Category Archives: Science Politics And Policy
Climate Change And Planning Applications Reviewed
A White Paper on sustainability and planning rules is about to appear. Ruth Kelly, the Government’s Communities Secretary, wants climate change to be an integral part of the agenda for the overall planning process, regarding both infrastructure and local renewable technologies. So why has the Local Government Association already rejected the White Paper?
The detail is always the issue, of course, but surely the Local Government Association (LGA) is plain wrong to reject – or so it appears – Ruth Kelly’s proposed White Paper on planning rules and sustainability even before it goes to print?
There may well be issues about how planning applications for big projects such as airport terminals are handled, but the present system is hardly perfect. (The time scale – six years – and cost of the process for Heathrow’s fifth terminal is one example.)
Addressing climate change where it makes a difference
The critical point of the intended White Paper is that it attends to the very real challenge of climate change. Yvette Cooper, the Department of Communities and Local Government Housing Minister, is already lined up to head a ‘green buildings
task force’; now Ruth Kelly wants to do her bit by enabling more easily the actual implementation of the essential changes to the way things will be done.
Oliver Letwin, the Conservatives’ policy spokesperson, and (Lord) Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, Tory leader of the LGA, have responded to the idea of the Green Paper by talking about loss of ‘local control’.
A global issue, not a local one
I’m all for local people feeling empowered and engaged – the local dimension does matter – but haven’t Messrs Letwin and Bruce-Lockhart lost the plot?
Climate change is a global issue, not one which can be resolved primarily by local consultation, for goodness’ sake.
Policy-Related Scientific Research In Context
Avian influenza (‘bird flu’) has again made us aware of the scientific research which underpins government policy. Some have great faith in this science, others have none. Our growing understandings of how scientific research and public policy inter-relate can however help inform both science itself, and how political / policy decisions might be taken in real life.
Avian influenza has provoked quite a debate in The Guardian about how science and politics inter-relate.
Recent contributors to this debate include Erik Millstone and Simon Jenkins, who are right to raise the issue of scientific advice to the Government in respect of avian influenza – just as Ministers are right to take this advice seriously.
But in reality there is no such thing as ‘pure’ scientific research. All research, whether ‘natural’ or ‘social’, is predicated on often taken-for-granted understandings of context.
However inadvertently, therefore, the gap between scientific advice and policy / politic, whether in the case of avian influenza or any other issue, is wide not as Prof Millstone and Mr Jenkins might in different ways seem to suggest.
The questions underpin the research
Scientific advice arises from scientific research questions, and scientific research tends to be structured largely around ‘received’ understandings of the issues involved – including, inevitably, contexts of those issues.
In other words, natural scientists, as non-experts in matters socio-economic, will tend, if unchallenged, towards uncritical acceptance of the status quo or predominant contextual view of the situation in the same way as any other ‘person in the street’.
It is not surprising therefore that science, in selecting which techno-scientific issues to address, has in the past often focused on the interests of the most collectively powerful and visible operators.
Socio-economic impact and policy
This is now changing as questions about socio-economic impact are, rightly, articulated more loudly.
It is encouraging that Government politicians and policy-makers are beginning to recognise the critical importance of framing scientific research, from its inception, around contextual as well as ‘purely’ scientific questions.
Articulating these wider understandings better from the inception of any piece of research is the way to ensure that scientific advice can best inform political decision-making. And doing this certainly does not diminish the robustness of scientific endeavour; rather the converse.
Scientific and poltical responsibility shared
The selection of ways forward in policy is ultimately a political responsibility; but making sure that ‘scientific’
questions acknowledge the whole spectrum of contextual interests is a responsibility which, thankfully, scientists advising decision-makers are themselves increasingly aware that they must share.
A version of this posting was published on The Guardian letters page of 17 February 2007.
Further commentary follows the e-bookshop.
BRCs: The Science Golden Triangle Wins Again
England’s Northern Universities are upset that the Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) of excellence are all in the ‘Golden Triangle’ of Oxford, Cambridge and London. ‘Added value’ economic impact has been sidelined. With intimations of southern advantage and selective assessment perspectives, is this a re-run of the 4GLS synchrotron debate on location in the ‘north’ or ‘south’?
