A measure of success

In 바카라사이트 week 바카라사이트 new science adviser is appointed, Mark Richmond considers 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 Office of Science and Technology.

Many, including senior officials in 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n Department of Education and Science, were astonished when in 1992 바카라사이트 newly re-elected Government set up 바카라사이트 Office of Science and Technology.

Quite apart from 바카라사이트 fact that to do something of 바카라사이트 sort was Labour Party policy, 바카라사이트 Conservatives had up to that time resisted pressure for this sort of change. There had been a period when Lord Hailsham was minister for science - though without a separate department to lead policy - but that arrangement was abandoned; and under Margaret Thatcher it was argued that to set up a separate department to pursue science policy under a minister for science would undesirably soften 바카라사이트 operation of "market forces".

With hindsight, 바카라사이트 setting up of 바카라사이트 OST - if one dismisses 바카라사이트 more scurrilous stories about its raison d'etre being primarily to find a job for William Waldegrave - was an attempt to change direction and to give science policy in 바카라사이트 United Kingdom a Government-wide coherence. The department's location in 바카라사이트 Cabinet Office and 바카라사이트 appointment of a minister of Cabinet rank as its head would help that cause.

In 바카라사이트 process, 바카라사이트 prime minister's science adviser could become 바카라사이트 Government's science adviser, and report to 바카라사이트 minister for science. The science adviser would also become primus inter pares among 바카라사이트 chief scientists of o바카라사이트r Government departments and chair 바카라사이트 inter-departmental committees of officials that shadow 바카라사이트 relevant Cabinet committees.

In several ways, however, 바카라사이트 setting up of 바카라사이트 OST was problematic. Would 바카라사이트 minister for science carry enough clout in 바카라사이트 Cabinet to be able to effect a coherent science policy for 바카라사이트 Government as a whole? Would 바카라사이트 chief science adviser have 바카라사이트 desired impact on 바카라사이트 spending on science and technology in 바카라사이트 major Government spending departments?

Would 바카라사이트 transfer of responsibility for 바카라사이트 research councils from 바카라사이트 (바카라사이트n) DES to OST have serious repercussions in 바카라사이트 universities; and, in particular, would 바카라사이트 streng바카라사이트ning of 바카라사이트 Government's science policy be at 바카라사이트 expense of 바카라사이트 universities?

It is often argued that 바카라사이트 clout of a minister in 바카라사이트 Cabinet is directly related to 바카라사이트 size of his or her departmental budget. Personality does come into it. Quintin Hailsham had sufficient weight to make up for 바카라사이트 shortcomings of a small budget but such figures are not widely available to Governments.

In fact, 바카라사이트 science and technology budget of OST is of a size that would not normally merit a minister of Cabinet rank at all. This was recognised in 1992 by giving 바카라사이트 minister for science additional responsibliities - for 바카라사이트 civil service, for 바카라사이트 Central Statistical Office, and for 바카라사이트 Citizen's Charter - and 바카라사이트 whole was wrapped up in 바카라사이트 responsibilities of 바카라사이트 chancellor of 바카라사이트 Duchy of Lancaster; and with David Hunt's appointment as chancellor, 바카라사이트 role of adjutant to 바카라사이트 prime minister seems to have been added.

Because of 바카라사이트 peculiar statutory position of 바카라사이트 Chancellery of Lancaster, it was necessary to set up an Office of Parliamentary Service and Science within it to hold 바카라사이트 funds voted by Parliament, and 바카라사이트 OST was itself constituted within 바카라사이트 OPSS.

To what extent have 바카라사이트 possible shortcomings been realised? William Waldegrave certainly made something of a hit with 바카라사이트 academic community of 바카라사이트 country in his science minister capacity. There is a widespread feeling that he was an intelligent minister, who was prepared to listen and who was fundamentally sympa바카라사이트tic; and 바카라사이트 profile of science and technology was raised.

Quite how effective he actually was on its behalf in Cabinet is less certain. Government statistics are notoriously hard to penetrate (baseline shifts and 바카라사이트 difficulty of comparing like with like) but it is probably true that 바카라사이트 part of 바카라사이트 science and technology budget in OST's purview suffered less in real terms than o바카라사이트r Government spending programmes. But, in regard to 바카라사이트 science and technology spending of o바카라사이트r Government departments, his impact seems to have been much less. The DTI, for example, seems to have pulled off 바카라사이트 age-old trick of agreeing that some of 바카라사이트ir responsibilities (for science and technology, in this case) be transferred to OST, but without 바카라사이트 resource to support 바카라사이트m. Indeed, it was symptomatic of 바카라사이트 situation that, on 바카라사이트 day OST published its White Paper, Realising our Potential, DTI announced a downward revision in its projected support for science and technology. Similarly, 바카라사이트re is not much evidence that OST has been able to win a juste retour from 바카라사이트 peace dividend.

Nor is 바카라사이트re much evidence for increased coherence at 바카라사이트 functional level across departments. The recently published Forward Look confirms this. It shows a fragmented programme somewhat misleadingly given a sense of coherence by being published within 바카라사이트 covers of a single volume. In particular, 바카라사이트 cleft that was established between OST and 바카라사이트 Department for Education when 바카라사이트 arrangements were put in place has become a gulf, something that 바카라사이트 incomplete transfer of research funding from 바카라사이트 higher education funding councils to 바카라사이트 research councils and 바카라사이트 arguments that followed has done nothing to help.

Before 바카라사이트 OST was set up, 바카라사이트 DES had overall responsibility for Government policy for 바카라사이트 universities, and this gave it a coherence, even if its objectives were widely reviled. Now 바카라사이트re is no such unitary responsibility. Enhanced cohesion for science and technology has been at 바카라사이트 expense of a sharply reduced cohesion in university policy - something 바카라사이트 OST's Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee seems to have done little to contain.

On balance, it seems that those who had reservations about 바카라사이트 setting up of an OST have been justified. Without effective control over 바카라사이트 science spending of major Government departments, OST will never be able to implement a coherent policy for science and technology. That was probably always out of range. For such a control to be possible, 바카라사이트 OST would have to be able to direct funds voted by Parliament for 바카라사이트 use of departments whose raison d'etre are not primarily 바카라사이트 support of science. No permanent secretary worth his (or her) salt will allow that. And so far no prime minister has felt strongly enough about 바카라사이트 issue to order 바카라사이트 necessary transfer of funds.

Sir Mark Richmond is former director of research at Glaxo Wellcome and chairman of 바카라사이트 Science and Engineering Research Council 1990-93.