Last week saw our first SiP event of the new academic term - “An Introduction to Science Policy”. Besides presenting an overview of the science and policy interface, this gave us a chance to welcome our new intake of PhD students and encourage them to consider how their research relates to wider society.

SiP committee member Christopher Nelson started off by describing the structure of the UK Parliament and where science comes into this. “Given that only 4% of our current MPs have a science degree, the government needs input from the scientific community to make evidence-based policies” he said. As such, Parliament is supported by a host of organisations that provide scientific advice, including government ministers, select committees, the Civil Service and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Yet science and policy are driven by very different factors and even if the prevailing evidence supports a certain measure, other issues have an impact, such as economics and public acceptability. It can take a long time for research to influence government agendas; as Christopher explained. “Individual studies rarely change policy – instead it is an expert consensus and body of evidence that prevails”.
This makes it vital that scientists are able to demonstrate to the public why their research is important and why it should be trusted. As SiP committee member Helen Hicks put it: “Science isn’t finished until it is communicated”. She set us the task of describing our research projects using the analogy of a box of chocolates. There were certainly some imaginative reinterpretations (perhaps incentivised by the free sweets), most of which seemed to end up by covering the floor with chocolates!
We then welcomed our guest speaker Dr Daniel Leary from the Government Office for Science, who introduced us to what the Civil Service is, and the role of science and engineering within it. “Our job is to help governments develop policies and deliver their vision for citizens” he said. This organisation, made up of various departments reporting to government ministers, provides both services (such as pensions, passports and benefits) and advice. The science and technology sector has grown considerably since the first Chief Science Advisor was appointed in 1964, with there now being 70 Science Advisory Councils. Some of these cover broad themes – e.g. defence, transport and health and safety – whereas others focus on specific policy areas, such as solar energy and nuclear power. They act as a link between MPs in Parliament and academics, industry experts and NGOs – which is crucial when important decisions have to be made quickly. Daniel gave the example of when the government chose to close all airports following the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull; “This wasn’t a decision which was taken lightly, but it was based on high quality advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies”.
With such diversity, a career within the Civil Service can offer scientists varied work with the potential to directly impact everyday life. “You won’t be sat at a lab bench or looking down a microscope – you will be meeting experts face to face, sourcing advice and set a broad range of intellectually interesting jobs” said Daniel. But this requires strong skills – particularly communication: the ability to translate complex information to non-specialists and to pick out key messages. “We look for people with adaptability, drive and ambition” said Daniel. “You also need to be completely impartial – prepared to serve any government with equal diligence”. If you think you have what it takes, the next step is to apply to the Civil Service Science and Engineering Fast Stream: a rigorous process that involves online questionnaires, decision tests, video interviews and an assessment centre. But the reward could be a career far different to the usual options in academia and industry. As Daniel aptly summarised: “Working in the Civil Service is like a box of chocolates- you never know what you’re going to get”.
To learn more about Science and Engineering in the Civil Service, watch ‘The GSE Story’. Further information about the Science and Engineering Fast Stream can be found here. Also, look out for internships advertised on the Civil Service jobs portal. 

​Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/ 

At our last event, we welcomed Charles Seaford, formerly of the New Economics Foundation, to discuss “How is the measurement of wellbeing useful for economic policy?”
We often presume that government policies are intended to benefit our wellbeing however, as Charles explained, as there is currently no standard method to quantify happiness, this view is a little naïve. Wellbeing goes beyond simply having the resources to “live a good life”; it includes the relationship one has with the world and our sense of purpose (or lack of). What’s more, the model is not a straightforward case of “External factors IN (good job, health, resources, etc.), Happiness OUT”. Instead, Charles described how good functioning and good conditions form a perpetuating ‘virtuous circle’; for instance, if you feel more self-confident, then you are more likely to get the job you want. “We see that flourishing is a means as well as an end goal” said Charles. “If we can get people flourishing, then many problems begin to solve themselves”.

So far, wellbeing has been assessed through basic surveys which question a person’s satisfaction with life, sense of purpose, ability to handle problems, and so on. Although simple, these have already yielded data that have implications for government policy, including the observation that people on short-term temporary contracts have less satisfaction than those who are unemployed. “This contrasts the traditional economic argument that unemployment is simply bad, so we must do all we can to remove it” said Charles. Hence, governments may do better to focus more on security in employment, rather than the quantity of jobs per se.

