Written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (COM0045)

Research Councils UK (RCUK) is the strategic partnership of the UK’s seven Research Councils. Our collective ambition is to ensure the UK remains the best place in the world to do research, innovate and grow business. The Research Councils are central to delivering research and innovation for economic growth and societal impact. Together, we invest £3 billion in research each year, covering all disciplines and sectors, to meet tomorrow’s challenges today. Our investments create new knowledge through: funding research excellence; responding to society’s challenges; developing skills, leadership and infrastructure; and leading the UK’s research direction. We drive innovation through: creating environments and brokering partnerships; co-delivering research and innovation with over 2,500 businesses, 1,000 of which are SMEs; and providing intelligence for policy making. Find out more about our work at www.rcuk.ac.uk

This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. It does not include, nor necessarily reflect the views of the Knowledge and Innovation Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The submission is made collectively on behalf of all seven Research Councils:

• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
• Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
• Medical Research Council (MRC)
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

Relevance, trust, accountability and transparency are the cornerstones of the relationship between research and society. It is vital that the public have both access to the knowledge research generates and the opportunity to influence the questions that research is seeking to address. In enriching citizenship and providing wider perspectives on research, public engagement improves the quality of research. It inspires people of all ages, firing the imaginations of our future researchers, feeding the skills and knowledge that are essential to the UK’s economy and supporting the public to participate in debates about the direction and role of research and its impact in society.

As world leaders in research, the UK must embrace the opportunities that science communication and public engagement make to excellent research and the pathways provided to economic and societal benefits. They also provide an opportunity for researchers to develop transferable and career-enhancing skills. The Research Councils in their Royal Charters are all charged with the responsibility to “generate public awareness; communicate research outcomes; encourage public engagement; disseminate knowledge; and provide advice”. We lead, in partnership with others, the national debate on science communication and public engagement with research, which is delivered both by the Research Councils collective and individually and by our research communities. 

Through their network of science communication and public engagement professionals, the Research Councils develop and deliver strategic science communications designed to inform and engage the public. This forms part of a two-way engagement and dialogue with the public and other stakeholder groups. The Research Councils are recognised as national and international leaders in public engagement practice[1]. We collaborate with a wide range of bodies across national, sectoral and other boundaries to increase the impact of our work and to ensure that, with the support of partner bodies, research and its benefits extend beyond academia. Ensuring our work reflects, reaches and is relevant to all communities within society is also crucial to our work, and we ensure our practices and processes reflect that commitment.

Key points within the RCUK submission to address the questions posed by the Committee:

-          Science communication and public engagement are vitally important to maintain trust and confidence in research, to improve the quality and relevance of research and to meet our moral obligation to the tax payer, if the UK is to continue to be a world leader in research.

-          Our research communities deliver much of our public engagement and science communication, but more should be done to create a positive culture within HEIs to ensure that researchers are recognised and rewarded for these activities.

-          RCUK focuses on research across all disciplines to encompass the broad BIS definition of ‘science[2]’ and advocates the importance of STEM skills.

-          The media is a key source of information for the public to find out about science and research. Research Councils have a positive relationship with the media but there are further steps that could be taken to ensure the quality and accessibility of science coverage within an evolving media landscape and changing media consumption patterns.

-          The enhancement and enrichment opportunities supported by the Research Councils are a valuable resource to inspire the next generation, but the shortage of STEM skills is a more deep rooted and national issue which needs to be addressed by the Department for Education as a national priority with support from the sector.

-          It is vital that public dialogue becomes more embedded in Government science and technology areas of policy making and that Sciencewise or a similar capability is supported.

-          The Government has a key leadership role in setting high-level strategy and championing the importance of effective public engagement and high quality science communication.

1. The recent Nurse Review[3] of the Research Councils convincingly articulates that for a national research endeavour to be successful there needs to be an effective dialogue and understanding between research scientists, politicians and the public. Key to providing evidence and insight to inform Research Councils’ strategy in this area is an awareness of the trends in attitudes to science and public engagement with science, which is provided by the Public Attitudes to Science Survey (PAS)[4]. Given its strategic importance Research Councils are represented on the PAS steering group and view it as an extremely valuable resource that should be supported in the future.