Prof Alan Gilbert, Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University, is championing medical science in England’s northern universities, after his institution was not selected as a comprehensive biomedical research centre of excellence (BRC). This accolade, worth 8-figure sums to each institution, has been awarded only to universities in Oxford, Cambridge and London.
Once again, the Golden Triangle has triumphed over everywhere else in England.
And once again the southern economy hots up as northern sensitivities are similarly inflamed.
Who decides?
The decision to support only Golden Triangle universities was made by the Department of Health / NHS National Institute for Health Research
(NIRH) high command, on the basis of assessment by a panel of experts working outside England of the international excellence of medical science in the competing universities.
This panel does not seem to have laid much emphasis on the impact of macro-investment in the knowledge economy on regional economies as such.
History repeats itself
So here we go again.
More science money is being invested where money has already gone. Comparatively less is made available where investment has historically been more difficult to obtain.
When the big debates about synchrotron investment in the North of England were conducted, the medical science people were
hardly to be seen. The Wellcome Trust, a major player in bio-medical research, was widely regarded as unhelpful to those making the northern case, and even some northern university medical scientists did not support it.
Yet investment (usually of government money) in scientific institutions with capacity and established further potential is critical to wider long-term prospects for the UK economy.
Biggest impact, greatest added-value
Prof Gilbert says that universities must not ‘ask favours because we have been disadvantaged historically’. But in fighting his case he could look at the Daresbury (4GLS) – Rutherford Appleton (Diamond) synchrotron debates to see that the issues may be slightly different.
It is not ‘asking favours’ if those of us, the public whose money is
being spent, demand equity in terms of investment opportunities for top-level science.
Wider perspectives
The NHS is a very closed institution which has not, historically, been good at acknowledging it is now an important part of the wider knowledge economy.
Patient care is the aspect of this huge organisation which most members of the public experience, but that should be a fundamental ‘given’. It cannot provide refuge from the fact that, medically or otherwise, international science knows no silos.
Excellence in context
Nor can a rightful emphasis on patient experience permit us to forget, as collectively holders of the public purse, that any public investment needs to work in as many different ways as possible.
As the growing success of the U.K.’s ‘northern’ Darebury Laboratories has shown, internationally excellent science, public benefit across the nation and added-value regional development can evolve hand in hand, if enough decision-makers have the vision and courage to ensure that this will happen.
Science And Regeneration
Science may sometimes be difficult for people in regeneration to understand; and perhaps this doesn’t always matter. But we do all need to see what science in its operation and applications has to offer. For optimal outcomes at every level dialogue between scientists and regeneration practitioners is critical.
Why is science important in regeneration? And why, if so, is it invisible?
There are many answers both these questions, but three of the most straightforward are:
* Science is a huge part of the knowledge economy, which in turn is a critical part modern western life; we have moved on from standard production to an ideas based economy.
* Science in its applications is both a ‘cause’ of and a ‘cure’ for the environmental issues which are by the day becoming more pressing.
* Science is often invisible because many of us find it incomprehensible and, in any case, it tends to be tucked away in universities, industrial laboratories, business parks and at the more daunting end of the quality media. (We won’t even think here about science and the popular press…)
Plus of course science is as incomprehensible to significant numbers of journalists and politicians as it is to many members of the general public.
Science policy
But science is not the same as science policy. The former tends (though probably less so than in the past) towards more theoretical research, even if often externally funded; the latter is about the intentional influence and impact of scientific (and technological) knowledge on our lives.
The incomprehension of many about science is unsurprising. But impressive scientific knowledge in itself is less important for regeneration strategies than is an understanding of where the application of science can take us, and how to get there. I can drive a car, and I know where I would like it to take me, but I would be hard pressed to construct one.
And science can offer not one destination but several if it is ‘driven’ well…. How about large-scale construction and investment opportunities, enhancement of the skills base, graduate retention and synergy with existing enterprise, plus the kudos of internationally significant research, for a start?
Is there a downside?
It would be foolish to suggest that all science is ‘good’. Publicly contentious work is another reason why understanding what science can do is important – the GM food and MMR vaccination debates, however well-informed or not, come to mind and are frequently confused issues for the non-specialist. But even disallowing for these sort of concerns there are still costs to the advancement of science and technology, not least environmental.
What science and technology ‘cause’ they can also however often mitigate. If we know, say, how ‘expensive’ in carbon terms a particular innovation or development is, we also usually know what to do to mitigate or turn around that cost. Planning and design, for instance, are frequently critical. to best practice.
In a regeneration proposal, has economy of energy been a major consideration? Is the infrastructure connected in ways which reduce negative environmental impact? Are the plans sustainable in all the ways, environmental, economic and at the human level, that they should be? Science of many sorts can help us towards the answers.
Moving away from traditional perspectives
Science and technology are not respectful of the public-private boundaries which have traditionally shaped regeneration. Knowledge, once that genie has emerged, cannot be put back in the bottle. Like water, it will flow wherever it meets least resistance or most encouragement.
Given the gargantuan sums of money which some science and technology require in their developmental phases and application, it is surprising that so little public attention is generally given to where Big Science facilities are located. (The Daresbury Laboratory in the North West of England is a good example of enhanced regeneration when world-class science is secured by active regional lobbying.)
It’s time to move away from the idea that all regeneration requires is a science park tucked away in a corner of our strategic plan, and we need also to think big about what it all means. For the best regeneration outcomes scientists and regeneration policy makers must to be in communication with each other all the time – even if they need an active ‘translator’ to achieve this. Neither is likely to procure the very best opportunities from the other, if no-one is talking.
A version of this article was published, as ‘The appliance of science affects us all’, in New Start magazine on 24 November 2006.
Pollution, Politics And Practicality: Where Do The Scientists Fit In?
It’s a big distance from the mythical Northlands of Noggin the Nog, to the brutal facts of global warming, but Noggin’s creator, Oliver Postgate, is doing his bit to help. The next step is to try to understand the realities of the complex connections between science, politics and people. Then we really shall begin to see how to establish sustainable living, and how to deliver on the ground what we know in theory is required.
Oliver Postgate is a name which takes me back many years….. it turns out because he’s the author of the wonderful Sagas of Noggin the Nog which were so enjoyed by us all at a point where little bedtime stories featured large in our lives.
But now Mr Postgate is appearing in another guise, in The Guardian advertisements (the latest on 16 October), bringing news of potential environmental doom for our planet.
Good for Oliver Postgate. He has seen how urgent is the task of acting to control (or hopefully reverse) environmental damage, and he is doing something about it. This position may be a very long way from the gentle Northlands of Noggin the Nog, but, in the real world we actually live in, where Oliver Postgate now finds himself is an extremely apposite and important place to be. If Al Gore can go there, why not, I ask quite sincerely, also Oliver Postgate?
Science and politics
I’m one hundred percent with Mr Postgate in his assertion that:
As nobody can pretend to know for certain what is going to happen to the climate, the only safe and sensible thing to do is to deal with it now.
But I’m not sure Oliver Postgate is also correct when he tells us that:
The present government has been making a show of tackling [environmental issues], but the task it has given to its scientists is not simply to find a way to end global warming – they could do that at once – but to do so “without cuttimg either our economic growth or our living standards”.
As these are the two main causes of global warming, this task does, as they say: ‘present some difficulties’ in that, from among the many different specultaive predictions on offer, the scientists are being expected to seek and select, as definitive, the most ‘politically practical’.
A confusion somewhere?
To unpick all the understandings in these two brief statements would take some while. Questions of scientific direction, funding, feasibility, cost, the connections between science and government and, ultimately, political deliverability would all need to be examined in a way which is beyond even a detailed weblog posting. Each of these is an enormous topic in its own right.
Perhaps we shall return to these themes in the future.
Political reality
But there a few matters which we can address immediately. These are:
1. Scientists advise government, on the basis of the best available evidence. Their reputations depend on giving guidance which will withstand the scrutiny of both their colleagues and wider stakeholders. It is important to accept and endorse scientists’ professional independence.
2. What is done by government with scientific advice is a political, not a scientific, matter. The grim reality is that politicians can only take forward policies which, even after they have factored in leadership, example, costs and so forth, still seem to have a chance of success, of being accepted by the voting public.
3. We can all, therefore, help the Government by letting them know we really and truly want to see global warming reversed (or at least arrested) and, critically, that we are also genuinely willing both to take the consequences, and to argue the toss with others who resist this challenge to their routine and expectations.
4. To do this we would have to stop just cynically criticising politicians who want to do more but believe it would be political suicide, and start having the courage to praise them for what they are already doing right. Not a cool thing to do, but nonetheless essential if we sincerely want to see real progress.
What to do now?
So who’s up for it? The spirit of Oliver Postgate’s Noggin the Nog, a good and cheerful childhood example for anyonel, will surely be with us if we choose positively to help bring about the difficult political changes required.
In the meantime we need to remember that scientists have shown change is incremental. We may not be doing absolutely everything right in our own eco-lives, but doing what we can to reverse damage keeps the issues very much alive, and is a lot better than doing nothing.
As one significant, successful but not always best loved trader keeps reminding us, Every Little does indeed Help.
Sustainability: Where Private And Public Interests Meet
Sustainability is a huge challenge. Solutions won’t come cheap, but come they must. The imperative for meeting the huge challenge of global warming is now recognised by people across the economic and political spectrum, from Al Gore to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sometimes there is a commonality of interest between sectors of the economy which is probably larger than the differences. The active involvement of no less a person than former US Vice President Al Gore at the 2006 Cannes film festival suggests that one place where this commonality now applies is sustainability. An Inconvenient Truth in some ways says it all.
It seems now everyone is agreed that sustainability is The Issue, and that Something Must Be Done. From the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to the various ‘Green’ not-for-profits, via vast organisations such as the National Health Service (NHS), there is a determination to address the issues – or at least some of them.
Same problem, different perspectives
There’s certainly no denying that the issue is pressing. Politicians of all the major parties have been keen to present their green credentials, and they even sometimes offer similar ‘solutions’; and the same applies across the private – public sectos of the economy. Everyone knows they must conserve energy, look for more sustainable ways to travel, reduce manufacturing and distribution transport requirements, save water and the like.
But there’s another way too in which these problems are often shared. To paraphrase a poltician who was recently challenged about his local authoritiy’s poor record on sustainabilty, that’s OK as long as no-one has to put up the rates or local taxes. Just as it does for commercial business people, increased expenditure frightens the politicos.
Where business meets politics
So here’s the crux of the matter. We know we need to change, as even some politicians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger who are far to the right the politics of Al Gore acknowledge, but for some the change may happen only if there are few or no costs involved. The temptation to ignore the longer term is sometimes great. It won’t be the same people in charge then; it will be someone else’s problem.
But we also all know in our hearts that’s balony. Sustainability and environmental challenges are increasing by the day. Tomorrow will be here all too soon.
And that’s where business comes in. Large amounts of money will accrue to anyone who can crack these enormous challenges in commercially and / or publicly ‘acceptable’ ways, so there’s a great deal of interest now in energy futures and sustainabilty. The nuclear energy debate continues, but there’s gold in them there tidal waves, wind turbines, biomasses and all the rest, if they can be exploited quickly enough.
Sometimes Adam Smith’s invisible hand is hovering right where it needs to be, ready to guide the market as soon as the political and public climate makes this possible. Sustainability is an issue bigger than any special interest or perspective.
Investing In The U.K.’s Big Science And Medical Research
The U.K. Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014 has taken on new significance with the recent Budget. Scientists, economists and the regeneration arm of government need to make common cause if the proposals to reshape particle physics (PPARC), medical research (MRC) and links between business and innovation are to achieve the promise which they appear in many ways to offer.
The Government, we gather, would like to elaborate its ten year plan for science, the Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps, by bringing together the Particle Physics and Astronomy Council (PPARC) and the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils (CCLRC).
The proposal emerging from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Skills is that these two august bodies be merged as a new body, the Large Facilities Council (LFC). The LRC would have a budget of half a billion GBP a year for current CCLRC work and that part of PPARC’s work which concerns large investments. Other, grant awarding, parts of PPARC would merge with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
The physicists are not happy
It would be fair to say that this proposal has not been greeted enthusiastically by everyone in the science community. To quote one astronomy blog:
This move would place astronomy and particle physics research in direct competition with the rest of the physical sciences for money. I would expect this to mean that it will be harder to get a particular research project funded, as the competition for the limited funds is greatly increased. It will also mean that the new EPSRC will have to develop a plan / road-map for the whole of engineering, physics and astronomy; a pretty huge field. Can one funding council do this alone while maintaining the breadth and depth of research in the UK?
Nor perhaps are the medics
Another of the Next Steps proposals is that the Department of Health‘s research and development budget should be merged with that of the Medical Research Council to bring together all public research in health and medicine in the U.K, with a budget of some billion GBP. Inevitably, there will be questions asked about whether this size of investment can be feasibly managed. (There are possible parallels, not least in the particle physics world, where Cern‘s much admired Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is funded by 20 European states, using the talents of 6,400 scientists from all corners of the globe.)
The wider contexts
These ideas are not, however, developing in a vacuum. Side by side with the recasting of the budgetary alignments are proposals to set targets for increasing numbers of school students, and to increase business investment and involvement in research and development. These are difficult objectives to challenge, except perhaps in the sense that ‘more not less’ might be the cry.
It’s important to acknowledge all the levels at which these various concerns and considerations apply. There are fears for vulnerable / invisible research, there are fears about the status of academic institutions and research bodies, and there are the natural fears of scientists that their jobs maybe at risk. As we know from other change initiatives, these concerns cannot simply be dismissed.
Benefits of a new kind?
We should however try to factor in a number of newer perspectives as we consider these proposals. I have argued elsewhere that support for large-scale or ‘Big Science’ in the North West of England would have been easier to secure, had there not been a stand-off between those medical scientists funded by the NHS and those funded by other bodies.
The regeneration agenda does not, as of course Gordon Brown and his colleagues would argue, stand apart from the agenda for Big Science. The real challenge, however, is to manage the necessary transitions in a way which values and promotes the knowledge economy and those who work within it, rather than leaving them behind, bewildered and resentful about the proposals which are now emerging.
Never has there been a greater need, if we are all to benefit, for the scientists, the economists, the regeneration specialists and the politicians to talk amongst themselves. This, fundamentally, is what the current consultation period on Next Steps must be about.
Survival Of The Fittest In The Marketplace, But Not For Life On Earth?
‘Survival of the fittest’ is often used to justify harsh business and other practices; but those who adopt this socio-economic position may also subscribe to ‘Creationist’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ notions about how life on earth has come about and diversified. This strange amalgum of beliefs arises from a lack of intellectual rigour which shows very clearly why Creationism should not become part of any serious school science curriculum.
It seems that Creationism is to be a feature of a new GCSE Biology curriculum in England. Whilst we have assurances that Creationism is not to be taught ‘as a subject’ I must admit to serious concerns about either Creationism or its close cousin, ‘Intelligent’ Design’ becoming part of the mainstream science curriculum.
General Studies can be a good place to discuss the ‘nature of science’ issues that arise from looking at Creationism or Intelligent Design, and maybe Religious Studies can offer perspectives on (non-)belief systems, but Science as a subject should probably not include subjects which are, quite simply, not subject to serious scientific scrutiny.
A conundrum of conflicting beliefs
One of the strangest things about the proponents of Intelligent Design and / or Creationism is that, for the most part, they have socio-economic beliefs which fit well within the Evolutionary Theory which they so strongly reject as an explanation of biological difference.
How can ‘survival of the fittest’ be seen to explain, and be acceptable, in terms of socio-political and economic / business affairs, but not biological ones?
Underlying this conundrum is perhaps a sense of preordination, that things are ‘given’ and cannot be changed on the whim of mere human beings; and this sense fits very helpfully into much of right-wing politics. But for those of us who respect the idea of science as a discipline and mode of knowledge, this is if anything completely the wrong way around.
Millennia to ‘change’ biology, but maybe minutes to change our own behaviour?
Living things change naturally over the millennia, ‘responding’ (i.e. surviving or not) to their contexts and inherent make up. This is a very long term and complex business.
On the other hand, human beings’ behaviour can, because we can perceive ourselves and reflect on what we do, change dramatically in the course of a single life time. ‘Intelligent Design’ is something we can all usefully engage in our own behaviour and outlook – not something which we need to dream up to ‘explain’ the amazing way in which the world as we know it has evolved over millions of years.
If survival of the fittest can be called upon by right wing thinkers to account for economic behaviour, they surely don’t have to devise other, quite undemonstrable, ‘explanations’ for the diversity of life on earth…. which leads me to wonder what less obvious reasons there may be for this strange conjunction of beliefs.
Genuinely Caring People; Shame They’ve Lost It – One View Of Government
There’s a view in some quarters that the Government is full of people who would like to get public policy ‘right’, but don’t know how to. This opinion, always a safe bet, dodges really difficult issues about the fundamental accountability of the electorate as voters, alongside the public accountability of politicians. The case for political literacy all round is at least as pressing as ever, in our complex and rapidly evolving modern society.
Three times in the last few weeks I’ve encountered the openly expressed view that, at least in terms of domestic public policy, the current U.K. Government comprises seriously earnest people who really do want, but fail, to do what’s best…. no names, no pack drill, but this view has in each case been promoted by a very senior figure in national policy who obviously shares the ambition to contribute to the common good, but doesn’t believe the Government knows how.
Far be it from me to argue for the sake of it with The Experts; but, on this occasion, debate (if not argue) I will. O.K., I’m a political person myself, so I have sympathy with the wider view that Running The Country is never that easy. But it’s not just that which makes me want to question the assessment which seems currently to find favour.
Who makes the decisions?
This is a difficult one. On the face of it, Ministers make the decisions about almost everything these days, sometimes guided by behind-the-scenes experts, sometimes by more generically positioned Civil Servants, sometimes by other parliamentarians.. and all the time by that little political weathervane in their heads, which tells them what is likely to be electorally deliverable, and what not.
Politics may be a science in the sense that it’s a judgement (usually, at least these days) based on the evidence of ‘what works’, but it’s also always an art – the Art, in that classic definition, of the Possible.
And to that definition must be added the timescale of a Parliament, never more than five years, usually significantly less. So, alongside the inevitable budgetary considerations, management of electorate expectations is also, always, a major factor to be built into any chosen programme of action.
Competing ideas, conflicting requirements and experimentation
New policies to support the common good don’t just arise from nowhere. And this, I suspect, is where the divergence of assessment of ‘success’ begins to arise. The nature of the Common Good (surprise!) depends on where you stand.
For an elector, a member of the voting public, the common good will usually be whatever you think will remedy what is ‘wrong’ with your own circumstances right now. (What’s ‘right’ typically escapes attention as a political issue…) Not everyone has the capacity, will or experience to judge personal interest against others’, competing, needs; and nor, necessarily, always should they (though we could debate this at length; what, for instance, about global warming, or education and optimal medical care for all?). Nonetheless, the definition of the common good often at base looks very much like a particular, personal ‘good, for better or for worse.
Then there are the professionals, with their highly honed specialist interests. If I’m an economist with a background in banking I will take a different view from an economist who focuses on, say, world development. If I’m a civil servant in the Home Office my emphasis will be different from my colleague in Regional Affairs, the Treasury or, say, Community Development.
Added to that, even within the same field of professional competence, there are famously huge differences in judgement. Many a conference has been reduced to a slanging match between people who, one might have hoped, had at heart the same view and expectations within their field. Sadly, the biggest rows can sometimes be about the smallest differences when expert egos are at work.
‘What works’ is never that obvious
And there’s the media. Some of it seeks thoughtfully to reflect the complexities of modern life. Some of it doesn’t. Things move on incessantly, whether or not this is acknowledged. What worked last year won’t necessarily work next – indeed, this is especially true if there has been effective intervention with significant impact in the meantime. But the charge of ‘U-turns’ is always there, fairly or unfairly. And for politicians with extremely time-limited scope for delivering change, any decision which brings with it potential exposure to this accusation is a very tough call.
It’s democracy, isn’t it?
So there we have it. For my money, it’s a big bonus that experts across the range of disciplines are prepared to be on record saying they consider the Government to comprise largely very ‘well-meaning’, sincere people. I’d be far more worried if that wasn’t a view that anyone of standing was prepared publicly to espouse.
Public policy is always a balance between rival interests and perspectives. The notion that it should arise from evidence and debate is right; but that evidence is increasingly complex, as individual differences in interpretation even between the most highly expert opinion leaders frequently demonstrate.
For any modern Government there is not only the need to weigh up the evidence underpinning public policy, there’s also the inevitable problem of trying to deliver substantive cultural shifts and other changes within very finite budgets and extremely circumscribed timetables.
Contemporary western societies are infinitely complex. We as an electorate have a responsibility as much as any Government minister to try to understand the wider issues, and to engage in dialogue in these critical matters. There is an obligation on all of us to determine our own informed views about ‘what works’. We mustn’t just ‘leave it to the experts’ any longer.
Human Geographers Take The Lead In Social Policy
Human geographers have offered many insights into equality and the effects of socio-economic policy in recent years, but social processes require a different research perspective to understand fully what is happening. In the 1950s and 60s sociologists such as Willmott and Young told us about the dynamics of communities, for instance, in the East End of London; and this perspective is now beginning once more to illuminate these changes and their challenges. There is nonetheless still little general understanding of how difficult it is to ‘get things right’ in such complex settings.
Professor Danny Dorling is, in the words of Mary O’Hara (The Guardian, 8 February 2006), ‘the man who maps the social reality behind raw data’. His work has, we are told, demonstrated that where a person is born remains the primary determinant of their status, health and wealth in later life.
This is important work, though hardly a new finding. What marks it out is the directness of the communication of these critical facts of life, of, again in Mary O’Hara’s words, ‘publicising important findings beyond the pages of academic journals…. of humanising abstract facts’.
Processing data, explaining process
For Danny Dorling, the ‘key thing’ if we want to make the world a better place is that we ‘recognise what’s happening’. He’s been very effective in helping policy makers and politicians to do this, one way or another. And his latest project is an even bigger picture: www.worldmapper.org seeks to show what’s up across the whole of the world.
This is excellent stuff. Nobody could deny that the facts and figures are critical … and here, along with some other geographers such as those at the Local Futures Group, Professor Dorling serves us well. The relentless pursuit of empirical data by which to examine the outcomes of political and other developments is essential to learning how to do it better.
But there is another aspect to all this. We have considered before in this weblog the work of Willmott and Young, begun almost a half-century ago in the East End of London.
During the Thatcher years of the Conservative Government (1980s especially) there was little appetite for studying social process. Margaret Thatcher may or may not have actually pronounced that ‘There is no such thing as society’, but few failed to grasp the idea that looking at social issues like equality was not the thing to do. This had severe effects on social science in the UK, – one result of which, it could be argued, is that geography had to step in where sociologists then feared to tread.
The ‘facts’ can take us to the actions
There has been for some while a shortage of social statisticians in the UK, and this is recognised to be a continuing problem. Nonetheless, the analysis of social trends is, as specialists in all disciplines would readily acknowledge, an issue to be addressed from many different persepctives.
In this sense, it is especially interesting that the very same edition of The Guardian which carries the article about Professor Dorling also carries one about a current follow-up to the original Willmott and Young studies in the East End of London. Professor Geoff Dench and Kate Gavron, both Fellows of the Young Foundation, have produced a book co-authored by the late (Lord) Michael Young entitled The New East End – Kinship, Race and Conflict.
Geoff Dench and Kate Gavron discuss in their Guardian article the unanticipated consequences of ‘well intentioned welfare policy’. They suggest, for instance, that supporting newcomers (in this case, from the Bangladeshi community) who experience racial discrimination must go hand in hand with addressing the exclusion and hostility faced by poor white communities. If we do not examine how well-intentioned policies apply across the board we will, they argue with some reason, find that things don’t work out as we’d all like.
Multi-disciplinary is best
At some level it feels as though the wheel has now turned full circle. There are many social and policy researchers who strive to examine and support the extension of ‘what works’ (see e.g. the ODPM and Civil Service positions on diversity and disadvantage). The more that human geographers, social scientists, economists and others can collaborate on all this, the more hope there is that we can get it right.
But in the meantime it might be helpful just occasionally if certain parts of our society – for such it is – recognised that the aims of social cohesion, sustainability and the rest are at best challeging and at worst almost unachievable in our imperfect world.
Why can’t we think of the journey as one where inevitably mistakes will be made, and where it’s OK for policy makers and politicians to change tack when the evidence that we need to do so is compelling? Change is fundamental to progress, as much in social policy as anywhere else.
‘Permission’ for decision-makers to listen, learn and act
Giving politicians ‘permission’ to listen and learn is essential in the drive to change the circumstances of people who really need support, encouragement and new opportunities. This is positive social engineering with the very best of intentions. It must succeed, in the interests of us all – disadvantaged or not.
Flexible but determined policy making is not easily achieved when the evidence for policy change becomes instead, in the hands of the media, ‘evidence’ that politicians always get it wrong, and maybe nothing should be done at all.
Read more articles on Social Science
Dreaming Realist 