Traditionally, wellbeing has been presumed to increase in step with GDP and there is some evidence that this is the case. However, quantifying how wellbeing is affected by different circumstances can prove scientifically which policies really do bring a social benefit. Besides this, knowing the “wellbeing impact” values for different strategies would allow cash-strapped governments to perform cost-benefit analysis to decide which to implement. For instance, mental health conditions and litter have been found to have a hugely detrimental effect on wellbeing, yet these are relatively cheap to address.
​
But there may be times when economic growth and wellbeing come into conflict. “The traditional view is that economic policy should deliver wellbeing” said Charles “but this isn’t very scientific – it’s just presuming the right things will emerge”. Getting as many people into employment as possible may seem like the best economic strategy, yet this could have an overall net negative impact on societies if these jobs are unstable. Building a new factory might boost productivity, but it could also cause pollution that affects the environment of local communities. Hence, whilst having a science of wellbeing could simplify policy decisions, it may at times also call for economic growth to be sacrificed for the greater good.
Ultimately, knowing the factors which have the largest effects on our life satisfaction can help us “make our own happiness” to some extent. Giving to others, learning new skills, taking regular exercise, investing in strong relationships with friends and family – these have all been proven to have a critical bearing on wellbeing. And best of all, we can start doing them right away, without having to wait for parliamentary approval.   

​Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/

They might be known as an organisation of radical activists, but when it comes to environmental campaigning, Greenpeace certainly know how to do things properly. At our last event, Saskia Richartz, Deputy Director of Greenpeace European Unit, explained how – contrary to what most people may think – science and transparency of evidence is at the heart of this organisation’s activities.
​
“My task is to convince you that we are NOT all tree huggers” Saskia began “but sometimes this helps us as people underestimate our political power”. Nevertheless, Greenpeace does have its origins in the ‘Hippy Movement’ of the 1970s when a group of activists chartered a fishing boat to “bear witness” against nuclear testing off the West Coast of Alaska. Since then, it has grown into a huge movement working in around 50 countries with just under 3 million supporters worldwide. Their staff includes legal, economic and communication experts besides political campaigners. Such expertise counters the popular notion that Greenpeace’s trademark visual demonstrations are spontaneous, publicity-seeking stunts. Rather, as Saskia explained, instead of being done “willy-nilly”, every act is carefully thought out beforehand, with the location and date chosen strategically. Meanwhile, much of Greenpeace’s work actually takes place behind the scenes, including drafting environmental reports and advising politicians.

Which is where Saskia comes in. As Deputy Director of the European Unit based in Brussels, her role is to ensure that the Greenpeace voice is heard in EU Parliamentary debates. It’s a strategic position, especially as “most of the EU’s environmental regulations, and 70% of the UK’s, originate from decisions made in Brussels”. To have an influence in this, Greenpeace mainly works by preparing advisory material for the EU Commission, which drafts proposals for policy and legislation for the EU Parliament and Council. The EU Commission is made up of 28 Commissioners, one from each member state, who lead project groups that focus on specific areas, such as climate change or jobs and investment. These are further divided into expert groups which draw advice from industry representatives, academics and external organisations. “This is a structure that has grown organically” as Saskia described it. “People have identified gaps and patched them up”.

But how can you get EU politicians to listen to such a ‘radical’ organisation such as Greenpeace? “We use our own in-house science to add weight and credibility to our work” Saskia explained. In fact, Greenpeace have their very own laboratory (based at Exeter University), where they conduct their own research into monitoring human effects on the environment. Their rigorous studies have been used in the past to shape critical reports on topics including pollution from electronic waste and the lingering traces of radioactivity from the Chernobyl disaster. It has also helped to justify some of their more controversial work; for instance, when the organisation placed large boulders on the sea bed of ‘theoretically’ protected marine reserves. Outraged fishermen took them to court as they were now unable to use their damaging bottom-dredging nets. However, the judge ruled in Greenpeace’s favour, because they had the scientific evidence that preventing these fishing methods allowed natural populations to recover.

One would hope that evidence is already at the heart of all parliamentary debate, but sometimes even good science is not enough to stand on its own, especially in a climate where so much of politics is driven by big business. “We sometimes find ourselves filling a role to advocate scientific facts” Saskia remarked. Consequently, the organisation often has to adopt a “lobbying” approach to ensure that key evidence is not missed off the agenda, but this can draw criticism. “We can be accused of being anti-science for “dumbing things down’ but sometimes it is necessary, just to get a dialogue started” Saskia said. She used the example of Greenpeace’s work to promote fishing methods that stay well within the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for each species. After presenting peer-reviewed scientific literature, writing letters and bringing politicians and scientists together in workshops, Greenpeace eventually resorted to writing a “Dummies Guide to MSY”. Even then, things only gained momentum when they produced a mug with the phrase “To MSY and Beyond!” styled on the Buzz Lightyear slogan. “Everyone wanted one” Saskia said “and finally people knew what MSY meant, or at least that it had something to do with fish”.

So instead of tree-hugging hippies, here we have an organisation that combines scientific evidence with strategic, confrontational campaigning. As Saskia concluded “We are a dedicated public group that wants and cares about environmental protection that is not constrained by national politics”. As the threats to the natural environment only increase, such work will surely only become more crucial in the future.

Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/
 

Food Production, Health and the Environment proved to be one of Science in Policy’s liveliest debates yet, and little wonder with “The Food Issue” being such an emotive one. In a world facing the challenges of 10 billion-strong global population, climate change, environmental degradation and changing diets, what is the best way to proceed? Vegetarian vs. carnivore, local vs. imported, organic vs. GM – we put it all under the spotlight!

Our Panel:
Prof Colin Osborne (Professor of Plant Biology, University of Sheffield, chair)
Dr Margo Barker (Human Nutrition Unit, University of Sheffield)
Sam Durham (Chief Land Management Adviser, National Farmers' Union)
Dr Chris Jones (Social and Environmental Psychologist, University of Sheffield)
Dr Wayne Martindale (Centre for Food Innovation, Sheffield Hallam University)

One of the ‘meatiest’ topics of the night was the vegetarian debate – with developing countries aspiring to a Western-style diet, is our rate of meat consumption sustainable? The panel agreed that a vegetarian diet will always be greener than a carnivorous one – even if it does rely on more dairy products and fruit/veg flown in from around the world. But Chris argued that presenting the issue as a “dichotomy of choice” isn’t practical or even realistic while meat plays such a central role in social celebrations. “We can get bogged down in the environmental debate but we have to consider other angles, such as whether something can be culturally sustainable” said Chris. Overall, a good place to start would be for us all to cut down on meat products – particularly red and processed meats, the worst consumers of fossil fuels, water and energy – and buy local when we can.

Food miles were also a hot topic, particularly as Britain imports a staggering 50% of its vegetables and 75% of its fruit. It doesn’t help that we are clearly out of touch with seasonal eating these days; in fact, “our need for strawberries at Christmas has put Spain under pressure to produce them for us”. But even if you do look for the “produced in Britain” label, our agricultural systems have become so globalised that you may find your salad nipped over the channel to be packaged before being reimported to your supermarket! Meanwhile, as Wayne pointed out, cutting all our food imports could jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands in developing countries. He argued that “as long as we require foods out of season, a market will be found – our job is to make sure it is sustainable and safe”.

With so many researchers in the audience, a keen question was why GM has become twisted into such a thorny issue in Europe, despite the USA having such a different approach?  According to Margo it has become an issue of trust. “Food is a very emotional thing – people are perfectly happy to inject insulin produced using GM methods but they won’t consume GM food.” Little wonder, as Chris put it, when the Government adopted a strategy of “make the announcements and hope the public agrees”. Meanwhile, Sam argued that our national reluctance to engage with GM is holding our farmers back. “We should be able to compete with other countries growing these products” he stated.  

Given the many challenges on the food agenda, should the focus be on individual actions or sweeping Government policies? According to Chris, the Government needs to lead on this; “People aren’t going to act unless there are structural changes to allow them to act on their changed attitudes” he said. But a draconian approach certainly won’t help, argued Wayne: “There are ways to communicate without telling people what to do. After all, the food industry has been doing this for years!”
 
Clearly we need to value food as it deserves and be prepared to pay a little more for sustainably produced, higher-quality food. If we could also challenge ourselves to eat meat less often, at least learn which fruit and vegetables are seasonal and look out for local varieties, then the planet will surely thank us. And don’t forget your reusable carrier bag!

Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/

“Order, order!” To keep with a true Parliamentary debate, the Rt Hon John Bercow, Speaker for the House of Commons, officially opened the proceedings at VOF 2016. I felt honoured to be there representing the Society of Experimental Biology (SEB) among a host of delegates from the nation’s most prestigious learned societies. As young scientists, this was our chance to pose our questions to MPs and ministers on everything from food security, the upcoming EU referendum, the energy crises, the Zika virus – every topical issue you could think of! I couldn't wait to start.

In the first Panel, we asked Sir Mark Walport (Government Chief Scientific Adviser) whether it was right for scientists to feel constantly pressured to publish papers to advance their careers – surely this distorts research towards positive, high-impact results? "A negative experiment is not a failed experiment - it tells you something you didn't know, even if it is that your hypothesis was wrong" Sir Walport reminded us. The issue of Open Access publishing was also raised - can this radically new approach really work over the long-term? Sir Walport thought so, stating that "the already successful Open Access journals show that this is an economic model that can work. Someone is still paying, but now the cost of publishing becomes one of the costs of the research, just like a centrifuge."

Following this, we enjoyed a lively debate with a range of representatives from the Science and Technology Committee. The alarming lack of qualified STEM teachers was a particular concern, with Nicola Blackwood (MP for Oxford West and Abington) stating: “The skills gap has reached a crisis point - for instance, there is worrying evidence that only 35% of ICT teachers have a relevant qualification". Besides missing STEM teachers, we also wanted to know where are all the women in the higher tiers of academia and industry? Clearly, more needs to be done to make a scientific career and motherhood compatible. Meanwhile, could a split from the EU put British Science Institutions in jeopardy? After all, the UK currently receives the highest proportion of European Research Council funding (22%). Whilst some felt that "the excellence of our institutions will keep collaboration resilient", others weren't so confident. "We don't want our scientists to be left outside, looking in on projects to cure cancer, develop new energy technologies, etc." said Stella Creasy (MP for Walthamstow).
We then had a break in the more formal proceedings to receive a very special message, recorded specially for us from the International Space Station. British astronaut (and new celebrity!) Tim Peake sent us his greetings and described some of his own recent scientific experiments on the accelerating ageing effects of space travel. Although his voyage has been hailed as an inspiration to the British public, he imagines a more audacious future still. “In the not too distant future, human space travel will become as routine as commercial aviation is today” he assured us.

My nerves kicked in as the third panel started as it would soon be time for me to pose my question. Fortunately, I maintained my composure and was able to look Jo Johnson, (Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) in the eye and ask “If Global Warming is as bad as the worst-case scenarios predict, how will this current Government justify itself?” Unfazed, Mr Johnson reminded us of the UK’s critical contribution in the Paris Climate Talks of December 2015 and pointed out that over the last Parliament, carbon emissions had dropped by 18%, the largest decrease ever in a single Parliament. I suppose that only time will tell as to whether our actions now will be enough to avoid the worst damage possible – and by then, it’s likely that a different set of MPs than those before us today will be in office.

In the final panel, societal issues were the theme of our discussion with Shadow Minister Yvonne Fovargue. When asked what should be done to prompt more girls to take up maths and physics degrees, she argued that encouragement must come at a much earlier stage. As to the proposed “sugar tax”, she argued that “Raising the cost of food for people isn’t going to solve the obesity problem”, particularly as so much of our sugar intake is hidden in processed foods. Instead, the government should adopt an educational approach that “makes people understand the value of healthy eating”.

Throughout the day, we were encouraged to get involved and consider a future in Parliament and policy making. "People keep asking why there are so many MPs without science degrees" said Sir Mark Walport. "And at the end of the day, it's because they stood for election". But even if you don't want to try and make it as an MP, being active at a local level can be effective. reminded us that even. "Do not underestimate the power of your local MP" Dr Tania Mathias (MP for Twickenham) reminded us. "If you can pitch an idea and explain it to me, I can take it to the back benches". Nevertheless, as we all departed for our various destinations, I couldn’t help but feel that more than a few of the delegates would return to Portcullis House one day...

To see the official recording of Voice of the Future 2016, click here.

Voices of the Future is open to students who are members of over 15 participating learned societies, including the Royal Society of Biology, the Biochemical Society, The Institute of Physics and the Geological Society. To find out more visit this webpage.

Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student at the University of Sheffield and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/
All photos by Royal Society of Biology

There is something oddly jarring about walking the short passage between the Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House. In spite of the vibrant banners adorning the walls and the relentless clackity-clack of polished shoes on cold stone, the massive space of Westminster Hall hangs very still and very old overhead. The House of Commons, though smaller in scale, also exudes a similar stillness, the roar and hysteria of Prime Minister’s Questions in an instant absorbed and forgotten within the soft leather and silent wood panelling. It is sometimes seems hard to square the frantic political manoeuvring and fierce debate that shape our policies, laws and political parties with the feeling of silent timelessness contained within this small green-and-brown room. Yet, perched behind the glass screen in the Visitor’s Gallery and watching below a tiny handful of MPs debate the precise meaning of the wording of a paragraph of a draft bill about how much control local authorities have over roads, there is the quietly satisfying, even humbling, feeling of watching the law take shape – careful people taking the greatest of care over the smallest of words, and in doing so, fashioning a small, (near) perfectly-formed cog that will one day help to run a huge legislative machine.

Entering Portcullis House, on the other hand, you can’t fail to notice a sharp-suited, up-and-thrusting building with a keen sense of its own importance. Beneath the trendy glass-and-metal dome (resembling the Eden Project not a little, thanks to the fig trees planted in the atrium), MPs and special advisers dash to and fro, clutching coffee and checking their phones. It is here that you can be called to give evidence to a select committee, jostled on the elevator by MPs caught up in the thrill of it all (‘Don’t you know there’s a bloody vote on?’) or find yourself losing a staring match to a vaguely terrifying Margaret Thatcher (Henry Mee, oil on canvas). Compared with the calm stateliness of the Commons and Lords, Portcullis House manages to seem at once both achingly self-aware and not aware at all. In the upper levels, however, behind the glossy wooden doors guarded by paintings of former prime ministers, select committees work tirelessly to gather information about all facets of modern life, from high-speed rail to big companies sharing customer data. To sit in on one of these sessions is to observe how scrupulously MPs work to build a clear picture from the mass of data presented to them with the eminently laudable goal of better informing both their fellow members and the government as it pursues its legislative agenda.

Those with an interest in UK history, architecture and politics will not fail to be excited and inspired when visiting Westminster. But it’s important that everyone else come too, if only once, so that they can see how within this bizarre collision of Gothic splendour and modern, digital angst the people that we vote for strive to shape our country, for better or worse.

Blog entry by James Bradley:
The policy making process – how a plant would do it.
 
A recent trip to Westminster was intended to engage, enlighten and enthuse early career scientists in the policy making process. How is evidence used to instruct new policies? How is evidence conveyed to elected policy makers? Where does it all happen? At the end of this long day, as we chugged back to Sheffield along a wind-swept M1, the answers to these questions seemed to figuratively crystallise as an extended metaphor that will be familiar to most scientists.
 
Let me explain.
 
Imagine the sun as a brightly glowing ball of knowledge, constantly swirling, gurgling and erupting within itself. Now imagine this sun represents independent scientists whom diligently generate evidence, which is disseminated in the form of light. Some of this light reaches Earth, where it can be put to use. In nature, the leaves of an oak tree use this light in photosynthesis, whereas in society evidence-based knowledge is utilised to decide on future policy decisions.
 
Embedded within society are policy-frameworks built up by successive parliaments over many years, which help to shape and support society. Cellular structures and chemical components holding a leaf together are analogous to the policy frame-works that hold society together – without them, both would disassemble into anarchy.
 
Situated within Houses of Parliament are elected ministers whom are the policy-making engines of government. They gather in regular fashion and sit together as a select committee to listen to evidence given by witnesses or experts in a field of knowledge (Fig. 1) – perhaps the endless spectrum of wavelengths of light are the different knowledge bases; biology, engineering, socio-economics, psychology, computer engineering – all different areas of expertise that may be heard by select committees. Analogous to select committees, are the small clusters of proteins embedded within the structural framework of plant cells. Just as MPs sitting in select committees use evidence to instruct new policies, proteins sitting within cell membranes use light from the sun to generate energy (Fig. 1).
 
How is the policy used within society? Or to ask this another way, how is energy used by an oak tree?
 
Within plants, the energy generated through photosynthesis can be used to construct new cell structures and leaves, to support old structures or can even be called upon to generate protective compounds against attack from parasites. In society, new policy builds structure, delimitates boundaries and determines how different components of society should function and interact with each other. Under emergency situations, policy can also be generated quickly to respond to imminent threats – indeed, David Cameron spoke in the House of Commons as we were touring the buildings to talk about action in the wake of the Paris attacks.
 
The degree to which this metaphor can be extended is debatable but it seems many parallels can be drawn between a self-sustaining photosynthetic system, which is fundamental to a plant, and the evidence-based policy process that is embedded within government and that supports society. Realising the vital role of evidence in policy and policy in society, is crucial for scientists and policy-makers alike and will help to build a cohesive bridge between the sometimes distinct factions.

Figure 1. Parallels between light capture and energy generation through photosynthesis in plants and evidence-based policy making through a select committee.  MP = minister of parliament. Crucially, evidence-based knowledge is vital for well-informed, appropriate policies, and this highlights the importance of scientists from all backgrounds and levels of expertise interacting with policy makers.  

Blog entry by Connor Heapy:

Last week I was given the opportunity to visit The Palace of Westminster.  Having only developed an interest in politics in the past couple of years, I’d never really considered venturing down to the home of British politics before. I was therefore excited and intrigued when I was invited by SiP on a trip to Westminster. And despite a criminally early start, I left London feeling inspired after an insightful, and, occasionally bizarre, day.
 
We arrived into London mid-morning and after a meticulous security check, we grouped in the oldest of the Westminster buildings, Westminster Hall. Built in 1100, the Hall was almost 800 years older than the rest of the parliamentary buildings, which I later learnt had burnt down during the Great Fire of 1834. It was here in Westminster Hall that we met our tour-guide who showed us around the various lobbies, chambers and galleries of the Palace.
 
The beginning of our tour coincided with the opening of the House of Commons. This meant that we were able to watch a strange parliamentary tradition which involved a ceremonial mace being slowly carried into the House of Commons. This ceremony marked one of the only quiet occasions throughout the day.
 
The feeling of the rooms varied greatly throughout Westminster. Some of the rooms were grand and ornate and at times I felt as though I was walking through Hogwarts. This feeling was only compounded by the eerie paintings of past monarchs and lords that lined the walls. The grandeur of the building was epitomized by the Queens Robing Room, a changing room used by the Queen once a year for the State Opening of Parliament, which was bigger than my 4-bedroom house. Other parts of the building were much more humble and modern.
 
Following the tour we met our local Labour MP, Paul Blomfield, who had encouraging things to say about the political process. He emphasised the difference that can be made by MPs in Westminster when pushed by constituents or informed by scientists. The meeting was interesting and I left feeling positive about the potential difference I could make in the future. 
 
As the day was coming to a close we headed over to House of Commons to watch a discussion on transport. Our walk was interrupted by the sound of bells ringing throughout the corridors. My doubts about whether this was a fire alarm were quashed when politicians, Harriet Harman among them, began pouring down the corridors. This bell turned out to be the Divison Bell which is rung to call MPs to the chamber to vote.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Westminster and I would recommend the trip to everyone. Not only did it open my eyes to the role of an MP, it also changed my perception of parliament and made me feel closer to the political process. Perhaps most importantly, though, I arrived back home in Sheffield feeling positive about the impact that I could have on policy in the future.

A round-up from our last session on Friday 30th October. Our guest speakers Lynn Hobson (Parliamentary Outreach), Dr Grahame Danby (Science Clerk from the House of Commons Sci and Tech Committee) and Dr Cat Ball (Science and Technology Policy Analyst) gave us a masterclass in how scientists can engage with policy makers and submit evidence to influence key government inquiries.
 
First Lynne Hobson from Parliamentary Outreach gave us an introduction to the structure of Parliament, and in particular, how the work of the House of Lords complements the House of Commons. Although the House of Lords can have an elitist image, Lynne argued that it is actually more representative of British society than the Commons, representing a wider range of ethnicities, professions and industries. She also disagreed with the view that having the two houses is an idiosyncratic system that slows down the process of law-making. "The Lords aren't there to cause trouble - it is about creating a debate to get the best laws possible, ones that are robust and fit for purpose" she said. 
 