2. The PAS 2014 survey highlights the enthusiasm of the UK public about science, and how attitudes to science in the UK have become increasingly positive over a longer period of time, with 55% in 2014 agreeing that the benefits outweigh the harmful effects, compared to 45% in 1988. PAS 2014 also shows how the public see science as beneficial to society, both in terms of economic growth and the value it brings to their lives, and therefore continue to support government funding of science. The UK public place a high degree of trust in scientists, with a marked difference in trust for those working for universities (90%) compared to those working for private companies (60%). The UK public overwhelmingly think it is important to know about science given the importance of it to their daily lives, but more people (55%) ‘do not feel informed’, than ‘feel informed’ (45%) about science, scientific research and developments. There is a considerable appetite for hearing more about science – only 6% say they see and hear too much about science, while 51% think they see and hear too little. Most people still find out about science most regularly from traditional media, but they are critical about the reporting and ‘sensationalising’ of science by the media. The Wellcome Trust Monitor[5] which looks at public attitudes to medical research echoes these findings.

3. As well as understanding the public view point, it is also crucial to explore participation and barriers to participation for researchers to engage the public. In 2015 the Research Councils, as part of a consortium of 15 funders, conducted a national survey into the factors that affect public engagement by researchers across the UK[6]. The survey builds on a Royal Society survey from 2006 and shows there has been a positive shift in researchers’ understanding of and attitudes to public engagement over the past ten years. This shift represents an important milestone on a longer journey of culture change for the research and higher education sectors and the impact of sustained investment over the past decade in which RCUK has played a pivotal role. RCUK works closely with our funding partners in this area, and our interventions have included:

• The RCUK led Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research[7] has over 50 signatories and supporters and provides a single unambiguous statement regarding the importance of public engagement from the UK funders of Research. Supporters and signatories include the Research Councils and government departments such as BIS and DEFRA. It sets out clear expectations to ensure that researchers are recognised, rewarded and supported for their public engagement by the HE Sector.

• The Beacons for Public Engagement[8] (2008-2012) were university-based collaborative centres to help support, recognise, reward and build capacity for public engagement work across the UK. Together with our partners, the UK funding councils and the Wellcome Trust, we invested in this initiative in order to support a step-change in recognition for public engagement across the higher education sector. There were six Beacons across the UK.

• Building on from the success of the Beacons initiative, and recognising that further support was needed to embed public engagement within the sector, RCUK invested a further £2.4million in Catalysts for Engaging the Public with Research[9]. This three year programme (2012-2015) was intended to act as a catalyst for culture change for a further eight HEIs to help them embed public engagement with research within their policies, procedures and practices. In 2016 RCUK is supporting a further ten HEIs through their Catalyst Seed Fund[10].

• Funded by the four UK Funding Councils, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE[11]) helps inspire and support universities to engage with the public and provides practical support for researchers.

• Researchers can apply to Research Councils for resources to support their public engagement. For example, researchers are encouraged to request funding for project-specific science communication and public engagement activities as part of their Pathways to Impact[12] within RCUK research grant funding. 

4. Despite the survey finding that researchers are now considerably more personally motivated in this area, it also highlights that considerable challenges remain and provides a compelling case for further investment in this area. Public engagement often struggles to compete for time and resources within the context of a profession that is overwhelmingly driven by reward and recognition for traditional research outputs. There is further potential that could be tapped within systems for greater reward for public engagement.  Many researchers also found it difficult to find opportunities to participate in public engagement activities. In summary, the findings highlight considerable progress but suggest that more needs to be done to support, reward and recognise researchers to embed public engagement as an integral part of a research career.

5. Key to determining the balance between engaging ‘new audiences’ and those ‘already interested’ is relating this back to what the purpose of engagement via an overall public engagement strategy or strategic communications plan and consideration for each specific activity. Once there is clarity around the aims and purpose, audience segmentation tools can be applied to identify the appropriate audience(s). For example, a public dialogue on a new research area or technology will need to engage with a wide cross-section of the public to ensure it represents a diversity of views. Engagement aimed at increasing the uptake of girls into physics will need to be more targeted,  indeed lack of previous success in efforts like this might not be because they have not already been engaged but because it was not done effectively, such groups would not be classed as either a ‘new audience’ or ‘already interested’.

6. RCUK is a member of the National Forum for Public Engagement in STEM[13] which is scoping a piece of work exploring ‘hard to reach audiences’. The Forum has drawn on the concept of ‘Science capital[14]’ to frame their work which looks to understand the motivations and capability of the public to engage with science, and to challenge assumptions about why some people are not engaged. Science capital refers to the structural factors which provide some people with much greater confidence and capacity to engage, and aims to address the root causes of dis-engagement, not just to address the symptoms. The more science capital that a young person has, the more likely they are to plan to continue with science in the future.  The research suggests that only 5% of the population have high science capital, and 27% have low science capital. One of the aims for Research Councils of engaging young people with research is to help create a more scientifically literate society and increase science capital.

7. Advances in technology offer opportunities to engage with new and large audiences. The use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook can be an effective tool to reach sizeable audiences, for example the Research Councils collectively have over 200,000 Twitter followers. The use of photos on Twitter increases retweets so science photo competitions are helping to engage new audiences illustrated by more than 850 children from 188 schools across the UK taking part in this year’s ESRC photographic competition Focus on Society. The recent Name our Ship campaign by NERC generated high levels of online interest, awareness and sharing which also converted into widespread traditional media coverage.

8. The Research Councils also work closely with science festivals to encourage more science content in their sister festivals of music, literature and arts, to reach audiences who are not already interested in science. BBSRC’s own Great British Bioscience Festival in 2014 brought leading research groups to the heart of one of the most deprived and ethnically diverse boroughs in London. Working with strategic partners is a key part of Research Councils strategy to improve reach in terms of diversity and geographical location. For example, STFC has led the Dark Sky Partnership with national and local open space organisations which support start-up astronomy activities – including creating more than 150 local Dark Sky Discovery sites, in rural and urban communities around the country.

9. There is also evidence that while there is real appetite from the public to hear more about science, in particular directly from scientists around the social and ethical implications of their research, not everyone wants to be directly involved. In PAS 2014 over 40% of participants responded that they would like to know the public are engaged in scientific decisions but do not want to be involved personally.

10. The UK’s mainstream media plays a vital role in promoting science to the public, and the existence of specialised science, health and other research correspondents in major outlets is the envy of many other nations. The PAS 2014 survey illustrates the reach and significance of the media and broadcasters as a regular source for the public to find out about science. However, a consistent concern from the UK public, since the 2000 study is the view (71%) that the media sensationalises science, linked to this the public tend to make negative assumptions about the journalists who write science stories. Over half (55%) of the public think these journalists only occasionally hold relevant qualifications in science, while one-in-five think this is never the case. There is also a widely held view that journalists only occasionally check that findings are reliable before writing them. In contrast to journalists, scientists, particularly those employed within universities, are on the whole widely trusted by the public.

11. Progress has been made since the BBC Trust[15], reviewed the impartiality and accuracy of BBC science, to enhance the quality, accessibility and balance of science coverage but further steps could be taken in the following areas and by the sector as a whole:

• The media should provide a more balanced view and increase trust by debating the pros and cons of a particular technology or piece of research rather than taking a singular viewpoint. This should however be applied flexibly to ensure that the distinction is made between well-established fact and opinion, and that the audience are made aware if the balance of scientific evidence falls on one side of an argument (e.g. climate change).

• The media should resource more scientific correspondents with scientific expertise and build further links with the research community to engage appropriate experts.  

