winston Fletcher

Saturday 4 October drop in between 11.00and 16.00Family fun day

Tuesday 7 October 19.00What on earth happened?Christopher Lloyd

Friday 10 October 20.00Secrets of your immune systemProf Daniel Davis

Friday 24 October 20.00Neurons, neighbourhoods and theemotional nuclear bombCamila Batmanghelidjh

Monday 27 October 19.00Patterns in the brainProf Tipo Aziz and Prof Tamar Flash

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Royal Society

The Royal Society runs a series ofevents, both evening lectures and twoday discussion meetings, on topicscovering the whole breadth of science,engineering and technology. All theevents are free to attend and open toall.

Highlights in the next few monthsinclude:

Monday 29 and Tuesday 30 September (allday)Talent and autism

All Royal Society lectures are availablefrom the Royal Society website. Thecollection includes over 200 lectureswith speakers including DavidAttenborough, Ottoline Leyer andJames Lovelock. Details of all of theseplus our forthcoming eventsprogramme can be found atroyalsociety.org

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Royal Academy ofEngineering

3 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DGwww.raeng.org.uk/events [email protected] 7766 0600

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Royal Society of Edinburgh

22-26 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2PQ.Tel: 0131 240 5000 Fax: 0131 240 [email protected]

All events require registration and,unless otherwise indicated, take placeat the RSE.

Monday 1 September18.00Does God Play Dice?Professor Miles Padgett FRSE

Thursday 11 September Full DayComputer Predictions for Nature andSociety: Should they be Trusted?

Monday 22 September 18.00Challenges of Road PricingProfessor Frank Kelly FRS

Monday 29 and Tuesday 30 September FulldayDrugs of the Future for the Elderly

Tuesday 30 September 17.30Availability of Drugs for the Elderly

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The BA

Saturday 6 – Thursday 11 SeptemberBA Festival of Science

The BA Festival of Science, whichbrings over 350 of the UK’s topscientists to discuss the latestdevelopments in science with thepublic at a different UK location eachyear, will take place at the Universityof Liverpool and across the EuropeanCapital of Culture. Organised inpartnership with the University ofLiverpool with support from theDepartment for Innovation,Universities & Skills, the LiverpoolCulture Company and the NorthwestRegional Development Agency.

Please see www.the-ba.net/festivalofscience formore information, including an onlineprogramme of events.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––



Officers of the Parliamentary& Scientific Committee

President: The Rt Hon Lord Jenkinof Roding

Chairman: Dr Douglas Naysmith MP

Deputy Chairmen: Dr Desmond Turner MP

Mr Robert Key MP

Hon Treasurer: Dr Ian Gibson MP

Hon Secretaries: Dr Evan Harris MP

Mr Robert Goodwill MP

Vice-Presidents: Dr Brian Iddon MP

Dr David Dent

Professor Peter Saunders

Mr Andrew Miller MP

Mr Philip Greenish CBE

Mr Robert Freer

Mr Ian Taylor MBE MP

Professor Julia King CBE FREng

Advisory Panel: Professor Alan Malcolm

Mr Paul Ridout

Dr Robert Kirby-Harris

Secretariat: Professor Peter Simpson

Mrs Annabel Lloyd

Science in Parliament

3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ

Tel: 020 7222 7085 Fax: 020 7222 7189

Editor: Professor Peter Simpson

Editorial Assistant: Mrs Annabel Lloyd

Editorial/Management Board:

Dr Brian Iddon MP (Chairman)

Mr Robert Freer

Dr Ashok Kumar MP

Professor Alan Malcolm

Mr Andrew Miller MP

Dr Douglas Naysmith MP

The Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, 3 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ.Published four times a year. The 2008 subscription rate is £66.80. Single numbers £16.70ISSN 0263-6271All enquiries, including those from members wishing to take the front or back covers, advertise in the journal or appear in the directory to Mrs AnnabelLloyd, Tel 020 7222 7085Copyright ©2008 by Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. All rights reserved. None of the articles in this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise without the prior writtenpermission of the copyright owner.Typeset and printed by The Bridge Press.