Both the Lords and Commons have select committees, who commission inquiries into specific topics. Some of these committees are permanent, such as the Committee for Human Rights, whereas others are reactive, formed in response to major events, such as the banking crisis. The only committee which has the same name for both houses is the Science and Technology Committee, and we were very lucky to hear from Dr Cat Ball, Policy Analyst for the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. 
 
After introducing us to the committee members (an eclectic bunch including a former head of MI5!), Cat described how their work reflects the most topical issues of the moment. "We are currently taking oral evidence for the potential uses of GM insects and our next big inquiry will investigate the relationship between EU membership and science". During these inquiries, members of the public are invited to submit evidence - this can be from world- leading experts, people who simply have an interest or even PhD students! Even though thousands of people may submit evidence, the administrative staff "read and consider everything and unless it's completely barmy, we will put it forward to the committee". But do these enquiries actually make any difference? Cat gave us some compelling examples that they do, including a 2011 enquiry into nuclear research which the Government used to develop its nuclear strategy up to 2050. Nevertheless, Cat stressed that the committees are strictly limited to an advisory role. "We have much more of a scrutinising function than one of law-making" she said.
 
For all these inquiries and for informing parliamentary debates, it is vital that MPs and select committees have all the information they need right at their fingertips. Not surprisingly, Parliament is supported by a huge army of administrative staff who play a critical role in 'keeping everything working'. Dr Grahame Danby, Clerk to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, gave us an insight into this behind the scenes work. Part of his role involves signposting MPs and ministers to the correct department that can answer their questions and to retrieve key information from the vast repositories stored in the Government libraries. In one famous example, an MP once asked which department he should go to for information about asteroids. The reply: "Well, the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) deal with space but if it comes closer to earth, it might become an issue for the Ministry of Defence". 
 
Grahame stressed how the pace is in a completely different league to the sometimes ponderous world of academia. "An MP might literally only have a few minutes before they have to be in the Chamber" he said. "I don't have time to commission a PhD for every question I'm asked". The libraries get a lot of use, with the clerks receiving enquiries on every topic under the sun. "MPs get approached with all sorts of problems, especially from their constituents" Grahame said. "If one of David Cameron's constituents complained to him about the height of their neighbour's hedge, he would almost certainly refer to the library for guidance". MPs also 'like to know what they are talking about' for media appearances and public debates. Hence, Grahame found himself writing briefing notes on the Higgs Boson the day before its discovery was announced! More recent examples of issues that have drawn heavily on published scientific research include plain packaging for tobacco, ash dieback and how neonicinotoid insecticides affect bees.
 
It was a fascinating overview of a little- known and often unappreciated range of careers which cross the boundary between being a scientist and being a policy maker.
 
Meanwhile, keep watching, we're off to Westminster on the 17th November!
 
Highlights from the questions:
 
Do select committees like receiving evidence from academics during an enquiry?
 
Grahame: "I personally like getting information from Academics as you can tend to trust them to be impartial and their research is put to a rigorous peer review process"
 
Can even PhD students submit evidence?
 
Grahame: "The select committees tend to go for heads of departments and Professors but there is no reason why a PhD student could not submit evidence"
Cat: "We welcome input from early-career researchers. In many cases, they will be the ones most affected by new legislation". 
 
What happens if someone submits untruthful evidence?
 
Grahame; "You used to be locked up in Big Ben....that doesn't happen now but 'contempt of Parliament' doesn't look good on your CV!"
 
Do you have any advice on how to contact MPs with scientific issues?
 
Lynne: "Be BRIEF - ask yourself, 'Could my MP read this on the train?' Tell them who you are, why you are contacting them, what the issue is and why it is relevant to them now. And certainly don't use any academic lingo!"
 
What is the main limitation of the select committees?
 
Cat: "The main limitation is that, despite putting a lot of time, detail and trouble into our recommendations, we can't force the Government to do anything. All we can do is hope things move along".
Grahame: "Yes, but it does take forward the public debate. The only way things happen in a democracy is through public debate". 


Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member

See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/