• The media should take opportunities to make science more accessible and reach new audiences by integrating science into non-scientific programming.

12. The Research Councils pro-actively engage with the media through regular dialogue with journalists, editors and the Science Media Centre (SMC)[16]. The SMC’s ability to provide a national contact point is invaluable. STFC led on the potentially Nobel Prize-winning discovery of gravitational waves in February 2016. A sustained media campaign in the UK included an SMC briefing in the UK and internationally through support from the FCO-BIS Science and Innovation Network, ensured substantial coverage of the UK’s key role in the discovery across TV, radio and online. Television coverage alone reached over 10 million people in the UK and many more internationally. The Research Councils provide support to the SMC and work closely with them because of their role in enabling complex and potentially contentious research topics and issues to be presented openly to the media.

13. Research Councils in-house press teams work directly with the media and their press officers are respected sources of information for journalists, testament to this they are often invited to talk at conferences or sit on relevant advisory groups. Research Council press office teams can connect journalists directly to the scientists, helping to ensure there is dialogue between media and scientists and acting as facilitators for this dialogue. The Research Councils close proximity to the research means that they are able to ensure that research findings are reported accurately by highlighting caveats and limitations of studies, for example, pointing out if an animal model was used in research rather than a study being conducted on humans. Research Councils also work very closely with press teams within universities and other research organisations to identify media opportunities and ensure accurate reporting, as well as providing support and training to the research community and individual researchers to engage with the media. Through their knowledge of the science, they are able to research the most appropriate media to target for specific stories, looking at trade and specialist publications as well as national media. They will also provide stories to the media that are relevant and timely to topical issues and events such as the Olympics and Breast Cancer Awareness month to help demonstrate the impact of science across society. In addition they will help build momentum around specific science events such as National Science and Engineering week and Women in STEM week.
14. Research Councils press offices work closely together to coordinate their resources and planning, to share approaches and best practice and to support the communication of multidisciplinary research or sector-wide topics.

15. There are lots of successful and varied examples of media engagement supported by the Research Councils which have highlighted research and proved popular with audiences. The Research Councils are able to take an audience-led approach whereby teams focus on communicating research through the platforms and programming that the public is interested in. For example ‘Cat Watch’[17] aired on BBC Two Horizon, was based on EPSRC research and attracted one of the channels largest audiences of over 5.9 million. Dr Pamela Cox, an ESRC funded researcher featured in the three part factual series ‘Shopgirls[18] the true story of life behind the counter’. The visit of NERC’s Royal Ship Discovery to London in 2015 attracted a thousand visitors and engaged 3 million people via broadcast and social media. ‘New Generation Thinkers’[19] is a successful collaboration between AHRC and BBC Radio 3 for early career researchers to work with BBC producers through a series of dedicated workshops to appear on television and radio to communicate their research. In addition, BBSRC regularly works with the BBC to include cutting-edge research within Countryfile. The Research Councils regularly put out press releases which are picked up by the media such as this piece of MRC research on smoking and genetics[20] where the public were involved as participants. Researchers funded by the Research Councils such as Professor Brian Cox, Professor Alice Roberts, Professor Mary Beard and Professor Jim Al-khalili have also helped bring science more into popular culture.

16. Researchers can find engaging with the media, particularly around controversial issues, daunting for fear of being misrepresented or not being given the chance to get their point across. Training and support is therefore vital to provide researchers with the confidence and skills to be able to ‘translate’ sometimes complex or technical scientific knowledge into a language and form that is accessible and meaningful to the public. Researchers can apply for funding for public engagement training, including media training, through Pathways to Impact. The Research Councils also support their communities through specific and specialised training where appropriate.  It is therefore important to ensure that there is adequate resource to support researchers to engage with the media and that researchers are appropriately recognised and rewarded for this as a valued activity within their institutions. 

