Page 1

2012-2013 ANNUAL REPORT

SPE

CU

Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange

10 June 2013


CUSPE Team Executive Committee The Executive Committee is responsible for running the day-to-day activities of CUSPE. It coordinates the lectures, workshops and other events which bring together researchers with policy makers.

2

Patrick Wollner

Fiona Docherty

Harry Armstrong

Claire Weiller

Tim Guilliams

Alberto García-Mogollón

President

Vice President - Marketing

Vice President - Events

Vice President - Finance

Co-Chairman

Co-Chairman (Founding President)

Patrick is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge Engineering Design Centre. His research focuses on improvements in the design process of touchscreen user interfaces.

Fiona is a PhD student in the Laboratory for Regenerative Medicine, University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on stem cell-based therapies for cardiovascular disease.

Harry is a PhD student at the Babraham Institute, Cambridge. His research focuses on the function of the gene repression family Polycomb.

Claire is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. Her research explores international case studies of business model innovation in electric vehicle ecosystems.

Tim recently completed his PhD in Biophysical Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge, which was related to the Parkinson’s disease. His interests lie in UniversityIndustry Interactions and mechanisms to facilitate Technology Transfer.​

Alberto is a PhD student at Cambridge Judge Business School. His research focuses on the institutional arrangements governing the use of scientific and expert knowledge in public policy-making for low carbon energy systems.

Dave Bosworth

James Dolan

Helen Ewles

Jenny Gibson

Joe Gladstone

Tanya Goldhaber

Dave is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the Department of Materials Science, Cambridge. His research focuses on the fabrication and testing of nanoscale structures for fuel cells and photonic devices.

James is a PhD student at the Nano Science & Technology Doctoral Training Centre in Cambridge. His research focused on the design, synthesis, and application of nanomaterials and devices.

Helen is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge. Her research focuses upon the viral morphogenesis of Herpes Simplex and Vaccinia Viruses.

Jenny is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the Department of Developmental Psychiatry, University of Cambridge. Her current research focuses upon the mental health of adolescents.

Joe is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, his research applies Behavioural Economics insights to consumer financial decision making.

Tanya is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge Engineering Design Centre studying motivational factors in User Interface design for the ageing population.

Arnoud Groen

Matthias Hofer

Edward Oughton

Jamie Walters

Arnoud is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate at the Cambridge Centre for Proteomics. His work focuses on the role of proteins in diseases and their use for diagnostic assays.

Matthias is a final year PhD student at the Laboratory for Regenerative Medicine, University of Cambridge, working on the regulation of a specific adult stem cell population of the brain.

Edward is a PhD student at The Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research investigating the impact of the physical Internet infrastructure on the economic development of cities.

Jamie is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the Institute of Biotechnology. Jamie’s research involves the development of a new generation of inexpensive point of care biodiagnostic devices.

Annual Report

Ross Anderson Senior Treasurer Ross Anderson is Professor of Security Engineering at the Computer Laboratory and a fellow of the Royal Society.

President’s Message Patrick Wollner

T

he past eleven months have been wonderfully rewarding for the Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange. The society and its mission are important enough to all of us that we all set aside time and energy from our full-time research positions on a near daily basis to ensure CUSPE’s success. The entire committee strived to design and deliver a unique programme for the Exchange whilst guaranteeing the society’s long-term success. There are three main elements to CUSPE: public lectures and debates, workshops, and networking events, which all aim to foster long-lasting connections between researchers and the policymaking world. Our lectures (outlined in detail by Edward on pages 7-20) attracted over 700 guests in the past months and covered a diverse range of topics from Internet politics to the censorship of scientific results to the future definition of research impact. We piloted one workshop on climate change mitigation and aim to further develop this type of event in the near future. Numerous meetings with policy-makers, the procurement of secondments, and written reports to inform policy-makers are substantial components of our output, which we aim to deepen through the facilitation of our growing network in academia, government and industry. We will focus our upcoming development work on corporate policy, the impact of social sciences in informing policy, and on establishing a stream of CUSPE online and in print publications. This document itself is the next step of CUSPE’s output. From page 21 onwards, we present concise briefs on a diverse range of research topics from the perspective of early-career researchers. We believe a regular procurement of similar “Horizon Scanning” pieces provides a rich basis for debate, helps build the output of research that is achieved through CUSPE, and will further visualise our commitment to our main aim: establishing a platform to support the exchange of knowledge and ideas between science and policy with a particular focus on early-career researchers.

This success, however, would not have been possible without many external collaborators and contributors. We would like to express our gratitude to everyone who has helped us this year in helping to make the vision of the society a reality. We would like to especially recognise the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), an organisation that has been instrumental to CUSPE’s achievements with whom we are proud to be partnered. As a society, we would particularly like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Robert Doubleday, Jackie Ouchikh and Linden Smith who have been our tireless supporters, advocates, and mentors. I would also like to thank Professor Ross Anderson, our Senior Treasurer, who has been very supportive from the beginning of our initiative. Finally, I would like to thank the entire CUSPE team for their time and commitment to our project. Without Tim and Alberto’s efforts leading up to CUSPE’s conception and their ongoing efforts to kickstart the project, we would not be where we are now. CUSPE’s next steps will be the announcement of our Advisory Board and Steering Committee, further details on our upcoming events, and a regular publication programme. We believe CUSPE has the potential to become a key resource both for earlycareer researchers and policy-makers in fostering evidence-based policy decisions in Government and industry. Sincerely,

Patrick Wollner CUSPE President 2012-2013

The release of this Annual Report also marks the date of our Launch Event, which we have been looking forward to since late 2012 when the Exchange was still in its infancy. Together with a diverse audience of policy-makers, industry representatives and academics, we are celebrating a year of success.

Annual Report

3


Table of Contents Annual Report 2012-2013

1 2 3 4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

CUSPE Team President’s Message Contents and Features An introduction to CUSPE Past Events Outline Net Neutrality Event Visit to POST Science and Censorship Event Space Exploration Event The Cambridge Phenomenon Event Corporate and Institutional Banking Evidence Based Policy Event

2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 16 19

Getting More for Less in Healthcare p. 22

6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7

Horizon Scanning Outline Controlling Healthcare Costs Business models for electric vehicles Innovation in Public Sector Employees The Bright Future of Solar Energy Nuclear Proliferation Medical Travel Outline of CUSPE Partners

21 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8

Secondment at BIS Centre for Science and Policy Cambridge Masters in Public Policy Sponsors and Partners Upcoming Events

35 36 37 38 39

The Bright Future of Solar Power p. 28

Arnoud, a Post-Doctoral Researcher in the Life Sciences at Cambridge University, explores potential opportunities to meet the challenges of rising healthcare costs.

Solar energy is considered as one of the strongest alternatives to help replace finite resources. Looking specifically at Germany, Claire argues that if a cloudy country in Northern Europe can generate such a substantial proportion of their energy mix from solar, there is great potential for the future of solar cells globally.

Busy in BIS p. 35

Tim, one of CUSPE’S founding members, discusses his time on a secondment to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, and encourages others to seek out and make the most of these rewarding opportunities.

4

Annual Report

Space Exploration in a Time of Crisis p. 12

Edward outlines one of CUSPE’s most successful events of the past year, where speakers clashed over not just the scientific benefits of space travel but also the societal and aspirational benefits.

Annual Report

5


About CUSPE A successful start to 2012-2013

Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange (CUSPE) is a society run by and for early career researchers that aims to build stronger links between its members and government policy-makers. Founded in 2012, the society strives to support young researchers who wish either to influence policy from within the research environment of the University or to pursue directly a career with the governments of the UK or European Union. CUSPE attracts researchers from across the academic disciplines (scientists, engineers and social scientists), all of whom have a desire to understand how their own research, or science more generally, fits within a broader policy context. The society builds on the earlier achievements of the CONNECTIONS lecture series held at Darwin College. This highly successful initiative by CUSPE’s founders, Tim Guilliams and Alberto García-Mogollón, brought prominent speakers to the University to discuss with students and researchers current research topics that intersect with key policy issues. CUSPE will continue the success of CONNECTIONS by continuing to host at least six public lectures each year, each followed by a reception for all attendees and dinner for selected guests. Such events encourage effective communication between researchers, industry representatives and policymakers whilst also offering unrivalled networking and career development opportunities for researchers interested in policy. The recent surge in interest amongst early-career researchers as to the interaction between science and policy can to some extent be attributed to the work of CUSPE’s innovative partner organisation, the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP). Formed in 2009 and also based at the University, the centre aims to facilitate meaningful interactions between established academics and government policy makers. It does this by bringing esteemed Policy Fellows to Cambridge from Whitehall and beyond for an intensive series of meetings with some of the University’s outstanding academics and researchers. CSaP makes a valuable contribution to solving the problem – identified by several reports published in the year before it was founded – of the gulf in understanding between policy makers and scientists. As the problems facing society in the 21st century become ever more complex, from climate change to the stability of interconnected financial institutions to ensuring national and international security,

6

Annual Report

governments worldwide are acknowledging the need for an evidence-based approach to policy making. However, the practical implementation of this worthy ideal is often fraught with difficulties, and until recently there were only limited channels of communication between researchers and policy makers through which to discuss the issue – often underutilised or undervalued even where they did exist. It is this growing and continual dialogue which CUSPE and CSaP, targeting early-career and established researchers and policy-makers, seek to facilitate. Looking to the future, CUSPE will continue to deliver a series of prominent public lectures and debates on the intersection between current research and key topical policy issues featuring renowned speakers from academia, industry and government. Complementing these lectures and debates will be a small number of interactive workshops at which early-career researchers can engage more directly with particular policy issues in an encouraging and receptive environment. CUSPE also aims to strengthen involvement in its activities from the wider university community and beyond, hosting events that will include local organisations, politicians and members of the local Cambridge community. CUSPE recognises that to achieve a tangible societal impact it must interest and involve a diverse and interdisciplinary audience. It is therefore through the above outreach activities that CUSPE will help shape the next generation of academics and policy-makers able to appreciate and embed an evidence-based approach in British and European public policy.

1 Net Neutrality

4 Space Exploration

6 Evidence in Policy

2 POST Visit

5 Cambridge Cluster

7 Impact of Impact

The regulation of online content and internet service provision is an area of significant debate and challenge, but given the importance of the web in every area of modern life, creating a viable, sustainable, and economic solution is increasingly urgent. CUSPE’s inaugural event saw people packing into Trinity Hall’s lecture theatre to witness a thought-provoking debate on the current and future challenges facing Internet Service Providers, content providers and policymakers.

In the spirit of science and policy exchange, CUSPE members broke out of the Cambridge bubble for a visit to Parliament and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). During the visit, CUSPE members got to experience the environment of policy-making and meet a few important players in the policy world. One of CUSPE’s aims is to become one of the key organisations for early-career researcher engagement with policy, and this visit to Whitehall was the first of what will hopefully be a recurring and regular event.

3 Science and Censorship

In times of austerity and economic crisis, is space exploration a justifiable expense? This event brought together experts on space travel, including one experienced astronaut, to talk about how and if humans can continue to explore the final frontier. The growing prominence of China in addition to private ventures and the role of advanced computing and robotics in the modern space race were all discussed.

The Cambridge Cluster, a concentration of high-tech businesses in and around Cambridge, has been gaining prominence on the national and international stage as a hub of technological entrepreneurship and innovation. This event explored the role of the University of Cambridge and the role of policy in the growth of the Cluster. In particular, the talks highlighted the benefits of access to world-class research while also pointing out that policy decisions around things like housing and infrastructure development had the heretofore understated potential to strongly help or hinder industrial growth in the area.

While there is a growing consensus around the need for scientific evidence in the policy-making process, the ways in which that evidence is currently collected and used can be problematic. In particular, scientific conclusions that are politically unpopular remain hard to incorporate into a policy framework. This event explored several areas of scientific knowledge and their political and policy implications.

Battle lines have been drawn over science funding with government and universities locked in an on-going debate about the most effective way to spend limited resources and the usefulness of ‘impact requirements’ as measures of the value of science. How can blue skies research survive when a research project’s impact is measured in years rather than decades? How can science funding address the current gender gap in science? A range of senior academic researchers discuss.

What if scientific knowledge could be dangerous to the public? This event saw fascinating talks by two researchers whose work had been censored in the supposed interest of public safety to discuss the ethics of research and if censorship of scientific knowledge was ever appropriate or desirable. In particular, the role that policy around censorship plays in how research is conducted and distributed was highlighted.

