SEB Bulletin January 2008
Contents
Biosciences Federation
There are frequent reports and comments about the shortage of skills in the biosciences: shortages that are important and potentially damaging to the prosperity of our country. However “skills” do not exist in some semi-independent context. It is always necessary to define what the “skills” are needed for, and this can produce conflicts for those responsible for the delivery of our bioscience skill base.
The first skill that we all need is the skill to be a good and productive citizen. In a knowledge-driven economy, scientific skills should be part of the skills portfolio of as many citizens as possible, even though they do not themselves pursue a career in science. For me, it is highly desirable that we have more citizens who understand the scientific method, who appreciate the difference between probabilities and absolutes and who make decisions on the basis of evidence and not Luddite prejudice. With this training, public discussion about climate change, biodiversity or disease will be better informed and there will be greater understanding of the contribution that practicing scientists are making to the debate. In time, the public trust in scientists, which is already quite good, might improve further. The knowledge-driven economy demands a scientifically literate population. Delivery of this essential skill is an important responsibility of our schools and universities.
However more usually, a skills shortage is used to describe a more specific problem than the generic need to have science as part of our everyday cultural base. The BSF, together with the ABPI, has just published a report entitled “In vivo sciences in the UK: sustaining the supply of skills in the 21st century” (the report is available at www.bsf.ac.uk). One of our recommendations is that a small number of Masters Programmes could be introduced to help alleviate a shortage that is already with us and is having important effects in the pharmaceutical sector. We propose 36 dedicated studentships for this Programme for each of the next three years. This is an important area and yet the solution involves really small numbers: in vivo skills are definitely not required in all life science graduates. Of course, practical skills are very definitely required because most science and most biology are intensely practical subjects.
There are many other areas of the biosciences where skills are being lost and yet the solution needs relatively small numbers of practitioners. Take for example the field of systematics and taxonomy. There is no doubt that we are losing the capacity to identify precisely some of our native species - for example lichens. Yet we need really expert individuals in this area today perhaps even more than in the past: we cannot monitor the effects of climate change on our flora and fauna unless we can identify species correctly! Perhaps we will end up relying on the “gifted amateurs” who already contribute much in this area - but in this case the academic subject will be lost.
The production of modest numbers of high level experts in many areas of the biosciences is predominantly the responsibility of our universities and, to a lesser extent, the Research Councils. I write “lesser extent” because some disciplines - for example taxonomy - can be internationally excellent without relying on large grants. And this leads to a second problem. Much biology today is rightly “big science” - big grants and big teams. The business of running a University means that these big science teams are financially more attractive than those individuals virtually grant free. Furthermore, individuals without grants are likely to find it difficult to meet the charges that Open Access brings. The result of course is that there is real pressure on systematics and taxonomy (and many other minority skills) as a profession. However the country needs these skills.
Clearly the skills landscape is complex and varied. The question to face is whether or not the delivery of highly specialised skills can continue to be left to the vagaries of the market place. This essay is not leading to a conclusion that, for example, all Universities with a life science degree have Masters Programmes for in vivo skills, or that all plant science departments have top level taxonomic skills. That would be absurd. But the question to answer is how we produce those experts that the country requires - and in sufficient numbers.
Not everyone will like the last sentence. Some will have a wider view, especially in the context of their own expertise. But that can be left to the market place. What we need is confidence that the UK will have the full portfolio of bioscience skills that will be essential if we are to maintain our strong global position in this area. These are skills that would be difficult to “buy in” if our own skill base was lost.
What is needed is top down management, coupled with inducements, in order to build a few excellent teams in minority subjects that are nonetheless essential. Let funding be ring fenced and Universities/ Institutes compete for the money to provide leadership in these areas. This is not a new idea: it happens often. For example if you want capital equipment for structural biology from the BBSRC you have to apply from one of about ten Universities. What is new is the argument that this should be done to sustain skills - and there is the key word. Any initiative must be sustainable in the long term. These are not arguments for five years and then the money can be recycled into some other project. These are arguments for a generation - and, sadly, as a consequence they will not seem very dynamic where it matters.
Richard Dyer
CEO, Biosciences Federation