17. RCUK notes the focus of the Committee’s inquiry on STEM subjects, but would advocate the importance more specifically of STEM skills to future economic growth and innovation. It should be acknowledged that STEM skills are also prevalent in disciplines such as the social sciences and arts and humanities. Offering more subject choice is likely to engage a wider range of young people and help to address the equality and diversity agenda. Similarly, many of the grand challenges facing society such as energy or global food security require a multidisciplinary approach, and are hooks to engage young people and bring the curriculum to life. Evidence from the Brighton Fuse project (2011-13)[21]  which researched why small and medium sized businesses in the Creative Economy sector had above-average market growth also found that the arts and humanities skills are helping drive economic growth, and should not just be seen as a luxury supported by STEM. The fusion of arts, humanities and technology knowledge and skills is producing high-growth, businesses that are leading the growth of the creative economy.

18. It is also worth noting that there is not a linear model from tertiary education into STEM careers and that non-graduate routes to STEM careers are valid and important. 

19. The Research Councils individually and collectively support a number of programmes aimed at engaging young people with contemporary research and inspirational role models across the breadth of academic disciplines. The researchers and cutting-edge research funded by the Research Councils are a hugely valuable resource to inspire the next generation to continue studies post-16 and to supply and sustain future talent for the UK economy. Critical to this is effective communication strategies, but equally important is public engagement. This provides hands-on enhancement and enrichment opportunities to enthuse, motivate and spark the interest and ambition of young people. Activities might include a researcher visiting a school or having a tour or placement in a research unit. For example:

• RCUK sponsors the Nuffield Research Bursaries[22], which provides young people with a 4-6 week placement in a research environment to carry out authentic research under the guidance of a researcher. In a survey of students involved in the programme over half strongly agreed that they were motivated by their school work following the placement and had a good view of science and scientific research. It had also made them think carefully about their choice of future study and what they wanted to do.

• RCUK funds a Teacher Continuing Professional Development (CPD) entitled ‘Bringing Cutting-edge Research into the Classroom[23]’. The programme is designed to help secondary school teachers across the four nations deliver some of the more challenging aspects of the curriculum in a way that captures and retains the interest of learners by bringing contemporary research into the classroom. It is also designed to support teachers’ development of specialist knowledge and to facilitate links between teachers and contemporary research. The Teacher CPD courses have been developed and delivered by the Science Learning Centre Network in conjunction with leading RCUK researchers in topics such as Genetics and Climate Change. 

• The aim of the RCUK School-University Partnerships Initiative (SUPI)[24] is to support secondary schools and HEIs to work together to create structured, strategic, sustainable and equitable mechanisms for school-university engagement which increases the breadth and quality of interactions between researchers and school students from a diverse range of backgrounds. The Lancaster based SUPI, has supported direct and regular engagement with secondary schools students across the breath of research. It has been particularly successful in engaging rural counties who would be considered ‘hard to reach’ and has developed resources which are being used to bring contemporary research into the classroom further afield called ‘Research in a Box[25] ‘

• Research Councils have also partnered with the Association of Science of Discovery Centres (ASDC) – the national network of science centres - to deliver hands-on activities about its work in the physical sciences for 341,714 people. These partners typically have the expertise to engage effectively with harder-to-reach audiences and the ASDC programme especially successful in attracting an equal gender balance, while its masterclasses achieved a 50% increase in the number of girls who expressed interest in STEM careers.

20. The ESRC funds a wealth of education research, including the ASPIRES study which has sought to shed new light on our understanding of how young people’s aspirations develop over the 10-14 age group, exploring in particular what influences the likelihood of a young person aspiring to a science-related career. ASPIRES found that there is a widespread association of science/scientists with ‘braininess’ and that this association influences many young people’s views of science careers as ‘not for me’. The researchers recommend that greater diversity in popular and media representations of ‘who does science’ could help further loosen the association between science and braininess. ASPIRES 2[26] 14-19 will continue this research over the next five years. In this space, the Research Councils provide face-to-face opportunities for young people to engage with ‘real’ researchers to provide a diversity of role models.  The ASPIRES programme also evidences the need for early interventions given the critical period between the aged of 10-14 after which most young people’s attitudes to science are fairly fixed, and highlights the effects of science capital and family influence on career aspirations.