Events Programme

Events are at the heart of what CUSPE does. They provide a platform for prominent voices on contemporary topics to be heard across the University for researchers and students, while also providing more intimate opportunity for networking. All students are welcome to apply to attend dinner with the speakers from our events, providing an unrivaled opportunity to engage with our distinguished guests. This section of the Annual Report was written and edited by

Edward Oughton.

Fiona Docherty and Helen Ewles have also made key contributions to the events programme of CUSPE 2012-2013.

Annual Report

7


Net Neutrality 09/11/2012 Written by Edward Oughton CUSPE’s inaugural event saw people packing into Trinity Hall’s lecture theatre to witness a thoughtprovoking debate on the current and future challenges facing Internet service providers, content providers and policy makers. The well-selected roundtable panel each had fifteen minutes to put forward their thoughts on Net Neutrality before an eager crowd of academics and students proposed questions of their own. First up was Dr Mani Manimohan who, representing more than eight hundred players in the mobile world, outlined key characteristics for the future of the Internet. These as he detailed, were openness and transparency, freedom of speech, a further shift from “Blind” networks to towards “Smart” networks, and the ability for the Internet to deliver quality and choice for all consumers. Mani highlighted the upward trend in data usage and consequently focused his presentation on what should be classed as reasonable traffic management and whether traffic management should be application agnostic. Next, Mr Matias Attwell gave a distinctly international flavour to the proceedings by examining Net Neutrality in the legal and institutional frameworks of South American countries. His approach proposed that regulation isn’t the only tactic to take, with Matias suggesting that Net Neutrality should be equally

Visit to POST 16/11/2012 Written by Edward Oughton tackled through the trinity of law, code and etiquette. The carrot and the stick analogy was employed, with Matias raising caution to the potential for over burdensome regulation. Furthermore, key issues were identified around the necessary development time for effective regulation. Brazil was heralded as a positive example of a country that had been undertaking constructive democratic engagement on Net Neutrality laws with a range of experts, industry representatives, civic society and institutions. To round off the individual presentations Mr Nico Perez, co-founder of Mixcloud, gave a stimulating insight into the legal and regulatory issues which originally plagued the music start-up. What has now become a music platform that induced a step-change in the way artists and DJs host their media, Mixcloud originally struggled to legally obtain the required licences necessary to host licensed music. Those innovators that have been through this process, such as Nico, have found that licence holders can be slow to adapt to new technologies and business models, despite the fact that these are a necessary way of tackling piracy and copyright infringement on the Internet. Chairing the event was Professor Jon Crowcroft who conducted the question and answer session with his usual style and charisma. The session contributed to our understanding of how policy should approach Net Neutrality, as, evidently, the regulation-innovation dichotomy is at play. On the one hand, strong regulation of the Internet may prove to be ineffective or stifle future innovation, while on the other, existing legal and institutional frameworks have not made it easy for innovative technologies and business models to be developed and delivered to market. The content of the panel discussion proved interesting ‘food for thought’ for all participants, with the topical questions being carried over into the Terrace Room for informal drinks and networking.

Friday the 16th of November 2012 saw the CUSPE committee excitedly gathering in Cambridge Station to catch the 08:50 train to King’s Cross. The purpose of the trip was to visit Dr. Chris Tyler, the Director of the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST), and we had two main objectives for the day. Firstly, we wanted to propose CUSPE’s future plans to Dr. Tyler so that we could obtain advice and input on engaging early career policy makers, particularly those candidates on the Civil Service Fast Stream. Secondly, in line with the CUSPE mantra of reciprocal professional development, the committee was interested in learning more about how policy is created and implemented. In particular, we were all interested in furthering our understanding of the parliamentary framework. Prior to our meeting, Dr. Tyler was kind enough to arrange for us all to go on a tour of Parliament. Having arrived on time to Westminster and thankfully having got through security with no major problems, we gathered in the 900 year old Westminster Hall. The tour guide didn’t hesitate to whisk us away from here to begin our exploration, and so through St. Stephen’s Hall, into the Central Lobby and along to the Royal Gallery we went. As well as the expected royal paintings, decorations and accompaniments, unexpected delights included an original facsimile of the Magna Carta (one of only four) and a copy of Charles I’s death warrant signed by none other than Sidney Sussex’s proudest alumnus, Oliver Cromwell. The tour was very insightful and the highlight was bumping into none other than Baron Gus O’Donnell (Cabinet Secretary 2005-2011) in the House of Lords. CUSPE President Patrick Wollner, along with committee member Edward Oughton, seized the opportunity to shake his hand and congratulate him on his excellent lecture the previous evening, in what had been dubbed by many as being the highlight of the 2012 Cambridge Public Policy Lecture Series. After the tour and once the committee had got over all of the excitement, we met Dr. Tyler in Westminster Hall and began to mentally prepare ourselves for the meeting ahead which was due to take place in Portcullis House. It was to CUSPE President Patrick Wollner that the responsibility for conveying the society’s agenda fell, with other members chipping in with relevant points or greater nuance when needed. Once the introduction was complete we were given

8

Annual Report

a great deal of advice about who in Parliament and Government to engage, how to engage them, how to actually convey the benefits of these events to those in charge of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), where to locate our events and how we can make CUSPE of most relevance to both parties. All of the discussion was of great use in refining CUSPE’s approach, particularly as these are embryonic times for the post-graduate society. We very much valued the input of Dr. Tyler, particularly given his wealth of experience as the Executive Director of the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) at the University of Cambridge. Now it was Dr. Tyler’s turn to explain to us all the particulars of POST, as well as some broader, more general parliamentary details necessary to understanding the interconnection between science and policy. This discussion began with a recap of some of the detail from the tour of Parliament, principally on parliamentary democracy, before he delved into areas which even the most astute individuals did not know. The conversation then moved onto the role of POST, and its two main aims. Firstly, it provides scientific advice and analysis for Parliament. One way in which it does this is by creating and disseminating pier reviewed Postnotes on specific topics, from measuring wellbeing, to advanced manufacturing, to energy use behaviour change. The task of creating these POSTnotes certainly seems challenging (especially for academics) as seconded researchers are commissioned to condense entire research areas into no more than four pages of plain English. Secondly, POST aims to build scientific capacity in both staff and Parliamentarians by building robust and usable bridges between Government and academia. Interestingly, POST began in the late 1980s as a charity set up by various MPs who witnessed the need for Parliament to have greater scientific input on matters of public policy. Apparently, a little know lady by the name of Margret Thatcher contributed the first donation of £100 to the charity, supposedly stating (and I paraphrase) that waving her cheque around to others should galvanise some extra support for this sensible cause! After further discussion on the role of cross-party Select Committees the meeting rounded off to a close with Dr. Tyler complementing his explanation of POST

Annual Report

9


with some supplementary material (POSTnotes and mailing list information). There was just enough time left before Dr. Tyler’s next meeting for us (or rather for Patrick) to take the obligatory CUSPE photograph. Still buzzing with excitement, we made our way through Portcullis House to the exit where we thanked Dr. Tyler for his time, advice and encouragement. All in all, the day was a complete success and was absolutely fascinating to participate in. The event not only helped CUSPE to refine its objectives and delivery plan, but it also completely lived up to all expectations in terms of the committee furthering its knowledge of Parliament, Government and the policy-making process.

reasoned that they were concerned about the potential threat of bioterrorism from terrorist groups or rogue countries, as well as the potential for the strain to escape from the Erasmus Medical Center Laboratory due to ‘careless scientists’. Fortunately, the NSABB eventually allowed the papers to be published, but Professor Fouchier still faces an on-going battle with the Dutch Government to allow his research to continue, a set back that he hopes will shortly be resolved. In his discussion of the topic, Professor Fouchier explained that in order to advance science and mitigate the potential threat from an influenza outbreak, scientists must be able to publish and disseminate their results. Some have threatened further regulation of this research which could be somewhat self-defeating. He explained that if these activities were to be moved ‘underground’ and limited to classified research, it wouldn’t succeed in mitigating the risks of the research; the research would still go on and the risks would still exist, we just wouldn’t know about it.

Science and Censorship 04/12/2012 Written by Edward Oughton The evening began with Professor Fouchier’s presentation, which he started with a brief recap of the storyline behind the attempted censorship of his H5N1 influenza research. He explained that politicians have been nervous about certain methodological details and results from his influenza H5N1 research getting into the hands of those who wish to use it maliciously. Consequently, they tried to censor the dissemination and sharing of the ground breaking research despite its potential positive impact on public health.

H5N1 influenza virus becoming transmissible by air and the associated risks, Professor Fouchier and his team initiated a virus adaptation experiment. By serial infection of ferret hosts with the H5N1 bird flu virus they succeeded in creating mutant variants of the virus that are transmissible as airborne pathogens. Identification of the mutations that gave rise to the airborne pathogenic strains of H5N1 will reveal the key genes involved with viral transmission and thus shed light on the biological process by which it occurs.

Professor Fouchier’s research focuses on the process by which influenza viruses undergo transmission from one host to another. In particular, he is interested in the way in which a virus that usually relies on direct contact between hosts for transmission becomes viable for transmission by air. By this process, a virus such as H5N1, which is usually confined to transmission within the bird population may take on the ability to spread between mammalian hosts such as humans: a truly scary prospect. The 1918-19 pandemic flu outbreak was so colossal that even conservative estimates attribute well over 20 million deaths to the virus. To ascertain the likelihood of the

Professor Fouchier and his team continue to work on understanding more about the potential mutation of the virus, the threats it may pose as an airborne pathogen, and how to prevent new pandemic outbreaks.

10

Annual Report

correct pin had been entered prior to the withdrawal. Consequently, the banks claimed that customers had given out their pin and that it was the customer’s fault for the loss. However, Dr. Murdoch and his colleagues found a weakness in the system that allows a fraudster to tell the Chip and Pin machine that it received the correct pin when it didn’t.

However, The United States National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) originally censored the H5N1 research in order to limit the dissemination of Fouchier’s lab’s work. In explanation, the NSABB cited concerns that the details of the methodology and results could be used as demonstrations in how to ‘weaponise’ the H5N1 influenza strain. NSABB

He added that if further regulation were introduced to limit research on this topic then it would only slow down those researchers who are working in a morally and ethically proper manner and that further regulation is unlikely to stop rogue organisations or countries. Moreover, he added that there are far more dangerous pathogens that are easily available should a rogue organisation wish to acquire them for ill purposes, and that he does not accept the threat of bioterrorism as a justification for censoring research pertaining to the H5N1 virus. If the research is classified and access to it is limited to specific labs in specific countries with no publication of results or methods, few people will ever benefit from it and it is unlikely to further other research and discoveries. He suggests that he prefers for the whole process, from conception through to publication, to remain transparent, because over-regulation will only hinder the ‘good guys’. In this vein, he added that he strongly favours self-regulation and an ethical code of conduct rather than any form of censorship. Next up to speak was Dr. Steven Murdoch from the Security Group at the University’s Computer Laboratory. In his spare time, Dr. Murdoch dabbles in researching the faults of Chip and Pin. The banking industry recently attempted to censor research conducted by his team from being put in the public domain. His team discovered that customers of banks were having money taken from their accounts, but the banks were not refunding the lost money because the computer system was reporting that the

The Cambridge Security Group has a normal procedure for highlighting the security issues which they find. Following this procedure the Group sent details of the security weakness to those parties with vested interests (the banks) along with recommendations for how to fix the issue in hand. Next, as per normal, they sought an appropriate media channel to make the issue public, which in this case was BBC Newsnight. However, after this issue became public The UK Cards Association, acting on behalf of the banking sector, attempted to censor the work from going public, in particular the Master’s Thesis of Omar Chaudry. Dr. Murdoch explained that in his eyes this was done in a shrewd-less manner as they went straight to the most senior member of the University’s Public Relations team asking not only for the work to be blocked, but also for assurances in the future that no more similar work of this manner would be put into the public domain. Fortunately, (and much to our relief!) the University sided with the researchers and decided not to censor the research. The problem is that since this time, the UK Banking Sector has generally not rectified the problem and still proclaims that the Chip and Pin system is secure. Melanie Johnson of the UK Card Association has even in radio interviews claimed that there was no evidence of the problem, or of fraudsters actually exploiting the weakness. However, this very much differs from what we have heard from other camps. Dr Murdoch explained that when this fault was brought to the attention of the UK Banking Sector, it panicked because previously they thought this couldn’t be

