House of Commons Science and Technology Committee the Work of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence PDF Download

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description

Author: Great Britain. Parliament House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780215015372
Category : Biotechnology
Languages : en
Pages : 109

View

Book Description
The Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council is a non-departmental public body under the Department of Trade and Industry, and its role is to support research and training regarding biological sciences, in order to advance knowledge and technology, contribute to UK economic competitiveness and promote public awareness of scientific issues. The Committee's report examines the work of the Council, and in particular its support for research and researchers, the role of its eight sponsored bodies, engagement activities and knowledge transfer. Findings include praise for the rate of grant applications, although more could be done to manage demand by following best practice identified by other Research Councils; and support for steps taken to reduce the number of staff employed on short term contracts. Although the Council is found to have worked hard to improve its public engagement role, a shortage of resources and poor communication are identified as barriers to success in this area.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215061829
Category : Language Arts & Disciplines
Languages : en
Pages : 188

View

Book Description
The Government's commitment to increasing access to published research findings and its desire to achieve full open access are welcomed in this report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. However, whilst Gold open access - where authors publish their articles in an open access journal that provides free immediate open access to all of its articles on the publisher's website - is a desirable ultimate goal, focusing on it during the transition to a fully open access world is a mistake. The Government and Research Council UK should reconsider their preference for Gold open access during the five year transition period, and give due regard to the evidence of the vital role that Green open access and repositories have to play as the UK moves towards full open access. (Authors opting for Green open access publish in any subscription journal, and then make their peer-reviewed final draft freely accessible online by self-archiving or depositing the article in a repository (either institutional or disciplinary) upon acceptance for publication.) Other recommendations include: promotion of standardisation and compliance across subject and institutional repositories; mitigation against the impact on universities of paying Article Processing Charges out of their own reserves; introduce a reduced VAT rate for e-journals; non-disclosure clauses should not be used in publishing contracts that include the use of public funds; BIS must review its consultation processes to ensure that lessons are learned from the lack of involvement of businesses, particularly SMEs, in the formation of open access policy

Author:
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215542663
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 148

View

Book Description
This report (HCP 44, session 2009-10, ISBN 9780215542663) from the Science and Technology Committee looks at literacy programmes evidence check and concludes that expectations by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of the quality of the evidence base for reading programmes are worryingly low. It urges the Government to commission randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Committee also states it is particularly concerned about the quality of evidence demonstrating cost-effectiveness of different programmes and further recommends that the Government reviews its guidelines on RCT design; it says even Wikipedia is more thorough and informative. The Committee also concludes, that: the Government's focus on early literacy interventions and phonics-based teaching is based on the best available evidence; the use of Reading Recovery is based on a lower quality of evidence than the Committee is comfortable with and that the decision to introduce Reading Recovery nationally is not evidence based. The Committee further expressed alarm that there was a complete lack of randomised controlled trials using standardised test scores for the Reading Recovery programme in the UK school system, before national implementation of the programme.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215544100
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 278

View

Book Description
Examines the Government's policies on the provision of homeopathy through the National Health Service (NHS) and the licensing of homeopathic products by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215545190
Category : Science
Languages : en
Pages : 48

View

Book Description
The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215556561
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 260

View

Book Description
In this report, the Science and Technology Committee examines how scientific advice and evidence is used in national emergencies, when the Government and scientific advisory system are put under great pressure to deal with atypical situations. The inquiry focused on four case studies: (i) the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu); (ii) the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption; (iii) space weather; and (iv) cyber attacks. While science is used effectively to aid responses to emergencies, the detachment of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) from the National Risk Assessment (NRA) - the key process of risk evaluation carried out by the Cabinet Office - is a serious concern. The Committee recommends that the NRA should not be signed off until the GCSA is satisfied that all risks requiring scientific input and judgements have been properly considered. A new independent scientific advisory committee should be set up to advise the Cabinet on risk assessment and review the NRA. The Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 is a stark example of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment: the risk of disruption to aviation caused by a natural disaster was dropped from the assessment process in 2009, despite warnings from earth scientists. There are concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic are raised in the report, with sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. The Scientific Advisory Groups in Emergencies, set up to advise government during emergencies, were found to work in an unnecessarily secretive way.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215560889
Category : Science
Languages : en
Pages : 258

View

Book Description
This report indicates that the oversight of research integrity in the UK is unsatisfactory. The Science and Technology Committee concludes that in order to allow others to repeat and build on experiments, researchers should aim for the gold standard of making their data fully disclosed and made publicly available. The report examines the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications and the related issues of research impact, data management, publication ethics and research integrity. The UK does not seem to have an oversight body for research integrity covering advice and assurance functions across all disciplines and the Committee recommends the creation of an external regulator. It also says all UK research institutions should have a specific member of staff leading on research integrity. The report highlights concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles. Innovative ways to improve current pre-publication peer-review practices are highlighted in the report, including the use of pre-print servers, open peer review, increased transparency and online repository-style journals. The growth of post-publication peer review and commentary also represents an enormous opportunity for experimentation with new media and social networking tools, which the Committee encourages. There should also be greater recognition of the work-sometimes considered to be a burden-carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. In order to do this, publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215020024
Category : Science
Languages : en
Pages : 164

View

Book Description
The focus of this inquiry, by the Science and Technology Committee, was the support by the UK Government for the Beagle 2 project developed as part of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Mars Express mission. The Committee found the Government showed enthusiasm for this project, but was unable to provide a guaranteed financial backing for the development of a lander, resulting in a failure to secure sufficient sponsorship income, which was subsequently seen to have a detrimental impact on the project's success. The Committee feels, that Government needs to put in place a system that can deal with major financial commitments at short notice. In hindsight, the development of the lander and orbiter separately is seen as wrong, impeding the flexible co-ordination of the mission, leading to tensions between the Beagle 2 consortium, ESA and other contractors. Further, there was a lack of co-ordinated oversight between these three groups, and therefore a failure to identify important weaknesses in the mission. Despite the failure of Beagle, the Committee does see some positive potential for future projects, both in scientific and educational benefits, but that the costs of such projects would benefit from greater participation by other organizations.