Letters: Government and science research
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Jeremy Bray, MP
Sir: The worrying thing about moving the Office of Science and Technology (OST) to the Department of Trade and Industry ("No Minister, this is not a good idea", 25 July; letter, 27 July) is not so much what it says about the Government's understanding of science, but about its lack of understanding of what has been happening in industry.
High-tech industry, present and future, is well adapted to work with the research councils directly under the OST. Pharmaceuticals is the outstanding example. Other industries need more intermediation. So Labour supported the proposal for developing the contract research and technology organisations (RTOs) into a systematic network, labelled Faraday Institutes. They would have core funding for a basic technology programme in their own field (which at present they cannot afford, so their standards are slipping) and contracts for post-graduate training, in co-operation with universities, of high-grade professionals and technicians, adding strength to their existing contract research business. The Faraday network would be the responsibility of the DTI. The Tories put forward a similar proposal, which disappeared in the fog of Heseltinism.
Science, technology and research have to be pursued in departments, with basic research, common services, and a degree of oversight and encouragement from the centre, as has been recognised since Haldane's 1918 report on The Machinery of Government. This cannot be done by the DTI. When I put forward Labour proposals for an OST before the election, we recognised that it had to be associated with other central functions in government. The form the Tories adopted has not survived.
Government needs to harness the new powers of information technology, research and analysis that have developed so rapidly in recent years. There has been a huge advance in available technique, but it is a generation since government concepts of its use were updated.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Bray
MP for Motherwell South (Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
29 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments