Voice of the Future 2015
Voice of the Future (#VOF2015) is an annual event, organised by the Society of Biology, where the government’s panel for policy on science and technology (a ‘select committee’) and other MPs face questions from student science ambassadors. I was nominated to attend by a post doctoral fellow, Anne Osterreider, on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology (SEB). I am a studying Plant Science in the John Runions lab at Oxford Brookes University.
I had a rough start to my day as science ambassador for SEB at VOF 2015. A brief shower made the 4:30AM alarm slightly more bearable, but shortly afterwards, the reality of the pitch black hit home, as I headed into the cold, joining the zombie commuters at an isolated train station. On arriving in Paddington station around 7AM, I passed massed ranks of office workers congregating round the bright lights of the train departures board. Young and old scuttled through the tunnels beneath Paddington like so many ants. I arrived early at Portcullis House, to the bemusement of the security guard, who ushered my bag and jacket through airport-style security. The Palace of Westminster, home of the House of Commons and House of Lords lay on the opposite side of a busy street, strewn with impromptu anti-terror decorations. From Portcullis House, I had an excellent view of the London Eye, cheerful ruddy buses, and irate taxis speeding past.
It turned out that there were dozens of us attending the Voice of the Future event; a motley gaggle of science ambassadors, from wide-eyed high schoolers to shellshocked PhD students, fresh from the lab. A loud, but friendly Scottish bloke was corralling the troops, leading us a merry dance to the Boothroyd Room, where parliamentary proceedings were to proceed. My fellow Brookes student, and SEB attendee, Vanessa, rounded the corner. She looked as confused as I, and we both sported such outlandishly-formal attire that neither one recognised the other at first glance.
The Scottish bloke, who turned out to be the clerk in charge of VOF, brought everyone to attention as we filed into the serried ranks of capacious seats. Vanessa and I skipped coffee in order to bagsy a better spot; the second row back, lit by a low winter sun. The room was long and low, with the ceiling rising and falling in a standing wave from front to back. Oddly-positioned blinds obscured the startling views, whilst providing little respite from the slowly-searing sunlight. At one end lay a horseshoe-shaped desk, with a closed end, where the MPs were to sit, facing away from the audience. It was a slightly odd choice and the first time I saw the front of the scientific advisor’s face was on iPlayer, a few hours later.
The meeting was introduced by a succession of parliamentarians; first the Scot, then a kind-looking brunette doctor, whose quietly authoritative style contrasted markedly with the jovial mess of the overwhelmingly white, middle-aged, male MPs. The Speaker of the House was then introduced; a surprisingly-cheerful man whose enthusiasm for science was marred only by his apparent disregard for the public purse in some prior expenses scandals. However, he was mercifully entertaining, and energetically kicked off the day, before disappearing as soon as he had come, with the doctor lavishing praise in his wake.
Next was the Scientific Advisor to the Government, Professor Sir Mark Walport, clearly no stranger to prefixes. His easy style, and surprisingly forthcoming responses to the questions posed by the panel of VOF attendees, were to signal the theme of the next two hours. Openness and optimism ran through his answers, a stream of well-informed ripostes to the sometimes-spiky enquiries. It was surprising to Vanessa and I, the extent to which evidence-based policy decisions had apparently been pursued during the course of this parliament.
The unhappy marriage of the ConDems had also been fruitful in the form of the first elected chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee. This select committee had hitherto been whipped back and forth according to the dominant party line. They were up next to answer questions, and further reinforced a notion of science playing an integral role in government policy decisions. While the panel noted that there were some MPs who were regretfully reticent in their uptake of scientific evidence, this tripartite tango of Lib Dems, Tories and Labour clearly got along, in a manner which was almost unnerving. At one point the right honourable member of parliament for South Basildon and East Thurrock (a Tory with a suspiciously bushy barnet) professed his undying admiration for the Labour committee chair. It was reassuring to see that science trumped politics, though both members admitted that in the ‘bear pit’ of PMQs, neither would pull any punches. Agreement was reached on issues from GM crops (reassuringly favourable opinions all round) to fracking (to my surprise!). The chair suggested that such consensus was achieved by leaning away from differences of opinion, and towards neutral ground where scientific evidence could be met with reasoned discussion.
When usually-disagreeable politicians are able to drop their differences and unite around scientific ideals, how can we, as scientists, help out? One by one, the MPs uttered the same phrase; a plea to scientists; contact your MP and keep them informed. Without this face to face link with science, it is hard to keep the topic on the agenda, when faced with the clamouring mass of dogma-based alternatives. One phone call, personal letter or meeting was worth more than 1000s of duplicate campaign emails sent by internet campaign groups like 38 degrees.
Over an hour of select committee grilling, few cracks emerged in the armour of peace and goodwill between all MPs. Those which did were telling; the token Scottish MP (Labour) protested that funding for a scheme promoting gender equality in science had been cut. Indeed, gender equality was a theme throughout the questions, following an initial, slightly patronising diatribe by the Speaker of the House, who declared that it was fantastic to see so many women in the room. It was good to hear that this issue was on the minds of all MPs questioned, and that it was a focus of public policy. It was interesting to note, however, that there were only two mentions of the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in science. One of these came from the next MP to be grilled; Liam Byrne, Shadow Minister for Universities, Science and Skills. His assertion that “If you look at the diversity of UK professors it’s pretty hard to argue it’s a meritocracy” went down well in the room.
Unfortunately, the event went slightly downhill at this point, with the last two MPs to show throwing partisan barbs left and right. It was hard to fathom the logic behind Mr Byrne’s assertion that cutting tuition fees would result in more money for universities, while his Tory equivalent, who was greeted with much fanfare, completely dodged a question on the impact of the EU referendum on the Erasmus scheme. Neither politician came off well, and it undermined the message of unity in scientific endeavour which had been so successfully promoted by their peers. It was perhaps unfortunate for the Tory, Greg Clark, that he spent five minutes poorly-rehashing an interesting tidbit (regarding the anthropology of corpse treatment in Ebola-stricken areas of Africa) which had already been covered by an earlier speaker.
As VOF ended, and the students dashed off for a much needed coffee/toilet trip (over three hours in one spot!), I was interviewed on camera by an affable Society of Biology member. It all went swimmingly, and was followed by a confusing trip through London, Vanessa in tow (I might have got us a little lost), to lunch with SEB staff and fellow attendees. It was through the generosity and hard work of this organisation that I was given this opportunity to get a flavour of science in UK politics, so it was lovely to meet the friendly people behind it all.
At lunch I learned, from my fellow attendees, about the neural systems of starfish, remote robots in particle accelerators and life after science. Shortly afterwards, I was whisked underneath the dirty London streets and out across the home counties on a blissfully speedy train, to return to my waiting wife and child.
Thanks to Anne Osterrieder for nominating me, Vanessa Vieira for accompanying me, and the staff and members of SEB for making this trip possible.
