---

Science and Technology

My Lords, the House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, for bringing this topic for debate. It goes without saying that a healthy science and technology is vital for the advancement of the economy of any country. This debate asks the question whether Britain is well placed to accomplish that in the modern day—and I regret to say that I am not as sanguine about the answer as the noble Lord is. I shall address three questions in this debate. First, does the proportion of the national income spend on research and development compare with that of other competitor countries? Secondly, do we adequately recognise our research and development personnel compared with other countries, especially those in universities? Thirdly, and slightly away from the major question, how does United Kingdom research and development impact on the global village? First, with some countries, such as China and India, it is not easy to get a figure for how large a proportion of national income is spent on research and development. In addition, the cheap labour situation in some countries makes it difficult to compare. But it is vital to our own economy that research and development matches that of some of those countries. Some five years ago, I had the privilege of leading a Department of Trade and Industry mission to China to assess biotechnology development in that country. Our conclusion at that time was that there was much ““me too”” development going on, but we recognised that very shortly China would be equivalent to, if not in the lead, of some western countries, including our own. And so it has been—and we all know how many electronic devices, items of clothing, cosmetics, medicines, vaccines and so on bear the label ““Made in China””. That has resulted from a massive commitment on the part of the Chinese to research and development. What should be the target of research and development spend as part of the economic advancement looked for by the Chancellor? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave a target of 2.5 per cent of the national income to be reached in 2014—but are we placing ourselves in jeopardy by waiting that long? We should take care that we do not place ourselves in such jeopardy. Figures given nationally find that the United Kingdom lags behind the European Union average, and our own 1.86 per cent spend of national income has remained static for the past decade. Similarly, business spending has remained at 1.25 per cent. The Department of Trade and Industry’s research and development scorecard, a detailed international analysis of corporate spending, indicates that Britain is in fact falling behind. We are at present strong in research and development in the pharmaceutical field, but can we feel confident that this will continue? How many small and medium companies have moved elsewhere from the United Kingdom because of, for example, harassment by animal activists, as has been mentioned? New legislation will curb much of this, and—many people think—the sooner the better, but it takes determination and courage to stand up to such activities, as has been demonstrated by Huntingdon Life Sciences personnel. Medical and pharmaceutical research, however, is mobile, as are those who conduct it. They are capable of moving to other countries, and, with the problems associated with the Cambridge primate lab and the animal lab in Oxford, I know full well that the scouts from American laboratories and institutions are out for the best brains who may think it useful to move to other parts of the world. Doubtless your Lordships will have received papers from the Association of University teachers and university academic staff in their campaign for higher salaries for some 65,000 academics and research workers. I have complete sympathy with them for their case. For far too long academic salaries have been unbelievably low for individuals who have achieved so much, got higher degrees, undertaken important research, received prizes, and done a lot of teaching and administration. This lack of adequate rewards has made it a challenge to fill vacancies in departments of all kinds. A glance at some of the scientific journals shows that the list of research student opportunities is large, but also that the number of places to be filled by graduates, postgraduates and post-doctorals is also large. If we look over the membership of many departments in this country, we see a relatively high proportion of non-British names. It is no bad thing to have strong representation from overseas, but I would like to see that adequately balanced by personnel from the UK. This aspect brings me to my final comment on how British science and technology is related to the global village we live in. A strong base in science and technology reflects on the contribution a country can make in the developing world. The strength of research attracts major funding, as instanced by the Gates Foundation placing major funding for malaria research in this country and the Wellcome Trust supporting tropical disease work. So much of this effort, though welcome, is for high-profile diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and malnutrition. There are, however, a number of diseases that have been labelled ““neglected tropical diseases””—protozoan parasites, worms and so on. These are as important as many of the high-profile diseases, and research and development is needed for them as well. Many of the people who might come to this country for further training, as PhDs or post-doctorals, could contribute enormously and bring with them the concept of helping in these countries. Certain pharmaceutical companies have freely donated medicines to control some of these neglected diseases for as long as needed. Finally, the public/private partnerships now increasingly evident in the third world, and aided by the Commission for Africa established by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a Marshall Plan for Africa, exemplify our commitment to the global village and will transfer our excellence in research and development to that global village, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya.