Written evidence submitted by Mr Roderick Pond (COM0006)
1. Preface.
1. My thanks for the opportunity to air my thoughts to the committee, and I do so as a personal submission. I admit that although “scientific dialogue with society” is the specific target of the enquiry, and I am writing from the perspective that science is a constituent functional part of the broader “STEM” spectrum and to isolate it when neither of the single constituents of “STEM” would have true functionality without some integration with one or more of the other parts, would leave each constituent of STEM an item of esoteric novelty, furthermore each constituent and practitioner of STEM experiences a shared misconception of role and function.
• A bit about me; I’m a retired civil servant who worked as a STEM Professional. Since retiring 11 years ago, I’m still active in the STEM arena and am functioning as the Technical Secretary of the Southern Joint Branch of RINA-IMarEST. I draw your attention to the EST of the “IMar” which translates as Engineering, Science, and Technology, which succinctly puts me in an area that qualifies me to respond. I would also add that I have an affiliate membership of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) and I do have a deep interest in math as Mathematics transcend and underpin much of my and indeed, society’s activities I find math difficult but will work at it and now much to my amazement I can now outclass much of my local community.
• My interest is extended to the personal investment, and use math software as well as CAD software. As well as the membership stated above I am an accredited ENG Tech and am also a full member of Society of Operations Engineers via Institute of Plant Engineers. I also have membership of the Off Shore Engineering Society and the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) and I will return to that association later as its UK chapter provides a concept format that gives, if cascaded down to local levels, a format that may promote the objectives of this consultation.
2. Summary.
• Short resume of career.
• My negative experience with my local community.
• Clash of cultures, Administration has a hierarchical ethos, STEM profession works in a functional environment.
• The Torbay experiment
• What may help to further the beneficial integration of the cultures?
• Making better use of local Science and Technology assets
3. Short resume of career.
I include this as will draw on experience gained. I was apprenticed as a Shipwright at the then Royal Dockyard at Chatham and when the Dockyard closure was announced was working as a quality control investigator mostly in the nuclear submarine refit environment. Via the circumstances of the impending I found myself promoted and surprisingly seconded to the US Airforce Civil Engineering Squadron at RAF Lakenheath. Then, after four years there, found myself at RAF Henlow with Royal Airforce Signal Engineering Establishment (RAFSEE). Somewhat amazed at the link between shipwrighting and electronics, was euphemistically told that the work was only about “wriggly amps” and I’d soon get the hang of it! I did to some measure, but have to say was immeasurably helped by young boffins, graduates from Imperial Collage London and on my leaving to go back to the Navy at the Old War Office building (OWOB) after 11 years with RAFSEE was told that they liked working with me as I listened to them. My work at the OWOB was as an analyst and my past varied career was of great assistance, in that I had a wide knowledge base which also had some depth.
4. My negative experience with my local community.
I caveat the forgoing with the stricture that it’s not a complaint forwarded to the Science and Technology committee; essentially it’s a demonstration of an anti-stem culture in small town UK.
As said I retired from Ministry of Defence 11 years ago, an my first thoughts were to deploy my skills via the local volunteer sector, after all I had, through the Open University acquired and other sources CAD, Math, and other technical/science software and was reasonably adept at using it. Basically all I was offered was sweeping up/clearing up tasks, or making tea for my betters. During this hunt I actually came across a Ph.D. Chemical Engineer who was given the task of clearing up rubbish from woodland paths.
I did flirt with being a School Governor and Board member of a group of Sea Cadets but again for the school I appeared to be more valued as a “Car Park Attendant” at school open days, and for the Sea Cadets, making tea for parent open days.
Thought I might have a niche with my Borough Council sponsored/financed “older persons forum” said to be an independent entity, but perhaps should have seen the warning signs on what was meant by independent, when an official declared that the Joseph Fourier, derived coefficient of linear conduction (better known as the “U” factor) was expunged universally from the list of science laws by a local government officer on the grounds that it was inconvenient from a financial point of view and as it had no legal status therefore could be globally expunged (I kid you not there, are other witnesses)
The preceding paragraph hints at the difficulty with public engagement. I too have experienced what I can only describe as censorship of a globally accepted math equation (and I include North Korea here). I know the “Select Committee” is not in a position to take sides but this example is I think is typical of the friction that can happen between hieratical structured organisations and functional organisations. The equation is the Pierre-François Verhulst, logistic equation, authored in 1838 and used globally by demographers’ biologists and zoologists. As said I was a committee member of a local government financed older person’s interest group, and the subject of demography came up. I produced a logistic equation based the graph derived from the county/local authority published figures as a demonstration of the difference between the cohort system of population growth and logistic. It was promptly declared “Political” and banned. The joke is that the logistic is part of the methodology of the Department of Communities and Local Government and I’ve just had that confirmed. That’s bad enough but after 2 years my local government won’t countenance a conversation about it, and cannot, will not, speak its name. You want public engagement with science and technology, when an important entity in public life behaves like this?
5. Clash of cultures, Administration has a hierarchical ethos, STEM profession works in a functional environment.
A little story; was involved with the refits of two nuclear submarine’s happening in adjacent docks at the same time. Part of the statutory remit of the engineering/science PhD qualified Chief Executive in charge’s job was to keep records of radiation levels. He used the services of an unskilled labourer to collect the data. The arrangement worked well until the annual staff report on the labourer was required. The administrative rules said that only the labourer’s immediate grade above supervisor, was the only one to report, but the immediate grade above hadn’t a clue what the labourer was doing as he was working directly for the overall chief. Okay the situation was got around, but I include the tale to illustrate the different cultural ethos of functional over hierarchical. I have other stories to illustrate the clash of culture but think you have the flavour. There is hope however.
6. The Torbay Initiative.
Sometimes the two cultures have, to talk due to exigent circumstances i.e. when economic circumstances force a dialogue. In Torbay a large “high tech” firm Nortel Networks Corporation went into receivership and significant numbers of highly qualified STEM professionals were out on a limb. These professionals were correctly assessed as a wealth generating asset, that the loss of, would detrimentally affect the area. Torbay formed a coalition of entities that were affected by Nortel’s demise, and those who could profit by the sudden availability of valuable human assets. This “pastoral” care of the human STEM asset went as far as organising Continuing Professional Development (CPD) events open to all. I found this out via an article in the Journal of the Society of Operations Engineers, and have spoken to the “High Tech Forum” as the organisation is called to applaud their efforts. In my view, it goes a long way in developing a culture facilitating dialogue and consultation between the facets of wealth generation, involving the STEM assets of Torbay and hopefully the public engagement of the Torbay citizens.
Where I consider it lets itself down, is in the presumption that the administration and business community are the superior partners, indeed I have been unable to ascertain whether the professional associations as defined by the “Engineering Council” are actually partners in the Torbay initiative let alone equal partners.
7. What can help to further the beneficial integration of the cultures?
The stem professional as defined by the Engineering Council is by the very nature of the meaning, part of an identifiable community. Their skills are many and varied. An organisation that gathers these skills into one group is PIANC. The “Department of Environment,” like the “Science and Technology” Committee has consultations. It specifically where appropriate invites PIANC UK to respond to consultations, and more often than not holds a seminar at the Institute of Civil Engineers, at 1 Great George Street to advise more specifically, the sort of feedback their interested in.
Meld that culture into a Torbay type local structure in other town’s cities etc., but ensuring that members of local branches of STEM bodies have seats of equality, at a local level, and we have a forum that Engineering Council registered STEM specialists can contribute to, and let’s not forget members of STEM Institutes are communities by the very definition of community.
The mission objectives of the STEM contingent however whilst with an obligation of support from local government, should nevertheless be stated as leading and developing public engagement and as a suggestion, taking the lead in a festival of π (Pi) day on 14th March. There could also be better co-ordinated use of entities such as “Science Made Simple”.
8. Making better use of local Science and Technology assets.
We in Andover have a “Science & Technical Facilities Council” (STFC) asset; the Chilbolton Observatory. I suspect that most that other districts/towns etc. could identify a “Science and Technology” entity, they could be associated with; in the same way those towns are linked with towns abroad. Yet whilst the STFC have a web site and the data from the facility is freely available (I’ve downloaded material from it), it’s not regarded as a community asset, in fact when mentioned to a local government officer, I was told that the facility didn’t like attention, and I can assure the committee that is not what the STFC are saying. It is accepted that because of their financial constraints their core function is all that they have the financial wherewithal to operate, but grouping technology based enterprises based in the area, in this case as “Chilbolton Observatory” “High-tech Champion,” would also create an opportunity for public engagement, and opportunity for an open to all Torbay derivative, science and technology forum, at negligible cost. Obviously this is for my local area, but I’m confident that most towns and districts all over the UK could find a science/technology entity, that would provide a germinating and fertilising environment, for the cultivation of public engagement with science and technology.
9. In closing; I reiterate that as a prime organisational tenet, any initiative towards furthering public engagement with Science/ (STEM) should take account of the “Functional” ethos of the STEM community. To force STEM practitioners into a hieratical organized system is a recipe for failure.