21. RCUK are currently undertaking a small piece of work which aims to identify the needs of UK schools and take stock of the current provision of enrichment products and services to help inform RCUK’s future investment decisions in this area. The PISA 2012 provides compelling evidence regarding short falls in the UK education system. The UK has a higher GDP and spends more on education than the average in OECD countries, as well as higher levels of tertiary education and a lower share of the most socio-economically deprived groups. However, these comparative advantages do not have a clear relationship with educational outcomes. Enhancement and enrichment opportunities provided by the sector such as Research Councils can offer advantages but as the shortage of STEM skills is a national issue addressing it needs to be a national priority. This is an area that the Department of Education, who have greater influence and levers within this sphere, need to lead on addressing. 

22. It is vital that public dialogue becomes more embedded in Government science and technology areas of policy making. Good governance and democracy are at the heart of public dialogue, which starts from the position that people should be able to influence the decisions that affect their lives. The public want to be involved. PAS 2014 highlights the overwhelming desire for regulators, government and scientists to engage in dialogue with the public. Seven-in-ten people think that scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think. Even more (75%) feel that the Government should act in line with public concerns about science and that regulators need to communicate with the public (88%). The government must also draw on the independent and trusted advice and expertise from within the research community, to contribute to evidence based policy making. The public recognise the need for expert input and do not necessarily want the general public alone to be tasked with making decisions. Seven-in-ten agree that ‘experts’ and not the public should advise Government about the implications of scientific developments (PAS 2014).

23. Good policy making requires engagement with the public and stakeholders to ensure input of the widest possible range of knowledge and views. Public dialogues bring together members of the public, policy makers, researchers and other expert stakeholders to deliberate and come to conclusions on national public policy issues involving science and technology. It involves a diverse range of participants and an opportunity for two-way engagement and in-depth deliberative discussion. The process is carefully facilitated and participants are informed of the issues through access to information and experts. Public dialogues often sit alongside other forms of engagement such as public meetings, written consultations, focus groups and surveys. This approach should also align with open, transparent and diverse approaches to seeking ongoing advice and guidance from stakeholders, for example through standing advisory committees.

24. Some of the positive impacts of public dialogue are reported as[27]:

• Better policy solutions that are more robust, legitimate, socially informed and socially acceptable as they are based on a richer and wider evidence base. Dialogue has provided ‘political’ confidence to policy makers by clarifying public views on difficult decisions (e.g. stronger regulation), and by identifying and testing levels of public concerns and aspirations, why they hold those views and what affects them. It has also provided ‘practical’ confidence by drawing on public knowledge and experience to find new ideas for policy and services that better meet public needs. Good public dialogue can also increase the legitimacy for tough decisions and help overcome entrenched positions to enable policy to move forward.

• Better policy and decision-making processes that are more open and transparent, and subject to public scrutiny. Public input can help improve communications planning (identifying more appropriate messages), risk management (identifying potential areas of conflict and consensus early) and better internal communications by providing a focus for considering how issues can best be discussed with the public.

• Savings of time and money in launching and implementing policy solutions by finding appropriate and acceptable policies that can be easily and quickly implemented with minimal conflict and controversy.

25. There is a general capacity issue in terms of supporting public dialogue and Government departments and agencies are unlikely to have the in-house experience or expertise to deliver a specialist public dialogue. For a public dialogue to be successful there needs to be clarity on its purpose, and a commitment to listening and responding the views of the public. There are also common misconceptions regarding its nature and purpose which can be conflated with more one-way forms of engagement such as a written consultation put on a website to gather views.

