A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.

This report considers a broad issue-why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy-and three more specific issues-the debate on strategic priorities, the principles that inform science funding decisions and the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government. It revisits recommendations made in "Engineering: turning ideas into reality" (4th report session 2008-09, HC 50-I, ISBN 9780215529268). The Committee reiterates its call for the Government to move the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and his Government Office for Science into the heart of Government, the Cabinet Office. It also urges the Government to safeguard the independence of all Science Advisory Committees and make a number of recommendations on how this might be achieved. For example, transparency could be improved and setting up a press office in GO-Science would give SACs an independent voice. The principles that govern UK science funding decisions are discussed, and the report advocates a principle that can accommodate regional science policy, the full range of research funding streams, mission driven research, and the rationalisation of detailed and strategic funding decisions. Finally, the report welcomes changes to the Government's internal science scrutiny programme, and the House of Commons' decision to reinstate the Science and Technology Committee.

Government response to HC 168-I (ISBN 9780215540348)

In March 2009, the predecessor Science and Technology Committee published the findings of its wide-ranging inquiry into engineering, "Engineering: turning ideas into reality" (HCP 50-I, session 2008-09, ISBN 9780215529268). The Committee examined four case studies: (i) nuclear engineering; (ii) plastic electronics engineering; (iii) geo-engineering; and (iv) engineering in Government. Through the case study on engineering in Government, the Committee made a number of recommendations to improve the Government's use of engineering advice and expertise in policy processes, which were supplemented further by the 2009 report "Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy" (HCP 168-I, session 2008-09, ISBN 9780215540348). In this report, the Committee states that Government and the engineering community have made progress in integrating engineering expertise and concerns into the formulation of policy. The formation of the Engineering the Future alliance as a coordinated voice for the professional engineering community and the ongoing efforts of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser in raising the profile of engineering advice are commended. The Government needs to ensure that engineering continues to have a high profile in policy, and particularly in policy development.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : First report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, and written Evidence

In the UK we teach young people to become computer users and consumers rather than programmers and software engineers. This is creating a chronic skills gap in ICT. We need around 82,000 engineers and technicians just to deal with retirements up to 2016 and 830,000 SET professionals by 2020. On the plus side, the Government's proposal to include computer science as a fourth science option to count towards the EBac is welcomed. The Committee also welcomes the EBac's focus on attainment of mathematics and science GCSEs but is concerned that subjects such as Design and Technology (D&T) might be marginalised. A Technical Baccalaureate (TechBac) is being designed but if it is to be a success, schools should be incentivised to focus on the TechBac by making it equivalent to the EBac. Reforms to vocational education following the Wolf Review meant that Level 2 of the Engineering Diploma, a qualification highly regarded, would count as equivalent to one GCSE despite requiring curriculum time and effort equivalent to several GCSEs. The Engineering Diploma, however, is currently being redesigned as four separate qualifications. The Committee also expressed concerns over the Department for Education's (DfE) lack of clarity on its research budget, and use of evidence in decision-making. The DfE needs to place greater focus on gathering evidence before changes to qualifications are made, and must leave sufficient time for evidence to be gathered on the effectiveness of policies before introducing further change. The possibility of gathering evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be seriously considered

The Government decided to consider and issue, by the end of December 2009, a set of principles applying to the treatment of independent scientific advice provided to Government. This followed the Home Secretary's dismissal of Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.