In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments will apply. Decisions about funding priorities are complex and require careful judgement about the deployment of funds between competing priorities. The Committee concludes that, in the current policy framework, there is a lack of oversight of the total spend on research which is needed to enable the Government to make coherent, well-founded decisions about the use of public funds to support research. The Committee recommends that: the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) should publish figures annually, broken down by subject area, on all public spending to support research, and make appropriate recommendations to the Prime Minister; he should also attend Treasury meetings at which departmental budgets are considered; departmental CSAs should provide Ministers with timely information in advance of budget negotiations, to ensure that research funding decisions are informed by the best available advice. The Committee was also alerted to problems concerning the funding of cross-departmental research involving multiple funding agencies, including research to meet the grand challenges that society faces. To meet such challenges, the Committee recommends the establishment of specific mechanisms: to identify major cross-cutting policy challenges; and to identify, fund and co-ordinate appropriate responses to such challenges.

In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.

The Science and Technology Committee concludes that the Government is too complacent about the UK's nuclear research and development (R&D) capabilities, and associated expertise, which will be lost unless there is a fundamental change in the Government's approach. The Committee's key recommendations include: the development of a long-term strategy for nuclear energy looking beyond 2025, outlining support for R&D through an R&D Roadmap and for the commercial exploitation of the UK's current strengths in nuclear research; the establishment of a Nuclear R&D Board, made up of industry, academic and government partners, to develop and implement the R&D roadmap and help to improve the co-ordination of R&D activities to protect vulnerable areas of research and close gaps in capabilities. Many of the UK's experts in R&D on nuclear energy are nearing retirement age, and a lack of investment over the last two decades means that the UK is now in danger of being in a position where it will be unable to ensure a safe and secure supply of nuclear energy up to 2050. The Government must take steps now to ensure that there is a new generation of experts, together with R&D, on which the nuclear industry, Government and the regulator rely.

Research for the developing world can create evidence on the effectiveness of foreign aid, invent new technologies to help poor people, and strengthen research in poor countries. How do countries determine which policy goals to pursue? This book answers this question based on the history of research funders in Australia, Canada, and the UK.

This report cites research that heritage tourism contributes GBP7.4 billion a year to the UK economy and supports 195, 000 full time equivalent jobs. The Committee argues that sustaining that contribution requires the UK to have the heritage science capacity to maintain the UK's movable and immovable heritage such as museum, library, archive and gallery collections and historic buildings. The recommendations made in the Committee's first report on heritage science (HLP 256, session 2005-06 (ISBN 9780104009550)) received a positive response: the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) have developed a joint Science and Heritage Programme, and the heritage science community have published a National Heritage Science Strategy and appointed a National Heritage Science Forum which have done much to build capacity and develop networks within the heritage science community. The Committee, however, heard concerns that senior heritage scientist posts are being lost and that the sustainability of UK heritage science capacity is at risk.It believes that the AHRC and National Heritage Science Forum should together measure capacity and address any issues arising. Whilst acknowledging the role of the heritage science community and improvements in this area since 2006, the Committee remains concerned and calls on DCMS to take action to ensure that heritage science is given the priority it deserves. Recommendations include: that DCMS should appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser without further delay and set departmental objectives for heritage science with DCMS arm's length bodies also setting out how they will help achieve these objectives

Higher Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Subjects (HL 37) calls for immediate action to ensure enough young people study STEM subjects at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Without this the Government risks failing to meet its objectives to drive economic growth through education and hi-tech industries as identified in its Plan for Growth. A high level of numeracy is of increasing importance to employers, particularly in hi-tech industries. The Committee were shocked to discover that many students starting STEM degrees, even those with A-Level maths qualifications, lack the maths skills required to undertake their studies. The Committee recommends: maths should be compulsory for all students after post-16; universities should toughen-up their maths requirements for entry in STEM courses; the Government should work with stakeholders to define STEM by producing a st

This report on sport and exercise science and medicine says that more must be done to make use of exercise based treatments. There is compelling evidence that physical activity can be used as part of treatment for a wide range of chronic diseases. Yet there is a lack of awareness and appropriate training for health professionals of the benefits of exercise based treatments. A recent survey of 48 London GP practices found that none were aware of the latest Physical Activity Guidelines. The NHS should consider adding physical activity to the Quality and Outcomes Framework, which rewards GPs for how well they care for patients. NICE and the NHS should update chronic disease guidelines with detailed information about exercise, and evaluate the best way to deliver exercise treatments through the NHS. There is disappointment that the Sports Minister was interested only in increasing participation in sport, not using sport to improve the nation's health. The Committee believe that the National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, set up as part of Olympic legacy, may not be sustainable. The funding from government is a one-off £30m capital investment with no satisfactory strategy beyond that. On sports science, the Committee argue that approaches taken to improve the performance of elite athletes are not consistently based on strong biomedical science, nor do they seem to be systematically informed by the latest developments in science. Findings from high quality sports science could provide the basis for translational research to produce benefits for the wider public