Annual Report

11


possible, and then when they looked for evidence of it they realised that it was a major issue. Of importance to this debate is the power structure. Those criminals committing the fraud have considerably more financial capital and are significantly better equipped than the hobbyists doing part-time research in Cambridge. Furthermore, in private correspondence with the University, the banks claim that making this research public will encourage fraud as it identifies a weak point in the system. However, Dr. Murdoch states that the criminals are already many steps ahead and have been stealing vast amounts of money from hard working citizens. Whether the censorship happened or not this fraud is taking place and Dr. Murdoch (with the audience in agreement) believes the UK Banking Sector should be doing more to prevent this systemic weakness. The Q&A session was very insightful and both speakers were in general agreement that science should not be censored except in very specific cases, for example

research on weapons of mass destruction. After all, transparency is a key property for sound scientific practise, and pushing sensitive research underground will not mitigate the risks, just hinder those trying to advance scientific understanding. When sensitive research is in the open, there is an implicit code of practice which scientists follow based on what is ethical, moral and best for wider society. This seems to be a tried and tested approach which has a proven track record. Yet, the major topical issue, as identified by an audience member, is whether self-regulation by scientists will always produce sound policing of the associated risks. Perhaps in rare occurrences it might not, but then there is no guarantee that the alternatives will be any better. All in all, it was another great science and policy debate brought to you by the Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange (CUSPE).

particular the sun) play such an important cultural role, from the past sun worshiping of solar deities (I’m thinking Egyptians, Aztecs, Incas and Pagans), to modern sun worshippers of the sun bathing persuasion. We still remain fascinated by outer space, even more so now that Hubble can take wonderful pictures of galaxies millions of light years away. While our perception of space and stars has changed postenlightenment, we now find new ways to put things like solar radiation to good use. The presentation then turned to more obvious topics including Sputnik, Apollo and the International Space Station (ISS). While manned space exploration has not lived up to its expectation as a result of the inherent expense and danger, the impacts of space exploration on technology, science, politics and culture have been numerous. As he put it, science converts money into knowledge and then innovation converts knowledge into money. While on the IIS Reiter and his colleagues were involved in a heavy daily regime of science because, as he stated, microgravity is a wonderful environment to do research for a range of disciplines, including molecular biology, material science, astronomy, meteorology or just simple physics.

Space Exploration in Times of Crisis 07/02/2013 Written by Edward Oughton Thursday 7th February saw the much awaited lecture organised by the Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange (CUSPE), entitled Space Exploration in Times of Crisis. The excitement around this event was phenomenal and clearly evident in Clare College’s full-to-capacity 150 person Riley Auditorium. The atmosphere was electric. Evidently, I wasn’t the only attendee who found the confirmed speakers list too good to miss, although I am biased. Like many children, I had a fascination with space travel. Rocket propulsion, microgravity, cutting edge technology, heroism - what’s not to love? However, at a young age it’s easy to become wrapped up in the romanticism of space travel, even more so than normal, as my Dad brought me up on a heavy dosage of sci-fi: Star Trek, Start Wars, Deep Space Nine and everything in between. It’s a surprise I didn’t end up in the Big Bang Theory really. I was desperate to go into space. But that was before I was really aware of the associated risk factor and the fatality statistics affiliated with any manned space mission, the fact that there is zero room for error and no second chances (although, that’s not to say I wouldn’t still jump at the chance!). Also, at a young age I wasn’t concerned about where the money came from for the space

12

Annual Report

Reiter began his presentation by pointing to human life’s almost genetic fascination with space and stars. For millennia the human race, and all other life on earth for that matter, has had a fixed dependency on the sun. It’s not surprising that these entities (in

Finally, no one can doubt that space travel can have profound cultural impacts. Space exploration, specifically the moon landings, inspired a generation (sorry London 2012). It was one (if not the) defining moment of the 20th century. Sadly, it’s so tough to quantify the cultural effects of space exploration these types of benefits are regularly understated. Yet, humans will remain curious about their surroundings. Fact. And, great leaps forward for mankind (again, sorry Neil Armstrong) can change the perception of what is possible. Who knows, perhaps we wouldn’t be sat here today surrounded by iPads and smartphones if key innovators didn’t grown up in a cultural era (like the 60s and 70s) where the technology available to society’s fingertips was being redefined through the space programme. Reiter finished by outlining ESA’s on going agenda (low earth orbit, the moon and mars) and discussed some of the projected time spans for future missions, including the first robotic expedition to one of Jupiter’s moons which is due for launch in 2022, reaching its destination in 2030. He would like to see a return to the moon, along with exploratory trips to mars, taking place over the next couple of decades. Dr Iya Whiteley, Deputy Director of the Centre for Space Medicine at the UCL Mullary Space Science Laboratory, then stepped up to the podium. Dr Whiteley’s research interests lie in understanding the medical and psychological impacts of space, particularly from long-duration human space flight. Having recently directed the ESA study on the development of technology and techniques for dealing with the psychological impacts of manned missions to the Moon and Mars, she brought great diversity to the panel.

programme. Of course now in an era where we have lost half a decade to capitalism’s pre-2007 excesses, to some, huge investment in space exploration seems an unnecessary cost. Then again, it could be the stimulus the West needs to get its economy moving again and set the ball in motion for a whole new epoch of knowledge and innovation. This CUSPE lecture was set to debate this issue. First to speak was Brigadier General Thomas Arthur Reiter of the European Space Agency (ESA) who was able to provide great detail on the benefits of space exploration, along with the latest information on ESA’s exploration strategy for the coming decades. As a man who has amassed space time aggregating to almost an entire year (>350 days), I struggled to comprehend the quite literally ‘out-of-this-world’ experiences which he must have had. This statistic conjures up a myriad of emotions in most of us; astonishment, admiration, jealousy, anxiety.

mounting between east and west, although I remain doubtful.

Reiter proposed that space exploration can do more than further scientific knowledge and technology, it is able to foster greater collaboration between individuals and nations, defying traditional political barriers. The classic example is the Apollo-Soyuz Test between the US and USSR. A project predecessor to the International Space Station, it was the first joint space flight which saw the Apollo and Soyuz modules dock in space, marking the end of the space race between the two superpowers. This collaboration did much to ease the tension of the previous decades, and the picture of the handshake between Safford and Leonov fills me with emotion. Human feats of this magnitude can help those of different political ideologies, nationalities and races put aside their differences and unite. Perhaps we are overdue something of equal enormity today given the tension

The hardest psychological factor to overcome on a long space journey is boredom. Furthermore, astronauts who return home after a completed space mission have a fundamentally different perception of earth. While this is not surprising, Dr Whiteley made it clear that this has the potential to have a large impact on an astronaut’s mental health and on their relationship with family and friends. Interestingly, while space may test the limits of human endeavour, it also has the ability to test our potential. Dr Whiteley explained that she and her colleagues at the Centre for Space Medicine see space as a type of ‘laboratory’ (although she didn’t like using this word to describe it) that they can use to investigate and understand the human condition. She then went on to show us just how little we know about the side effects of going on a long distance mission, such as to Mars.

Annual Report

13


It is crucial that we understand more about these side effects because the actual psychological support model for a crew going to Mars would need to be vastly different from the type used to go to the Moon, or live in low earth orbit on the ISS. In comparison with a relatively short mission to the Moon, which in the context of Mars is reasonably close, a manned expedition to Mars would receive far less support from Mission Control because flight time would amount to more than one year. Hence, a larger degree of responsibility and knowledge would be bestowed on the crew for them to maintain themselves, their spacecraft and the mission. Dr Whiteley stated that we still have a vast amount of work to do in this area before we are ready to attempt a manned expedition to Mars, particularly if we want to mitigate the postflight psychological effects for returning astronauts. Last but by no means least, Professor Lord Martin Rees the popular Cambridge heavyweight, weighed in at the front of the audience for the final speech of the day. Without the use of the audio-visual equipment, Rees also gave a quick recapitulation of the history of manned space flight, as manifest by political rivalry and propelled by rockets designed as intercontinental ballistic missiles. Even today those first trips to space, particularly to the surface of the moon, are still so impressive. As Rees put it, they managed to land a man on the moon using less computer power in the whole of NASA, than what we have today in a humble washing machine. Yet, since those first missions there has been a substantial societal shift in light of the fatality rate standing at around 2%. Now we are less inclined to fund astronauts, who have a considerable risk of not returning, by the means of tax funded public programmes. Rees pointed to the issue of space travel becoming routine because it simply cannot be treated like this due to the error margin associated with failure. Each time that a manned space mission has ended in disaster (for example, Challenger, 1986 and Columbia, 2003) it has led to national trauma and mourning, with questions being asked of the value of such exploratory missions. Consequently, many space programmes have had their funding scaled back and manned flight has been somewhat reduced. But while the geo-political rivalry that led the cold war space race might be over, many eyes for the future of long distance space travel are fixed firmly on China. For the Chinese have the financial capacity to invest in space exploration. They may well want to carry out a similar feat to the Apollo missions, and try to go one further than the Americans by sending a human to Mars. This was conveyed as a possibility, and the only likely avenue for publicly funded space travel.

14

Annual Report

On the other hand of course, we are now seeing a variety of commercial space flight companies racing to be the first to offer space flight places to regular civilians. SpaceX and Virgin Galactic spring to mind. But these companies are not just planning low earth orbit missions, as Rees explained. Private missions are now being planned to orbit around the back of the moon and apparently, a ticket has already been sold for the second mission (for over $150m!), while the ticket for the first mission still remains unsold! According to Rees, private adventurers have the highest chance of being the first to go places like Mars (if China doesn’t step up to the bar), as opposed to public agencies. Finally, Rees touched on the issue of manned space travel versus robotic (something which Reiter previously highlighted as not being a dichotomy). In contrast to Reiter’s outline of ESA’s exploration strategy, which includes both manned and robotic expeditions, Rees believes that ESA should focus solely on robotics. This is because of the expense of human flight, and the fact that in comparison to the US budget, ESA’s budget is considerably smaller. He sees ESA’s future as sticking to what it has done best in the past; robotic exploratory missions. In conclusion, the lecture was a roaring success and gave us a captivating insight into the historical and future aspects of space travel. The heterogeneous backgrounds of the panel members really made the content of the lecture interesting and absorbing. We saw a range of arguments – technological, scientific, political and cultural – for why manned space missions should continue. But while space missions will no doubt continue, what is interesting is that there has been a change in who is likely to undertake missions in the future. With the introduction of private companies entering space exploration, both public and private institutions are now contending for new realms of exploration. This hybridisation brings long term questions to the forefront of the debate, because if the cost and risks associated with space travel are too great for states, their affiliated institutions and voters, we could see publicly funded space programmes diminish. Alternatively, if private firms are unable to leverage the knowledge, skill and organisational capacity needed through private finance, we could find that the only long-term model of exploration is through the existing realm of international collaboration (unless we see subsidisation). The prevailing theme of the debate was the political and cultural importance of manned space exploration over the past fifty years. This poses the interesting question of whether the future benefits will be of the same scale, or as effective at healing national rifts, if private firms man the bridge. Time will tell.