Royal PharmaceuticalSociety of Great Britain

Contact: [email protected]

Events are held at the RoyalPharmaceutical Society of GreatBritain, London

Thursday 16 October 10.00 – 16.30Advances in pharmaceuticallaboratory efficiencyOne-day symposium

Monday 20 – Tuesday 21 October 13.00 -17.30FIP Workshop: Special dosage forms– What’s new with in vitro drugrelease?Pre-satellite workshop toBiointernational conferencePresented by the InternationalPharmaceutical Federation (FIP) andthe Royal Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain (RPSGB)

Wednesday 22 – Friday 24 October 09.00-13.45

Bio-International 2008: Towardsimproved harmonization inregulating multisource productsPresented by the InternationalPharmaceutical Federation (FIP), andthe Royal Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain (RPSGB) in co-operationwith the American Association ofPharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) andthe European Federation forPharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS) .


Action Medical Research Action on Addiction Alcohol Education & Research Council, TheAlzheimer's Research Trust Alzheimer's Society Arthritis Research Campaign Association for International Cancer Research Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Asthma UK Ataxia - Telangiectasia Society Ataxia UK BackCareBardhan Research and Education Trust of Rotherham Beit Memorial Fellowships for Medical Research Blackie Foundation Trust Blond McIndoe Research Foundation Brain Research Trust Breakthrough Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Campaign British Council for Prevention of Blindness British Heart Foundation British Liver Trust British Lung Foundation British Neurological Research Trust, The British Occupational Health Research FoundationBritish Pain Society, The British Retinitis Pigmentosa SocietyBritish Scoliosis Research Foundation British Sjögren's Syndrome Association British Skin Foundation BUPA Foundation Cancer Research UK CFS Research Foundation Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland Children with Leukaemia Children's Liver Disease Foundation Chronic Disease Research Foundation Chronic Granulomatous Disorder Research Trust Circulation Foundation (British Vascular Foundation)Core (The Digestive Disorders Foundation) Cystic Fibrosis Trust Deafness Research UK DEBRADiabetes Research & Wellness Foundation Diabetes UK Dunhill Medical TrustEMF Biological Research Trust Epilepsy Research UK (incorporating Epilepsy ResearchFoundation and Fund for Epilepsy)Fight for SightFoundation for Liver Research Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths Guy's and St Thomas' Charity Healing Foundation Heart Research UK Huntington's Disease Association Hypertension Trust Inspire Foundation International Spinal Research Trust (Spinal Research)Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

Kidney Research UKKids Kidney ResearchLister Institute of Preventive Medicine Little Foundation Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Marie Curie Research Institute Mason Medical Research Foundation Medical Research Scotland (formally Scottish Hospital

Endowments Research Trust, SHERT)Meningitis Research Foundation Meningitis Trust Meningitis UK (Registered as Spencer Dayman

Meningitis UK)Migraine Trust Motor Neurone Disease Association Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland Muscular Dystrophy Campaign National Association for Colitis & Crohn's Disease National Eye Research Centre National Osteoporosis Society Neuro-Disability Research Trust North West Cancer Research Fund Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association Northern Ireland Leukaemia Research Fund Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation Nuffield Foundation Ovarian Cancer ActionParkinson's Disease Society of the UK PBC Foundation (UK) Ltd, The Primary Immunodeficiency Association Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Association, TheProstate Cancer Charity, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, The Psoriasis Association RAFT - The Restoration of Appearance and

Function Trust RemediResearch Into AgeingRoy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, The Royal College of Surgeons of England Samantha Dickson Brain Tumour TrustSir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust Society for Endocrinology South West Thames Kidney FundSPARKS (Sport Aiding Medical Research for Kids) St Peter's Trust for Kidney, Bladder & Prostate Research Stroke Association, The Tenovus Tommy's The Baby Charity Tuberous Sclerosis Association Ulster Cancer Foundation Wellbeing of Women WellChild (Registered as The WellChild Trust) Wellcome Trust, The Wessex Medical Trust William Harvey Research Foundation World Cancer Research Fund Yorkshire Cancer Research

Our members

Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC)61 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8TL Tel: 020-7269-8820 Fax: 020-7269-8821 Website: www.amrc.org.uk


Summer 2008 - Science in Parliament

Documents