Science speaks

Nevil Shute had an interesting view of how to ensure that civil servants stand up to difficult ministers: make sure that they are not totally dependent on their salary to ensure the financial wellbeing of their wives & children.

“ … in a wealthy country with relatively low taxation & much inherited income, a proportion of the high officials will be independent of their job, & the standard of administration will probably be high.

I do not know the financial condition of the high officials in the Air Ministry at the time of the R101 disaster. I suspect, however, that an investigation would reveal that it was England’s bad luck that at that time none of them had any substantial private means. At rock bottom, that to me is probably the fundamental cause of the tragedy."

Nevil Shute: Slide Rule: An autobiography

Shute was involved with the design & construction of the R100, in a strange kind of government sponsored public/private competition to build the first British airship capable of inter-continental travel, which project also collapsed after the disastrous crash of the R101. He thought the tragedy was caused, in large part, by decisions driven by political expediency, insufficiently challenged by the engineers who worked for the government.

Of course in that particular example the unfortunate politician (Baron Thomson of Cardington, Secretary of State for Air) paid for his obduracy with his life.

I do not imagine that the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology had any such fate in mind for any existing or future Minister of the Crown when they recently set their minds to working out how to improve the effectiveness of Chief Scientific Advisers within government departments.

I cannot work out if the noble scientists are feeling particularly unloved & underappreciated, or if they are attempting something of a coup d’état – do what Simon The Science says, or else. Or maybe they just want to create jobs for the boys (& girls).

In order to make sure that science is given its due weight in government policy they are recommending the appointment of persons of ‘standing and authority within the scientific community, nationally and internationally’ to posts which are part-time (but at least three days a week) and for a period of three years (with the possibility of renewal). That is one post in each of 15 Departments of State.

For the avoidance of doubt, their Lordships take “science” to include the social sciences, as well as the natural and physical sciences and engineering, though not, apparently, economics & statistics which have their separate professions within the civil service.

But standing will not be enough. The scientific advisers will also need the ability to:
• engage in effective dialogue with internal and external stakeholders, including academia, industry and the wider public;
• work in and manage a multi-disciplinary team;
• evaluate evidence and to weigh up conflicting evidence from a wide range of disciplines;
as well as understanding of the policy environment & the techniques of project delivery.

Since It is considered unlikely that any scientist who has spent a whole career in the civil service would possess these qualities, recruitment must be from outside. One wonders what effect this might have on recruitment, retention & morale of those who know that the top job is for ever closed to them.

The Committee also recommend that a Chief Scientific Adviser should have a right of direct access to departmental ministers to ensure that they can challenge effectively at the highest level. This means that CSAs should ‘be able to see ministers at the prompting of the CSA and as often as judged necessary by the CSA’.

This strikes me as the kind of right which, if invoked on the basis of a formal clause in the CSA’s written contract, will signal that the battle is already lost. The aim should be to work oneself into the position where people ask (wanting genuinely to know) ‘What does Simon think about this?’ & rather than provoking the response ‘What does he want to shout at me about this time?’

To be in a position to dictate policy one has first to engage in politics. The right decisions do not just fall out of mathematical models or randomised experiments – would it were that easy. But those who do understand this evidence have an important role – to advise & to warn the decision makers about the likely consequences.

Politics is about the distribution of power – Esperanza Spalding on Front Row 22 March.

Links
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee - Fourth Report: The role and functions of departmental Chief Scientific Advisers
Nevil Shute: Slide Rule
Airship Heritage Trust: R 100 - G - FAAV
Bedford Borough Council: Airship R100 and R101
The life cycle of physicists

Related posts
Civil service
Parliamentary privilege
The revenge of the machine
Threat or promise?
Politicizing Nature
Burger mystery