Secrets behind the Cambridge Phenomenon 25/03/2013 Written by Edward Oughton Thursday 25th April saw an insightful debate into the Secrets behind the Cambridge Phenomenon. Four distinguished individuals involved in different aspects of the Cambridge biotechnology cluster, including Sir John Bell, presented their thoughts on the lecture’s two key questions; exactly what can be learnt from the emergence of the Cambridge cluster, and what role should Government, industry and academia play in maintaining Cambridge’s world leading position? There was consensus that the initial formation and emergence of the cluster from 1965 onwards was largely serendipitous, with the right people, doing the right things, at the right time. The University played a key role in this, but so did a group of visionary entrepreneurs. Of importance has been the policy response of the last three decades. There are indeed many key lessons to be learnt from the exemplar of Cambridge, but there is still a lot more to be done for the cluster to retain and enhance its competitive advantage in the global marketplace over the coming decades. The composition of the audience for this lecture was extremely diverse, with just as many individuals from Cambridge-based biotech firms as there were students. Perhaps this represented the quality of the speakers lined up to discuss the proposed questions. After an introduction by CUSPE founding president Tim Guilliams, Chris Green began to talk on the evolving nature of the Cambridge cluster, and the aspects of policy that either helped or hindered its progress. The CEO of SQW was in an authoritative position to focus in on this topic, given that SQW conducted the first report into the Cambridge biotechnology cluster in 1985. Periods of growth between 1965 and the present were broken down and analysed by Chris. This included the presentation of some firmlevel descriptive statistics, as well as how the spatial dimensions of Cambridge particularly in relation to London have changed over this time. Chris then focused on key components of the cluster, particularly the presence of world class research and technology at the University. Strong firms and visionary entrepreneurs – particularly entrepreneurs who have wanted to reinvest back into Cambridge – have provided a very powerful mix of factors for spurring the cluster’s expansion. Policy however has been too slow to respond to growth. For example, infrastructure

and housing requirements have persistently lagged behind demand. While there is no clear cut answer to improving this situation, policy really needs to do more in the future to provide the necessary services which the city needs. Next up was Derek Jones of Babraham Bioscience and Technology, who delivered his presentation with style and comical effect. After discussing the definitional and usage issues around the word ‘innovation’ he emphasised that delivering a product is far more than just having an idea; “innovation is a journey, not a destination or starting place”. Derek stressed the importance of having access to Cambridge’s world leading research, and how important access to talent, funding and affordable laboratory space has been for biotechnology firms. He also commented on aspects of science spending and expressed his concern over the move away from ‘blue-sky’ science, as he thinks it will have a detrimental long-term effect on the UK economy. Derek was quick to plug the importance of the Babraham Bioincubator for new start-ups and probably rightly so. “Firms that start-up in incubators do better than firms that don’t” he stated, “and that’s because it’s all about social capital and knowledge transfer”. After providing an outline of her employment history, Harriet Fear of One Nucleus equally took to highlighting the importance of intangible social networks at the local, regional, national and international levels. These networks are critical for success because they provide a natural pathway for information exchange to take place between firms. Cambridge has done well to develop these networks among local firms in the cluster, and take advantage of the cluster’s compact size. One Nucleus, a membership organisation for international life science and healthcare companies, is based in both Cambridge and London. Harriet spoke about her first few months at the organisation, where here members asked her to do two things. Firstly, her members wanted greater collaboration on networking events, so that there were fewer, larger events. Secondly, firms wanted greater links to the U.S. as they saw this as vital for collaboration, their growth and the long-term development of the Cambridge cluster. From a policy perspective, Harriet identified that keeping R&D tax credits is crucial for success, and also urged for there to be long-term cross-

Annual Report

15


party collaboration on the future of UK life sciences. She acknowledged the UK Life Sciences Strategy as a step in the right direction. However, she like many others has been concerned over political commitment to UK Life Sciences in the long-term. Finally, Professor Sir John Bell rounded off the four presentations by giving a unique insight into the UK life sciences sector from his time spent as the Chairman of the Office for the Strategic Coordination of Health Research. Sir John began his presentation by analysing other life science clusters in the UK, which spanned a far greater geographical area than just the ‘golden triangle’ of London, Cambridge and Oxford. Of interest was his referral to how the Cambridge cluster organised itself; Oxford and London, to their detriment, were less coherent in their organisation. Physical proximity and the relative ease that this provides for meeting face-to-face has been a key factor. Sir John examined the regulatory and licensing framework which governs how new drugs are delivered to patients. By shortening the licensing framework for new drugs, investment for venture capitalists can become more attractive. Unfortunately over the past decade many venture capitalists have backed away from the life sciences sector because a licence for a new drug can take over twelve years to obtain. This can scare investors away because of the investment pipeline in place before new drugs can reach the market. After discussing numerous future paths for the UK life sciences sector, Sir John discussed the relative

advantage that the UK’s public healthcare system has over places like the US; comprehensive patient data. The wealth of ‘big’ healthcare data held by the NHS in areas like genomics, epidemiology, disease surveillance and imaging can be analysed using new IT data mining algorithms. This is a strength that Cambridge and the UK needs to leverage to its full potential, as it could give rise to a whole new generation of medical diagnostics. This could open up new markets for UK based firms. The Regius Professor of Medicine was keen to emphasise that government policy needs to “stick to a few key issues where the UK excels, rather than picking numerous objectives with limited resources”. Given Sir John’s North American roots, he reminded us how small the Cambridge cluster actually is in comparison to some of its main competitors like San Francisco’s ‘Silicon Valley’ or Boston’s ‘Route 128’. As an audience member was keen to point out in the Q&A session afterwards, Cambridge would merely be a spec on the map when laid on top of Silicon Valley. Nonetheless, what Cambridge lacks in thick labour markets and economies of scale, it makes up for in the quality of its labour supply. This is especially true when you consider the vision and talent evident in a core mass of Cambridge-based entrepreneurs. Moreover, since momentum first began to build in the 1960s the city has benefited greatly from the worldleading research carried out at the University. Let’s hope future policy can positively support the mix of factors that have enabled Cambridge’s emergence onto the global stage.

and in time-frames which don’t always align with the evidence gathering process. The discussion then moved to the example of the UK’s drug policies. In this case, little sympathy was felt for policy-makers, as it appears that good quality evidence has been ignored to allow drug policies to agree with emotional social values. After a brief introduction by CUSPE committee member Jenny Gibson, Barbara Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology at the University of Cambridge, took to the floor to discuss a national vision for excellent mental health and how it links with science, evidence, and policy. Barbara started by stressing how poor mental health is a large economic burden in the UK, particularly as we have an ageing population, which is leading to an uncontrollable increase in vastly expensive instutionalised care. In addition, depression also has a huge impact upon work functionality with £5.8 million lost in 2007. Although Barbara did acknowledge the social burden of poor mental health, it is the financial impact which causes a real concern for the Government, and reflects their willingness to intervene. Indeed, the Prime Minister David Cameron recently talked about mental health in a speech raising concerns about an ageing population:

On Wednesday the 7th of March the CUSPE hosted its much anticipated and most highly-attended event yet, to discuss the merits of Policy-based evidence versus Evidence-based policy. The cause of the popularity of this talk was no doubt due to the three distinguished speakers, including the dismissed Government Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt. The speakers discussed the complex and sometimes controversial relationship between policy and evidence, and presented their ideas on how this relationship can be improved to increase the appropriate use of evidence in policy design.

16

Annual Report

The common consensus by the speakers, which perhaps comes as no surprise, is that there is regular gross misuse of evidence by policy-makers, particularly to defend past policy decisions. However, all the speakers concluded that it is the responsibility of both scientists and the public alike to draw attention to these mistakes and hopefully prevent their repetition. The panel also discussed best practice for both the gathering of evidence and the decision making process. Surprisingly, a thorough assessment of how to make an evidence-based decision led to some sympathy with policy-makers who often have to make decisions with considerable amounts of uncertainty

Barbara concluded by discussing how early identification alone is not enough to solve the social and financial burden of mental health. Mental health policy needs to have a global approach which includes the involvement of research bodies to fund early disease identification research, pharmaceutical companies to design new and better drugs, improvements to be made in psychological treatments, and finally for Government to play a greater role. Finally Barbara gave a call to arms for those people interested in policy to engage more with the public, to help make the public more receptive to science funding and partaking in experiments. Next to speak was Dr Mark Stokes, Director of the Attention Group at Oxford Centre for Brain Activity. His talk focussed on how to gather the best evidence and its proper use within policy. Evidence is essential for every decision, but all too frequently it can be selected and used to justify a decision on different terms from how it was originally interpreted. This allows politicians to stick by a decision and avoid the embarrassment of a policy U-turn or to try making

Today only 40% of those with dementia know they have it. You can help people live independently for longer, even put the brakes on their decline.

Policy-based evidence versus Evidence-based policy 07/05/2013 Written by Helen Ewles

of different boxes appear on the screen. Later they are then shown a box and have to state where its original location was.

Research has highlighted that early identification of mental health problems and subsequent early effective treatment can have a huge impact on improving patients’ mental capital. It has been estimated that £7741 could be saved per patient if early assessment and treatment is available for Alzheimer’s (Getsios et al 2012). Barbara is a research leader in the early identification of poor mental health, contributing to a Foresight study into the biomarkers of mental health and the setting up of CANTAB (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery) which creates computer-based cognitive assessments to help spot early signs of poor metal health. One particular example is a task set up on an iPad that looks at episodic memory problems (e.g. where did I park my car?), a well validated indicator for dementia. The game requires people to watch a series

Annual Report

17


the policy more palatable to the public. Mark recycled a great quote from Mark Henderson’s Geek Manifesto to really make the point:

the difficulties of good evidence-based policy; a new policy decision is really just a hypothesis that still needs to be tested.

‘Evidence is not like magic dust that sprinkles credibility’ – Mark Henderson, The Geek Manifesto.

Last to take to the stage was Professor David Nutt, who treated us to a comical talk with several very serious points. His key message was that UK drug laws are supposedly based on the relative harm of the drugs. To begin David explained that the starting point for this type of research is to define what a drug actually is; this differs for scientists and politicians. His working political definition of a drug is ‘something a politician once used and now regrets’ resulting in the first of many laughs from the audience. In contrast, David’s scientific definition of a drug is ‘a chemical which when taken produces physiological changes’. By this definition both alcohol and tobacco are classified as drugs, however these industries have worked hard to prevent this categorisation.

Mark explained politicians have become very skilled at presenting policy-based evidence as evidencebased policy through years of debating, and honing their skills at evidence manipulation by cherry picking data and ignoring regression to the mean. Cherry picking data sneakily involves only presenting data that supports the policy, whilst all the other data is ignored, even if it is from a more extensive and credible source. Regression to the mean is a slightly more complicated concept which Mark explained very elegantly. If the result is extreme the first time, on the second measurement the result is likely to be much nearer the average. However, only the first anomalous result is presented. Moreover, another concern is ‘magic treatments’ whereby a positive result is attributed to a ‘treatment’ without any direct evidence actually required. For example if a failing school has already hit rock bottom any changes are likely to improve the school and not be a direct result of a specific intervention. Unfortunately, these changes are often extrapolated to the population based on weak evidence. A huge part of the problem is that our human brains have overactive imaginations, and we frequently jump to explaining phenomena in terms of causation. In reality, a clear causation effect with low noise is rare. Mark then started to gently suggest that maybe we need to be more sympathetic to policy-makers. A genuine decision maker may truly want the best evidence to resolve uncertainty. Yet this is often hard to do in politics, as the decision has either already been made or there is not enough time to gather the evidence together in a meaningful way. However all is not lost, as Mark then introduced us to the Evidence Information Service based in Cardiff that it is at the front line of science and policy. This free and confidential service acts as an intermediary matchmaker service between scientists and policymakers. He also mentioned the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) at the Cabinet Office, who uses goldstandard randomised control trials to improve policy. From BIT’s publication Test, Learn and Adapt, Mark highlighted two important statements. Firstly you need to determine the outcome that the policy is intended to influence and secondly, how it will be measured in the trial prior to its initiation. This should prevent cherry picking of data. Before introducing the next speaker I shall end this section with what I thought was a particularly thought-provoking point from Mark that highlights

18

Annual Report

In 2010 David was elected to Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for the Home Office. The remit was to work out how to properly evaluate the relative harms of the 20 most commonly used drugs. The Council of experts listed 16 different harms, nine of which were harms to self and seven as harm to others. Professor Nutt then pushed the remit further with the help of funding from benefactors rather than the Government to measure each drug against each of the 16 harms, including alcohol and cigarettes. Drugs were scored under each category from 100 for most harm to 0 for least harm, with the most harmful drug at 100 and the other drugs scored relative to this. For several of the harms, this was a simple task to perform e.g. for drug specific mortality heroin was awarded a score of 100, whilst for drug related mortality alcohol is the most harmful. However not all harms were so easy to measure and were more subjective, such as family adversities. These particular subjective harms were dealt with by a panel of experts. Once all of the 20 drugs had been measured against each harm, alcohol came out as the most harmful. Although this was not perhaps a surprise to those in the know, it was not a very palatable conclusion nor did it agree with the UK drug laws whereby far less harmful drugs have much stricter legislation. However, awareness of the problems of alcohol does seem to be increasing, even if the Government did recently fail to commit to a minimum pricing policy. As David concluded, it is all a question of the measure of acceptable risk. And he stands by his well publicised suggestion of horse riding! Getsios, D., Blume, S., Ishak, K. J., Maclaine, G., & Hernández. 2012. An economic evaluation of early assessment for Alzheimer’s disease in the United Kingdom. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 8, 22-30.