26. The Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre[28] (Sciencewise-ERC) is a BIS funded programme which provides co-funding and specialist advice and support to Government departments and agencies to support them to identify when a public dialogue is appropriate and to develop and commission public dialogue activities. The majority, if not all, Research Council public dialogues, have been delivered in partnership with Sciencewise. This access to best practice and support is critical for effective public dialogue and to build capacity in this area. At the time of writing, the Sciencewise programme is currently awaiting a decision on its future. RCUK would strongly advocate future support for Sciencewise or a similar capability as vitally important to support science and technology areas of policy making. 

27. In 2012 a review[29] of the public dialogues conducted by the Research Councils since 2003 highlighted international recognition for Research Councils commitment to public dialogue, innovation in upstream engagement and the high standards of Research Council public dialogues.  The report also identified organisational factors that have been critical to successful Research Council public dialogues and dialogues more widely. It highlighted for example, the need to devote sufficient time to upfront planning of the dialogue, including clarifying the purpose and ensuring timing is appropriate for feeding into specific decisions. Ensuring the dialogue has visible and active high‐level support from senior managers and also relevant senior researchers and appropriate oversight mechanisms to link into relevant Council processes and external agendas was important.

28. Sciencewise has recently published the longer-term impacts of some of its most influential dialogues[30]. The 2008 BBSRC/EPSRC synthetic biology public dialogue is fully cited in the Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK (published in 2012), which has led to the recent launch of the UK Synthetic Biology Strategic Plan 2016 – Biodesign for the Bioeconomy. This new strategy was launched by the Minister for Life Sciences George Freeman MP and there are numerous connections with the original public dialogue. The global synthetic biology market was also estimated to grow from $1.6 billion in 2011 to $10.8 billion in 2016; the Synthetic Biology public dialogue cost £334,000.

29. The concept of responsible innovation is also important for research to deliver social good, including economic growth; it needs to be developed in a full awareness of the context in which it sits. This requires researchers and innovators, as well as institutions such as the Research Councils, to anticipate and reflect on the implications of their work and, if necessary, to engage with a range stakeholders and diverse perspectives. EPSRC has a framework for responsible innovation[31] which sets out expectations for researchers.

30. There has been considerable progress over the last two decades to embed public engagement and science communication and to increase quality and capacity. However, this is still ‘work in progress’ and pressing challenges remain if we are to capitalise on the existing investment and ensure that the hard won benefits are not lost:

1. The Government has a key leadership role in setting high-level strategy and championing the importance of effective public engagement and high quality science communication - ensuring it understands the research system, the importance of the independence of researchers and the basis of public trust in this. The Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers highlights that further intervention is needed for researchers to feel recognised and rewarded to engage with the public to ensure ambitions are fully realised.

2. High level signals from the Government regarding the importance of this agenda through initiatives such as the UK Charter for Science and Society and Governments support for the complementary Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research can be highly influential. As a next step this needs to be backed up by an implementation plan and adequate support and resource for the research community to engage with the media or the public directly e.g. ensuring that researchers can access media and public engagement training.

3. The Government should exemplify the best practice it wants the community to adopt such as effectively using public dialogue and consultation within its own areas of science and technology areas of policy-making. There are pockets of excellence in this sphere which could be more widely adopted. Support for a capability such as Sciencewise which promotes the wider use of public dialogue where appropriate and provides practical support and advice is vital to success and open policy making.

4. The shortage of STEM skills is a national priority and must be an area that Government and in particular the Department of Education, who have considerable influence and levers within this sphere, lead to ensure there is adequate provision for schools to play their part in the skills pipeline. For example, through enhancement and enrichment opportunities and working with schools to implement a coherent strategy and approach informed by the body of education research from bodies such as the ESRC.

5. The Government is in a prime position to bring together the community and encourage partnership working across Government and funders. It is able to draw together various partners to ensure the eco-system is functioning effectively to address gaps and ensure that it is more than the sum of its parts. It has access to evidence and insight e.g. through its work on PAS, and is in a position to put in place appropriate policies, and monitor the effect of new policies to ensure that there are no inadvertent barriers to effective science communication and engagement are created.

April 2016