Impact of Impact 30/05/2013 Written by Edward Oughton What is the future of science funding? What is the impact of impact requirements? How should we spend limited resources? Well, that’s what a substantial number of people from the research community gathered in the Clare College’s Riley Auditorium to discuss. The audience was diverse, but included a substantial number of senior –level researchers from in and around Cambridge, accompanied by a large cohort of early career researchers. David Bosworth from the Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange gave an excellent introduction before handing over to the first speaker, Professor David Delpy. Professor Delpy is the Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and he began by outlining the three objectives which UK research councils are tasked with. These objectives include; doing the very best internationally leading research, of which these outputs must advance current knowledge and technology, contributing to the economic competitiveness of the UK, and last but not least, to inform and advise. This latter point is crucial for the dissemination of knowledge, particularly in policy formulation. David then moved on to outlining the historical decisions which have led to the current impact agenda, which has its original roots in 1994 when the first inclusion of a related impact component was introduced as ‘relevance to beneficiaries’. In the interest of keeping to his allotted time, David wrapped up his presentation in blunt terms. The reality is that while the Government is committed to research, it wants to see outcomes from the money which it spends. For any Parliamentarian to justify the role of the research councils and why they should receive funds over other government departments, a tangible output must be provided. When tangible outputs from public sector cash can be easily demonstrated elsewhere in Government, this backs the research councils into having to justify and defend their resource allocation. Professor Athene Donald was the next speaker and chose to specifically focus on a subject close to her own heart; women in science. The angle she placed on this approach was along the lines of, how should future science funding address the current gender imbalance in science? However, before delving into the detail, Athene highlighted the need for the UK to stay

in the European Union because of the vast amount of science funding which it receives. She adamantly made the point, that the UK achieves a net gain from Europe and the future of science funding depends on us being able to access this as a resource. I agree. The university statistics on women in science demonstrate a strong disparity between the genders. While at the junior research level the divide is less pronounced, there is an 80-20 male-female split at the professorial level. Athene demonstrated that this was true across the University, and not just in specific science subjects. Clearly there is still a major issue with gender imbalance. But this was not presented in isolation. Athene went on to emphasise not just the moral case for having a diverse workforce, but also the economic argument for seeking greater diversity. The benefits include people challenging ‘group thinking’, increased innovation and greater recognition of the differences among individuals, whether these differences are in customers, clients or colleagues. Athene talked about how scientific studies have showed there is an unconscious male bias among both sexes. Funders should do more to overcome this. Some of the potential solutions proposed were to make people more aware of this disparity and that it can often resort from this unconscious bias. Moreover, research councils can pay more attention to the recruitment records of institutions in allocating future funding. David Deply suggested publishing gender statistics around EPSRC fellowship applications, particularly the gender statistics on the individuals who don’t make it to the interview stage. Athene closed by highlighting the troubles which she has encountered in trying to find more women to sit on decision making committees. This talk evoked strong emotions from many members of the audience. This debate was incredibly diverse in terms of the chosen speakers, and the flow changed completely when Professor Richard Wiseman took the stage. With a polished presentation we were shown many videos of his past experiments on both television and YouTube. I especially enjoyed the nostalgia of watching an excerpt from Tomorrow’s World as it reminded me of my childhood! Richard’s presentation focused entirely on his public engagement work. Through YouTube he has been able to demonstrate a variety of simple psychological experiments which

Annual Report

19


are attractive to a wide range of people. His channel has over 70 million views! Richard’s main point was that these days, thanks to modern technology and platforms like YouTube, we can all make our research accessible to the public if we wish to portray it in that way. While he stated that public engagement in science is not something necessary for researcher, if we fail to undertake it we will fail to engage society and inspire the next generation of researchers. Richard summed up by stating that engagement is evidently something which we need to do, but it’s less easy to measure in a scientific manner when compared to measuring the economic, environmental or social impact which research can have.

David Cardwell, a Professor of superconducting engineering at the University of Cambridge began by introducing his diverse background in both industry and academia. David’s presentation was focused on ‘blue skies’ versus applied research. While this division was not necessarily favoured by David Deply, who preferred his terminology – discovery versus challenge led research – we all understood the division he was emphasising. In actual fact, I found the manner in which he defined these areas very useful indeed to the science funding debate we were engaged in. Blue skies, discovery-led research takes place in a domain where ‘real world’ applications are not immediately apparent. Moreover, it’s driven by a quest for understanding. Research of this nature is broad and speculative, high risk but high return but is often dependent on a buoyant economy. The moment the economy dips and we head to recession, the British approach is to cut this type of research (as opposed to the Japanese model which functions in the opposite fashion). On the other hand, applied, challenge-led research is mission oriented with well defined ‘real world’ applications.While this is still a quest for understanding the focus is clear, rarely spontaneous and unplanned,

20 Annual Report

and often led by a partnership between industry and academia. But David’s message was that a suitable balance of these types of research activities needs to be achieved. It was reassuring of David Deply to state that the EPSRC takes an implicit approach to a 60-40 divide between applied versus blue skies research. In conclusion, David Cardwell’s message was clear. We need to maintain a diverse mix of funded projects straddling both the discovery-led and challengeled approaches. If we don’t there could be severe consequences for the quality of UK research and also the long-term competitiveness of the UK economy. In addition to the economic impacts, there would also be many quality of life and societal implications. After all, it’s through the creation of new products, services and industries that the much needed value-generation process which our economy and society needs can be accomplished. The talks were followed by an informative question and answer session which discussed many important issues. Should universities adapt the Google model of operation, setting twenty percent of researchers’ time free to do a project of their choice? Should the university system provide more room for failure? Should researchers spend more time each week engaging in face to face conversation to boost knowledge transfer? The panel was insightful. The audience was engaged. I found this lecture to have cleared up many of the ‘funding-myths’ espoused by the mainstream and academic-focused media in recent times, as well as providing some much needed debate about where future funding paths could take us. Above all I was inspired by the talk. I love science.

1 Healthcare

3 Financial Incentives

5 Nuclear Proliferation

2 Electric Vehicles

4 Solar Energy

6 Medical Travel

As Healthcare costs continue to rise unsustainably in relation to the wider economy, how can we tackle this problem without simply spending more public funds? Arnoud argues that many of the solutions needed to improve healthcare are inexpensive, and rely more on collaboration between academia, industry and entrepreneurs, as opposed to simply more government spending. This piece outlines some opportunities to deal with this problem, including stratified medicine, the development of new uses for existing interventions and re-thinking the logistics of patient care.

Claire’s research focuses on how new business models can help overcome the obstacles typically presented by electric vehicles, including high battery costs, current range limitation, and the lack of infrastructure. The piece highlights the fact that much remains unknown about what business models will look like in future. Will customers even own their batteries? How will companies make money from these systems beyond selling cars? What are the opportunities for electric vehicles to be connected to the electricity grid? Claire discusses these issues which are central to her PhD research.

Joe asks what are the primary levers available to encourage innovative ideas and behaviours from public sector employees? To answer this, he outlines evidence from behavioural science which suggests that to encourage innovative and creative performance managers must look beyond financial incentives, as monetary rewards may in fact have a negative impact on innovative and creative behaviours. Joe draws upon evidence from psychologists and neuroscientists, and argues that classical economic principles of reward through financial incentives break down when dealing with more complex and creative tasks.

Claire’s piece addresses the crucial issue of renewable energy, and outlines the potential for solar cells as a viable alternative to replace finite energy resources. The piece describes different kinds of cells and their level of efficiency. Looking specifically at Germany, Claire argues that if a cloudy country in Northern Europe can generate such a substantial proportion of their energy mix from solar, there is great potential for the future of solar cells globally, particularly as research continues to make strong strides to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

What stops rogue states or terrorists from acquiring the materials for a nuclear bomb? Stephen explores the different barriers, from material to technological, and describes the categorisation of these barriers from a scientific perspective. He discusses the resistance of technologies to proliferation, raising the issue that such definitions are unknown in novel fuel technologies of the future. Anyone who has ever been kept awake at night wondering whether Plutonium or Uranium is easier to weaponise should read this piece.

What are the policy implications of patients who travel abroad to receive required medical care? Is there the possibility for a coordinated international response? These questions and many more are discussed by Kai, who highlights the clear lack of evidence on what is referred to as Global Health Access Policy (GHAP) to address the multitude of political, medical, and ethical issues surrounding this phenomenon. Kai suggests that dealing with the situation requires an understanding of its consequences for human welfare and outlines how his research group at Cambridge is engaging with the debate through evidence.

Horizon Scanning

This section of the Annual Report was edited by

Joe Gladstone.

We asked early career researchers in Cambridge to write short articles using the most up-to-date academic insights to deal with contemporary policy issues governments face. The responses we had represent a wide range of interests, from climate change and energy to managing employees in the public sector. We hope to develop such articles in future to better engage the policy community with digestible and up to date academic research. If anything in these pieces interests you, do please get in touch with the authors to find out more.

Patrick Wollner supported Joe in the procurement of CUSPE’s Horizon Scanning programme.

Annual Report

21


Healthcare Costs Arnoud Groen

Over the past decade, health expenditure has increased year on year as a proportion of national income (Figure). This unsustainable increase in healthcare expenditure has consistently outstripped inflation and is expected to increase even further. Healthcare inflation is driven by many factors. First, the ageing population; second, therapeutic advances over recent years have rendered many previously fatal diseases survivable, turning them into chronic, manageable diseases; and third, increasing requirements for scientific rigour and the growing regulation of clinical trials have greatly increased the cost to industry of bringing novel interventions to the clinic. Industry is in turn dependent on considerable revenue to underpin a sustainable development pipeline.

Solutions to improve healthcare do not have to be costly and even high-tech solutions might eventually lead to a reduction of costs. It will, however, require close collaboration between all stakeholders, including governmental bodies, academia, industry and entrepreneurs among others, in combination with a creative open-minded approach to future challenges. Open innovation is an example of an approach that offers huge potential to address these healthcare challenges. In contrast to a closed innovation model, where the technology is developed within the company and the market is the only outcome, in an open innovation model, technology can be insourced from elsewhere, and developed

22

Annual Report

technology from within the company can be outlicensed or spun out by other (start-up) companies. Open innovation harnesses networks to expand the number of talented people contributing ideas and working on the same problems. Below, some options for the cost-efficient improvement of healthcare that might also create opportunities for the UK’s life science sector are explored. 1) Scientific advances over recent years have enabled in-depth characterisation of disease never before possible. Genomics, metabolomics and proteomics are able to map the complexity of systems in biology and disease. A systems approach has the potential not only to link genes or proteins to diseases, but also to understand their cause more fully. Already these approaches have yielded new therapeutic targets and pathophysiological insights, and have started to drive a change of focus from treatment to prevention and early detection of disease. These technologies also pave the way for stratified or personalised medicine, where diseases are managed in relation to the characteristics of each individual patient, in contrast to the conventional model of population level treatments. By convention, all patients with a disease receive a particular treatment. Some would respond in full, some in part, but some would show no response or may suffer complications from the intervention without any therapeutic benefit. Stratified medicine seeks to identify these groups a priori and to tailor treatment accordingly. The huge expansion in, and integration of scientific, medical, epidemiological and public health data could also uncover to clinicians and researchers off-target effects of established treatments. These may be of therapeutic benefit, may pertain to previously unrecognised side effects, or may relate to psychosocial factors. This opens up many opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry, as the relative efficacy of drugs improves with more precise patient targeting.

For healthcare providers, the decision to utilise novel innovations depends increasingly on their affordability. It is therefore important that innovations are directed at the areas of greatest need, and at diagnoses or interventions where their application is most likely to result in patient benefit and cost savings. As an example, the cost of dialysis for kidney failure in the UK is estimated at £35,000 per year [1]. Interventions that prevent or delay the onset of kidney failure may therefore result in considerable savings. 2) A myriad of low technology or technology-free solutions exist that have the potential to improve healthcare. For example, lifestyle interventions are perhaps not all new but can have a dramatic impact on health outcomes and thereby reduce costs. Exercise, diet and smoking cessation can all dramatically impact on cardiovascular risk. 3) Another area of focus, recently emphasised by the Medical Research Council, is the development of new uses for existing interventions. One example of this is the drug thalidomide, withdrawn after its use for pregnancy-related vomiting resulted in catastrophic limb deformities in newborns. Recently, thalidomide has re-entered clinical practice as a treatment for the blood disorder myeloma. 4) Much can be gained by re-analysing existing healthcare processes and developing creative solutions in combination with existing technology. This approach has been successfully used to promote screening for bowel cancer in the United States. “Gutcheck” is a communication toolkit that supports shared decision-making conversations about colon cancer screening [2, 3]. Indeed there is a rapid expansion of digital solutions that combine the use of computational technologies, communication media, and smart devices to manage healthcare. One interesting aspect of digital healthcare is the change in emphasis to a model of patient self-management, which reduces the burden of care on providers. In the United Kingdom, approximately 44% of the healthcare budget is spent on salaries [4]. Any approaches that reduce the time demands on healthcare staff are therefore particularly attractive to commissioners. Finally, enhancing the logistics of where and by whom healthcare is provided is a key priority to relieve the increasing pressure on healthcare in an environment where increasing financial constraints and an everexpanding patient population co-exist. The pooling of resources and expertise in specialised clinics for relatively common conditions can increase the quality of care, increase efficiency of specialist services, and relieve pressure on general hospitals. Furthermore,

active patient participation, specifically in the field of rare diseases, could greatly add value by encouraging patients to provide feedback on their treatments and symptoms, effectively using the patient as a biosensor to monitor and improve patient care. One example that incorporates many of these aspects is the recently opened Alexander Monro Hospital in The Netherlands, which focuses solely on the treatment of breast cancer [5]. Understanding and implementing innovations for healthcare need not necessarily drive up costs but could have the inverse effect while also improving healthcare quality. Current healthcare challenges are very varied and the solutions to these challenges are likely to be equally diverse. Government has a very important role to play; smart investments and rigorous yet flexible regulation will prove crucial to meeting the challenges of providing sustainable, high quality healthcare for the future.

References

[1] The cost of renal dialysis in a UK setting--a multicentre study. Baboolal K, McEwan P, Sondhi S, Spiewanowski P, Wechowski J, Wilson K. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Jun;23(6):1982-9 [2] http://www.gutcheck.nci.nih.gov [3] http://www.ideo.com/work/gutcheck/ [4] Charlesworth A, Jones NM. The anatomy of health spending 2011/12: a review of NHS expenditure and labour productivity. Nuffield Trust Research Report, London 2013 [5] http://www.alexandermonro.nl/

Many thanks to Thomas Hiemstra for his important contributions to this article. Thomas Hiemstra is a nephrologist and clinical lecturer in translational medicine and therapeutics in the department of medicine, University of Cambridge (http://tmat.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ hiemstra.html).

Annual Report

23


Business models for electric vehicles Claire Weiller

Two key sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and energy consumption in the UK and globally are electricity and transport. At the interface between these two sectors, electric vehicles offer a significant potential to reduce GHG emissions due to their higher well-to-wheel energy efficiency relative to conventional internal combustion engines and other alternative fuel vehicles [1], [2]. Meanwhile, EV life-cycle emissions are improving due to policies in the UK and in Europe supporting an increasing share of renewable energy in the electricity generation mix [3], [4]. Despite these advantages, customer adoption of the technology remains limited due to high battery costs, insufficient driving range, and a lack of charging infrastructure [5]. A central question for my research is how to overcome these barriers and create value through innovative business models that enhance the value proposition of EVs with other services. Taking a multi-stakeholder perspective on all companies involved in the commercialisation of EVs, from battery manufacturers to mobility-as-a-service providers, the objective of my work is to develop a comprehensive vision and framework of the opportunities offered by electric mobility. Based on case study interviews with industry experts, company founders and CEOs in four different countries (the US, Japan, France, and Norway), the analysis in my PhD will synthesise leading-edge thinking in the automotive, electricity and ICT sectors. The ecosystem perspective reveals that the value of this innovation extends beyond the automobile product market into electricity and ICT network service industries. From the point of view of electric supply companies and distribution network operators, grid-connected EV batteries represent a potentially very interesting device that can be used as a generator, as a flexible load for demand-side management, frequency regulation services, and electricity storage [6], [7]. As the electric power system is progressively transitioning to a more distributed and decentralised structure with the integration of small-scale generation, intermittent renewable energy, and smart meters, policy makers will have to adapt regulations to the new market system [8–10]. According to the international case studies, the most expensive component of the electric vehicle, the battery, offers multiple sources of value creation

24

Annual Report

across the business ecosystem. Internalising the value of long-term strategic opportunities into the initial price of batteries may help bring EVs to costparity with conventional cars and give them a better chance to emphasise their other advantages to customers. In addition to the secondary life value of EV batteries, the R&D spill-over effect creates an indirect source of value when battery technical knowledge is used in other industries and markets [11]. Finally, another innovative solution to reduce battery costs to customers is to separate the ownership of the battery from the vehicle, with customers leasing rather than buying the battery from the manufacturer [12]. Information and communication technologies (ICT) in the vehicle can help drivers alleviate “range anxiety” through advanced route planning that incorporates information about their journey, the state-of-charge of the vehicle, typical driving habits, and electricity prices and charging rates. In line with general trends in the manufacturing sector, EVs may also speed up the transition from selling cars through simple product-based business models to outcome-based integrated service models [13]. The uncertainties in the early-stage market are leading companies to design and develop technological standards in order to become “platform” leaders [14]. The “platform” business for electric vehicles may be in charging services, in mobility services, or wider service platforms such as smart home energy management systems and smart cities [15]. Realising such business models often requires building strong collaborations and relationships between industries that previously did not interact with each other – a task that has already been found challenging [16].

References

[1] Electric Power Research Institute, “Environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” Palo Alto, CA, 1015325, 2007. [2] SIM-Drive, “Interview with founder and director Prof. Shimizu, Keio University, Japan,” 2013. [3] European Commission, Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC. European Parliament and Council, 2009. [4] UK Department for Energy and Climate Change, Energy Bill 2012. 2012. [5] F. Kley, C. Lerch, and D. Dallinger, “New business models for electric cars—A holistic approach,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 3392–3403, Jun. 2011. [6] SCE, “Interview with Ed Kjaer, Director of Plug-in readiness program at Southern California Edison,” 2012. [7] BMW, “Interview with Klaus Heller, Senior Advanced Technology Engineer, Sustainable Mobility,” 2012. [8] M. G. Pollitt, “The Future of Electricity (and Gas) Regulation in Low-carbon policy world,” The Energy Journal, vol. 29, no. Special Issue\# 2, pp. 63–94, 2008. [9] T. G. San Román, I. Momber, M. R. Abbad, and Á. Sánchez Miralles, “Regulatory framework and business models for charging plug-in electric vehicles: Infrastructure, agents, and commercial relationships,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 6360–6375, Aug. 2011. [10] J. Gordjin and H. Akkermans, “Business models for distributed generation in a liberalized market environment,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 1178–1188, 2007. [11] R. Kapoor and R. Adner, “What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms’ Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change,” Organization Science, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1227–1248, Aug. 2011. [12] P. H. Andersen, J. a. Mathews, and M. Rask, “Integrating private transport into renewable energy policy: The strategy of creating intelligent recharging grids for electric vehicles,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 2481–2486, Jul. 2009. [13] A. Tukker, “Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 246–260, Jul. 2004. [14] A. Gawer and M. A. Cusumano, Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation, vol. 31, no. 4. Harvard Business School Press, 2002. [15] IBM, “Electric vehicles: Driving innovation,” 2012. [16] Tokyo Electric Power Company, “Interview with founder of fast-charging consortium Chademo, Dr. Anegawa, now General Manager of Nuclear Asset Management at Tokyo Electric Power Company,” Tokyo, Japan, 2013.

Annual Report

25


Encouraging Innovation in Public Sector Employees: The Role of Financial Incentives on Creative Tasks? Joe Gladstone

Innovation in the public sector is no longer a luxury. Change has now become the rule, rather than the exception, as new global challenges mean innovative and creative solutions are required from government employees as never before. This task is made both more urgent and more difficult as budget cuts continue to bite. What are the primary levers available to encourage innovative ideas and behaviour from public sector employees? This paper looks at current evidence from behavioural science to better understand the problem and argues that classic assumptions of reward do not apply when trying to encourage more complex and creative behaviours.

You want Innovation? Just pay workers more.

The public sector is often criticised for its slow pace of innovation and change [1]. This is despite a widespread and growing range of innovative programmes across public sector organisations globally. The problem is that such innovation is almost exclusively the preserve of senior decision-makers, specialist ‘innovation units’ or expensive external consultants. How do we encourage innovative and creative behaviours at the level of the employee and the team? Popular management books are filled with examples of providing financial incentives – from bonuses, competitions and prizes - to reward employees for innovative ideas and behaviours. Such incentives are often regarded as good value, as ideas from employees are a major source of value creation in firms. Prizes for innovative ideas, such as GE’s Ecomagination Challenge, attract tens of thousands of participants and similar practices have attracted much attention in the public sector. For example, high profile successes in the US and elsewhere show the value of ‘gain-sharing’, where public sector employees take home a portion of the savings they generate for the organisation. And bonuses and differential pay structures have long been argued to be useful to attract the ‘stars’ who will steer innovative change in the public sector [2]. These ideas are inspired by standard economic principles, which argue that to encourage a specific behaviour it must be compensated adequately through reward, with higher rewards resulting in more of the desired behaviour. This principle is also argued to be true for cognitively demanding, creative tasks, as thinking is always a costly activity and must therefore be compensated in the same way [3].

26

Annual Report

When Rewards Reduce Creativity

Psychologists, on the other hand, argue that creativity is primarily encouraged through intrinsic motivation and monetary incentives may in fact displace the intrinsic pleasure derived from engaging in an activity. This is supported by a large and growing stream of literature finding that financial incentives have a negative impact on creativity and innovation. For example, in a set of field experiments in rural India, participants completed tasks requiring a wide range of abilities: creativity, attention, concentration, and memory. They were randomly informed that exceptional performance would be rewarded by a small, medium, or large financial bonus (equivalent to a day, two weeks, or five months’ salary respectively). In contrast to the economics-based approach, those in the medium bonus condition performed no better than participants in the small bonus condition, while participants in the large bonus condition performed worst of all [4]. These surprising findings were replicated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to monitor participants’ brain activity, where it was found that the prospect of obtaining larger-than-average rewards engaged a relatively larger share of attention and working memory, leaving little available to carry out tasks creatively or effectively [5]. Of course, these studies are set against a vast economics literature demonstrating the value of financial incentives. However, their conclusions are far from unique. A recent meta-analysis reviewed 46 laboratory and field experiments on pay-forperformance and found clear negative relationships between tangible rewards and performance on some tasks. It seems that for more interesting and creative tasks (such as solving mathematical problems) financial rewards have a negative impact on performance, while for simple non-creative tasks (such as installing automobile windows), financial rewards have a positive effect [6]. Experimental studies completed in the past year, which have yet to be published, show similarly that financial incentives have a neutral or negative influence on open-ended creative thinking [7, 8].

tool for managers. A review on bonuses in the public sector commissioned in 2012 by the UK government demonstrates the difficult decisions in how best to motivate employees with financial means. The emerging evidence outlined here suggests that creating an environment where creativity can flourish requires us to reject many of the old assumptions about employee motivation through financial incentives. Therefore, to encourage creativity and greater innovation from the public sector workforce, managers must instead focus greater efforts on the many non-financial levers available to them. In her classic account, Professor Teresa Amabile of Harvard University suggests the most crucial factors are for employees to feel challenged, to have freedom, to have the resources to achieve the task, and supervisory encouragement [10]. A deeper understanding of the motivational forces acting upon employees is crucial to maximise the human capital potential of the public sector and to overcome the extraordinary challenges currently facing governments across the world.

References

[1] Windrum, Paul and Koch, Per. 2008. Innovation in the Public Sector Services: Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Management. Northampton Mass. Edward Elgar Publishing. [2] Flynn, Norman. 2007. Public Sector Management. 5th Edition. Financial Times/ Prentice-Hall. [3] Camerer, Colin & Hogarth, Robin. 1999. The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42. [4] Ariely, Dan, Gneezy, Uri, Loewenstein, George and Mazar, Nina. 2009. Large Stakes and Big Mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 451-6. [5] Mobbs, Dean, Hassabis, Demis, Seymour, Ben, Marchant, Jennifer, Weiskopf, Nikolaus, Dolan, Raymond and Christopher, Frith. 2009. Choking on the money: Reward-based performance decrements are associated with midbrain activity. Psychological Science, 20, 955-962. [6] Weibel, Antoinette., Rost, Katja and Osterloh, Margit. 2010. Pay for Performance in the Public Sector: Benefits and (Hidden) Costs. Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, 20, 387-412. [7] Eckartz, Katharina, Kirchkamp, Oliver and Schunk, Daniel. How Do Incentives Affect Creativity? (December 12, 2012). CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4049. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2198760. [8] Charness, Gary & Grieco, Daniela, 2013. Individual Creativity, Ex-ante Goals and Financial Incentives. University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt4mr6p1d5, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara. [9] Bonuses in Public Sector Under Review. BBS News. 13th February 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-17008020 [10] Amabile, Teresa. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 77-87.

Implications for Public Sector Managers

The findings outlined above are important because complex and creative tasks are an essential part of modern day-to-day public sector work, and so understanding what drives this behaviour is a crucial

Annual Report

27


The Bright Future of Solar Energy Claire Armstrong

Energy demand and consumption nowadays has lead to great interest in the research and development of renewable energies. The world’s primary energy consumption is expected to grow by 1.6% per annum from 2010 to 2030, an overall increase of 39% [1]. Taking into account the proven reserves of fossil fuels and their daily production rate during 2005–2007, the estimated worldwide remaining supply of oil is 43 years, coal 148 years and natural gas 61 years [2]. These figures assume the daily production rate will remain constant over the years, however the reality is that worldwide consumption of fossil fuels has been increasing, and will continue to do so. In 2010, 87% of the world’s total energy demand was met by fossil fuels, a figure which is expected to decrease to 81% by 2030 [1]. Predictions show that over the same period, the percentage for renewables will increase from 8% to 13% [1]. While this growth is encouraging, a larger growth rate is essential for future energy security and it is therefore vital that we continue to investigate alternative energy sources. Despite several different green energies being necessary to meet global demands, solar energy is considered as one of the strongest alternatives to help replace finite resources. In one hour, the Earth receives more energy from the Sun than the global population currently consumes in one year [3]. Clearly, technologies which can harness even a fraction of this energy are worth researching. One of the most extensively researched solar technologies is the field of photovoltaics, more commonly known as solar cells. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies convert solar radiation directly into electricity using a ‘p-n junction’, which is the interface that forms when two types of semiconductor material are sandwiched together. These junctions are also crucial in many basic electronic devices, including transistors, LEDs and integrated circuits. Absorption of sunlight creates charge carriers which, thanks to the wonders of the p-n junction, can then be extracted from the solar cell as an electrical current. Considering PV technology alone, covering only 0.1% of the Earth’s surface with 10% efficient solar cells would provide enough energy to meet current demands [3]. Such an area is approximately the area of Spain – optimistic, however not impossible. All of these facts place solar energy as an ideal candidate to aid meeting energy demand by the end of this century.

28

Annual Report

So if the Sun is such a powerful source of energy, and mankind has already ‘invented’ the solar cell, why have we not given up on fossil fuels entirely and switched to solar energy? The answer, of course, is cost. The first practical solar cell, made from crystalline silicon, was developed in 1954 at Bell Laboratories. Due to their expense, however, their only widespread use in the next few decades was in space applications. Luckily, prices dropped as it was found that the cells could be made using cast-off silicon from the electronics industry without much sacrifice of efficiency, and in the years following the oil crisis in 1973, many oil companies branched out and formed solar divisions, making solar feasible for terrestrial energy applications. Crystalline silicon is still the most commonly used material in PV applications, in either mono- or polycrystalline form. These cells are known as 1st generation cells, which comprise approximately 90% of the PV market, their dominance most likely due to their high efficiencies (27.6 % for a monocrystalline cell) and the technical know-how already developed by the semiconductor industry [4,5]. The maximum theoretical efficiency for these types of cells (crystalline silicon cells containing one p-n junction) is 33.7%, referred to as the Shockley-Queisser limit [6]. However, coming close to this value is not easy, as it is essential to use high purity (99.9999%) monocrystalline silicon. Ironically, producing these cells is a highly energy intensive process, with temperatures reaching as high as 1900°C at some stages. As an example, in order to manufacture enough of these cells to generate 4% of the energy produced worldwide in 2005, 10% of the worldwide energy would be needed. There is thus a fundamental limit to monocrystalline silicon solar cells [4]. The expense of these cells has lead to extensive research into alternative 2nd generation cells in an attempt to achieve a better cost-efficiency balance. These cells generally try to reduce costs by using thin film technologies and low temperature solution based processing, and are typically made from amorphous silicon or non-silicon materials such as cadmium telluride and CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide). Dye sensitized solar cells are also an alternative. Thin film cells are typically only micrometers thick, thus saving on material usage and resulting in a flexible structure that can be incorporated into various types of architecture. So far, CIGS solar cells have reached

efficiencies of 20.3% and there are already several types of 2nd generation cells available in the market [5]. While the 30% theoretical efficiency limit for 1st generation solar cells sounds like an insurmountable barrier, it is possible to achieve efficiencies much higher than this through the development of new solar materials and cell designs. There are a variety of proposed cells that have this potential, all of which fall under the umbrella of 3rd generation cells. Multi-junction cells are 3rd generation cells which are already in commercial use, and by forming a cell made from several p-n junctions, efficiencies of 43.5 % have been shown to be possible using concentrated sunlight [5]. These cells use many layers of material to absorb a wider portion of the Sun’s spectrum than traditional silicon solar cells, however the materials and processing methods required limit their use to space power applications where the desire for a high power-to-weight ratio is more important than cost. Extensive research into other types of cell within the 3rd generation category is also being carried out and while still at the pre-commercialisation stage, there are many promising options which, through continued materials research, are expected to become feasible within the next few decades. Though the solar market is still young in comparison to that of the veteran fossil fuels, it is moving forward. Thanks to extensive research into PV materials and designs, in addition to lower production costs and higher production capacity, the solar industry is evolving and beginning to make its mark. From 2011 to 2012, photovoltaic installation in the US increased by 70% and market analysts predict a 30% increase in 2013 [7]. The US is actually just the tip of the iceberg. The true solar giant in the world right now is Germany. On the 15th April this year, Germany used its 1.3 million solar power systems to set a world record for power output [8]. The energy produced provided 12 % of the country’s electricity consumption for that day, equivalent to 34,000 tons of oil or 8 nuclear reactors running non-stop for 24 hours. In fact, the peak power output at midday was 22.68 GW, enough energy for 19 trips in Back to the Future’s De Lorian time machine. This figure clearly demonstrates the immense potential of solar power. If Germany, a cloudy northern European country, can make this much of a dent in its energy requirements, then the rest of the world should not be struggling so much to keep up. Turning now to look at the UK, we are far from reaching the PV capacity of Germany, however progress is being made. From 2011 to 2012, the UK’s installed PV capacity grew from 980 to 1660 GW, and while this is vastly overshadowed by the German

figures (25,100 to 32,700 GW), current growth projections look very promising [9]. It is predicted that, by the year 2020, 4 million households in the UK will have installed PV and the solar energy industry will have grown from 25,000 employees to 360,000. With today’s electricity prices, the average three bedroom household in the UK could save as much as £800 annually by switching to PV and as energy prices are expected to continue to rise, could there be any other time where solar energy is more desirable [10]? Of course, to truly reap the benefits of solar energy, we must not take our eye off the ball. Only through continued materials research can we push the boundaries of photovoltaics and in order to take full advantage of this amazing technology, we must strive to rid ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels. Solar energy has the potential to completely redefine electricity generation for the 21st century, and if we let it, the future of solar energy really is very bright.

References

[1] BP, “BP Energy Outlook 2030”, 2012. [2] Wikipedia “Fossil Fuels: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Fossil_fuel,” 2013. [3] M. Grätzel, “Photoelectrochemical Cells,” Nature, vol. 414, 2001. [4] M. Tao, “Inorganic photovoltaic solar cells: silicon and beyond,” The Electrochemical Society Interface, pp. 30-35, 2008. [5] L. Kazmerski, “Best Research Cell Efficiencies: http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart. jpg,” 2013. [6] W. Shockley and H.J. Queisser, “Detailed Balance Limit of Efficiency of p-n Junction Solar Cells,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 32, no. 3, p. 510, 1961. [7] http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/solar-powerrecord-in-germany-22-68-gw-infographic/, 2013. [8] Photovoltaic Barometer, Eurobserv’er, April 2013. [9] http://info.sapphirecapitalpartners.co.uk/blog/ bid/256751/Renewable-Energy-Solar-power-has-abright-future-in-the-UK, 2013.

Annual Report

29


Open questions regarding proliferation resistance assessments of future nuclear fuel cycles Stephen F. Ashley

The barriers that impede the acquisition of materials which could be used to manufacture a weapon of mass destruction or weapon of mass effect can generally be classified into two groups (e.g. as done by the Generation IV International Forum [1]). The first group are classed as intrinsic barriers, which are characteristics that impede the diversion or undeclared production of nuclear material or misuse of technology by the Host State to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The second group are classed as extrinsic barriers, which are characteristics that impede the theft of materials suitable for nuclear explosives or radiation dispersal devices and the sabotage of facilities and transportation by sub-national entities and other non-Host State adversaries. Proliferation resistance assessments generally focus towards the intrinsic barriers, with physical protection assessment catering toward appraising the extrinsic barriers. The intrinsic barriers can be subdivided into material barriers and technological barriers [2]. Material barriers cover the qualities of materials that reduce the inherent desirability or attractiveness of the material as an explosive. Technological barriers cover intrinsic technical elements of the fuel cycle, its facilities, processes, and equipment that serve to make it difficult to gain access to materials and/or to use or misuse facilities to obtain weapons-usable material. Technical assessments can be used to appraise the proliferation resistance of technologies operating with different nuclear fuel cycles. For appraising material barriers, the existing Figure of Merit methodology by Bathke et al. [3] provides a single score derived from four parameters: the mass, decay heat, neutron emission rate, and radiotoxicity of the material. This methodology is particularly insightful in civil nuclear fuel cycles for appraising how the material evolves whilst it is being irradiated. For appraising technical barriers, different methodologies have been developed, which include multi-attribute utility analysis [4] and the use of fuzzy logic [5]. These methodologies factor for the infrastructure relating to civil nuclear fuel cycles, safeguards and timing and for weightings to be elicited from expert panels. Although the factors contributing towards technically appraising the proliferation resistance of technologies and nuclear fuel cycles are well defined, there are

30 Annual Report

a number of open questions which can impact the results of such assessments, especially in novel nuclear fuel cycles operating in technologies of the future. One question surrounds the potential weaponisation of uranium-233. Traditionally, weapons-grade plutonium, containing more than 94% plutonium-239, and weapons-grade uranium, containing more than 93% uranium-235, have most frequently been used in nuclear weapons programmes. However, another fissile isotope that has been previously used in nuclear weapons tests is uranium-233 (namely “Shot MET” in Operation Teapot in the US [6] and JOE-19/RDS-37 in the Soviet Union [7], both tests taking place in 1955). Uranium is generally considered more straightforward to weaponise than plutonium, due to the limited heat source and lack of spontaneously emitted neutrons that can cause pre-ignition. However, it is often noted that the formation of the isotope uranium-232, from high-energy neutron-induced reactions on thorium-232 and uranium-233, adds to the proliferation resistance of thorium-based nuclear fuel cycles. This is mainly due to the formation of the highly radiotoxic daughter product thallium-208 that can impede access to this material. Parts-per-million concentrations of uranium-232 within large nuclear fuel assemblies can provide near self-protecting dose rates. However, definitions of self-protecting dose rates vary considerably: 1 Sv/h from IAEA [8], 5 Sv/h from US DOE [3], and 100 Sv/h from an Oak Ridge report [9]. This in turn has significant implications on the quantities of uranium-232 that can make a material self-protecting. Therefore, a set of isotopic vectors that defines weaponisable uranium-233, with corresponding uranium-232 and uranium-234 fractions, needs to be defined and ratified [10]. Another question surrounds the technological barriers from the development of new civil technologies. Future nuclear energy technologies, such as those listed by the Generation IV International Forum [1], are typically geared towards operating in reprocessing based nuclear fuel cycles. Historically, reprocessing has involved the aqueous PUREX process to recover plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Currently, the COEX process to co-extract uranium and plutonium is being developed by AREVA. Future reprocessing based schema include advanced aqueous reprocessing techniques (e.g. GANEX and DIAMEX) that would prospectively be operated at a national scale, or novel pyroprocessing techniques that can be employed

on an individual reactor scale. For pyroprocessing techniques, questions surround the ability for individual streams of special nuclear materials to be separated (e.g. protactinium-233, which decays into uranium-233) and the potential for military use of such technologies if wide-scale deployment is required.

Acknowledgements

The aforementioned work has stemmed from EPSRC project EP/I018425/1 and I would like to acknowledge discussions with Dr G.T. Parks (Dept. of Engineering, University of Cambridge) and Prof. W.J. Nuttall (The Open University) on the matters surrounding the proliferation resistance of thorium-uranium-based nuclear fuel cycles.

Disclaimer

The contents of the aforementioned piece are solely the views of S.F. Ashley.

References

[1] U.S. DOE and the Generation IV International Forum, Report GIF–002–00 (2002) http://www.gen4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf [2] TOPS Task Force of the U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), (2001) http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FinalTOPSRpt.pdf [3] C.G. Bathke et al., Nuclear Technology 179:1, (2012) 5–30 [4] W.S. Charlton et al., Nuclear Technology 157:2, (2007) 143–56 [5] S.E. Skutnik and M.-S. Yim, Nuclear Engineering and Design 241:8, (2011) 3270–82 [6] C. Hansen, Swords of Armageddon, Version 2. (2007) ISBN: 978–0–979–191503 [7] D. Holloway, International Security 4:3, (1979–80) 192–7 [8] International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA– TECDOC–1575; INPRO Manual — Volume 5: Proliferation Resistance, (2008) ISBN: 978–92–0– 100509–0 [9] C.W. Coates et al., ORNL Report ORNL/TM2005/261 (2005) [10] S.F. Ashley et al., Proceedings of the UK PONI Annual Conference 2012, http://www.rusi.org/ downloads/assets/UK_PONI_2012_-_Ashley_-_ Prolfieration_Resistance_of_Thorium-Uranium_ Fuel2.pdf

Annual Report

31


Working across sectors for the good of global health Kai Ruggeri

This horizon scanning article explores the complexities involved in international medical travel, whereby patients travel abroad to receive required health care, and as a consequence, the possibilities for integrated global health policies. The pieces compiled in this report collectively imply that the organisations working in health issues can no longer be considered as belonging to one distinct sector or another. Previously, it may have been sufficient to conclude research by suggesting the need for better interdisciplinary efforts in improving health services or to highlight a group’s particular skill in working between private companies, universities and government bodies. However, as economic pressures demand that investment in health care be more effective, sustainable, and replicable, such collaborative work is now a must. There is perhaps no better example of this than the increase in international medical travel and its implications for global health.

Medical Procedure Tables Country Health Profile Not finished Not selected but reported medical travel

32

Annual Report

The basics

Medical travel refers to situations where patients leave their home country and travel to another for the primary purposes of receiving necessary care. This is distinct from medical tourism, which typically occurs for cosmetic or other elective procedures. Conducting research on medical travel is extremely difficult because the data is hard to ascertain: many instances of medical travel occur outside of any structured programmes or legal arrangements. Additionally, although much of Europe has standing arrangements for reciprocal care for citizens while abroad, these were primarily established to help people who experience medical emergencies while already travelling, not to support a chronic or otherwise non-emergency care need.

Not just for doctors and legislators

Travel for medical care is rapidly expanding, and there is little doubt this trend will continue . Major international organisations such as the OECD have further indicated that medical travel may have the potential to attenuate the rise in health care costs while increasing access . Yet there is a clear lack of evidence on what is referred to as Global Health Access Policy (GHAP) to address the multitude of political, medical, and ethical issues. The questions involved in establishing programmes whereby patients can travel between countries to receive care are not simply ones of logistics, nor are they only to be discussed among clinicians providing care or bureaucrats determining Medical travel paths relevant legislation. In Country to country order to ensure the most Area to country responsible development of innovative policies that Health related goods exports/imports maximise the potential of Sender Country Host country increased access without creating harm, an allhands (e.g. all possible

stakeholders) approach to GHAPs is a necessity. Given the projected increase in medical travel, it is also urgent. What we’re doing at Cambridge: getting junior researchers involved in evidence-based policy GHAP research is highly complicated; it requires numerous aspects to be taken into account, including: clinical considerations, patient considerations, legal frameworks, economic models, travel and logistical data, patient safety and the health care industry – to name only a few. Although some programmes may already be in place, most are only established for a limited number of countries and have little potential to reach a global population. Therefore, international quality standards are needed to determine possibility for wider involvement. To address such complex topics, we have engaged early career researchers from the Junior Researcher Programme (JRP) to compile a multitude of interdisciplinary, interrelated projects. The JRP is an ideal team for this undertaking because such work requires a great deal of focused effort from a committed and diverse consortium that is strong in numbers. Furthermore, by using such a globally representative group, we have the ability to scour an extremely broad literature base and thereby consider a broad range of solutions to the many issues faced. Ongoing projects include:

travellers using a scientific approach. As with our previous work, we will endeavour to include the many possible stakeholders involved the care of patients: clinicians, policymakers, employers, family members, support services and the patients themselves. By such means, we can ensure a responsible approach to an innovative, yet controversial, possibility for global health policies.

References

[1] Lunt N, Smith, R, Exworthy, M, et al. Medical Tourism: Treatments, Markets and Health System Implications: A Scoping Review for OECD. (Accessed May 4, 2013, at http://www.oecd.org/els/healthsystems/48723982.pdf.) [2] Baker, D. Globalising healthcare: A prescription with benefits. OECD Observer, October 2010. (Accessed May 4, 2013, at http://www.oecdobserver. org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3323/.) [3] Bisht R, Pitchforth, E, Murray, S. Understanding India, globalisation and health care systems: a mapping of research in the social sciences. Globalization and Health 2012; 8,32. Image credit: M. Jäger, Junior Researcher Programme, 2012.

(a) Extensive reviewing across a range of academic, institutional and policy sources on existing medical travel programmes (b) Developing guidance on international quality standards for high-volume procedures (c) Patient and clinician decision-making related to travelling for care (d) Developing legal frameworks for medical travellers as to ensure increased travel does not increase costs for locals (e) Identifying potential leaders for medical travel programmes, such as insurance companies, health ministries and the travel industry

The future of the GHAP project: well-being

Like all areas of health and health care, work on medical travel must consider the implications for well-being. While some may believe that going abroad to receive care without the benefit of social support is not a practical solution to low access to care, the alternative of receiving no care is surely worse. For this reason, once the aspects above have been addressed by our collaborative, our long-term aim is to look at how to ensure the well-being of medical

Annual Report

33


Secondment at BIS Tim Guilliams

Partners CUSPE’s mission is to build stronger links between early-career researchers at Cambridge and government policy officials, both within the UK and the European Union. We could not do this without both our strong partners within the University who help us accomodate speakers and organize events and those outside the University who help us financially and with their expertise. The society strives to support young researchers who want to influence policy from an innovative research perspective as well as those who wish to pursue careers in government. CUSPE encourages effective communication amongst researchers, scientists, engineers, industry representatives and policymakers as well as networking and career development opportunities. One of the ways to achieve these aims is through secondments, where researchers within Cambridge spend time in government to better understand the challenges they face. Tim, a founding member of CUSPE, discusses his time on secondment at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, and encourages fellow researchers to make the most of these opportunities. As a non-profit organisation, CUSPE depends on the generosity of our partners and sponsors to maintain our financial security and achieve our ambitious goals. The money that we raise is used to book venues, pay for speakers’ travel expenses and fund the various over-head costs associated with hosting high quality events. If you are interested in supporting our efforts over the upcoming year as we work to build upon our successes and strengthen our links within and outside the University, then please get in touch with our Finances team. A particular note of gratitude goes to the team at the Centre for Science and Policy, without whom we could not have achieved so much this past year. CSaP provided invaluable expertise and time to help us navigate the two distinct worlds of policy and academia effectively. We share many of our goals with CSaP and hope the relationship continues to flourish in the future.

34

Annual Report

As a PhD student in the field of Molecular Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge, I have been incredibly fortunate to interact closely with the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) and be involved in co-founding the Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange (CUSPE). In fact, I would say it is thanks to the CUSPE-CSaP interaction that I received the opportunity to perform a secondment placement at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Before describing my secondment in more detail, I would like to stress that my experience at BIS has been extremely valuable for many reasons. It gave me a general flavour of how a government department works, it provided me with the opportunity to have an internal view on the process of policy making and gain insights into the dynamics and time-frames in which civil servants operate. In addition, it opened a whole new network of personal contacts for future collaborations and career opportunities. And, last but not least, it allowed me to develop a new subset of transferable skills and broaden my horizon in order to gain a better understanding of how my research and ideas could potentially have an impact. One could say my placement commenced at the very first launch meeting of CUSPE last summer 2012, which was attended by Dr. Robert Doubleday, executive director of CSaP, and Dr. Graeme Reid, Head of Research Funding at BIS. Both were very supportive of the CUSPE initiative and, to our pleasant surprise, Graeme equally informed us about the secondment placement opportunities in his department, which would allow students to have a first hands-on policy experience. Needless to say I was instantly keen. Following a bit of administrative paperwork, last September my BIS-journey started in the Science & Research Impact Team under supervision of Dr. Bryony Butland. From the very start, it was clear that a lot of trust was put in the secondees. I was encouraged to personally shape and tweak my project, set up key meetings within and outside my team, which involved liaising with the Office for Life Sciences and the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, with whom I directly worked with the chairman Sir John Bell, who has been incredibly supportive of the project.

area of Life Sciences. This piece of work would enable to shed light on the importance of universities and research funding on economic growth. In addition, being Cambridge based and having the Cambridge Cluster at hand, which is known to be one of the most successful hightech / biotech clusters in the world, we decided to focus on the university-industry interactions of Cambridge in greater depth. Therefore, next to meetings with policy officials at BIS, part of my project involved liaising with key people in Cambridge, such as the serial bio-entrepreneur Dr. Andy Richards and the Director of the Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning, Dr. Shailendra Vyakarnam. In summary, based on my personal experience, I would highly encourage fellow PhD students and Post-docs to perform a secondment in government. Whether you want to stay in academia, aspire to become a civil servant or yet have other career perspectives in mind, this opportunity will not only allow you to have a first hand experience in the world of policy making, but equally enable you to share your expertise and become part of a wider network. In addition, it will broaden your horizon and teach you a new subset of transferable skills. The ongoing partnership between CUSPE and CSaP is ideally suited to enable early-career researchers to perform placements in government, which I can only strongly recommend.

Following a few initial meetings and further scoping of the project, it was clear to Bryony and myself that it would be hugely interesting, and somehow relevant in the current economical climate, to gather more evidence on university-industry interactions in the

Annual Report

35


Founding Partner

Centre for Science and Policy The Centre for Science and Policy’s defining purpose is to help government make better use of science and technology in order to deliver better public policy. We fulfil this mission by facilitating interaction between government and academia, and particularly by building and supporting networks that lead to mutual understanding. The three pillars of CSaP’s operations are Knowledge Exchange, Research, and Professional Development. Knowledge Exchange is our core activity: through our pioneering Policy Fellowship Programme we utilise our networks to provide policy professionals with access to the best academic thinking, bringing decision makers from government and industry to the University as the basis for developing useful and lasting connections with researchers. Our series of workshops, seminars and lectures provides arenas in which those interested in the policy implications of science and technology, and the relationship between research expertise and public policy, can discuss and develop fresh ideas. Our Science and Policy Research programme carries out comparative empirical research on the relationship between scientific expertise, policy and politics. The aim is both to contribute to scholarship on the science-policy relationship, and also to inform our hands-on work to improve it. CSaP will be putting this research knowledge to use in training the next generation of policy leaders when Cambridge opens its doors to a new Master’s programme in 2013. The Centre will be running the course on the scientific method and evidence as part of the Master’s in Public Policy. We also put great emphasis on Professional Development, working with graduate students and early-career researchers, which has led to a number of policy placements in Whitehall; interns from NERC and BBSRC coming to Cambridge; and the supporting the launch of CUSPE.

Cambridge Masters in Public Policy

The Cambridge Masters in Public Policy (MPP) is a new one-year, multidisciplinary, practice-oriented course that will launch at the University of Cambridge in October 2013. MPP students come to the programme with three to five years of work experience and a desire to build careers related to public policy, in government, the private sector or the third sector. The programme will provide students with a thorough intellectual grounding and practical experience in the process of policy making, as well as an understanding of the range of knowledge and skills they need to be effective in the world of policy.

offers the highest level of assurance that a candidate has the right credentials for leadership or advisory roles in public service or in public policy departments. Miranda Gomperts, Head of Programme Development, Masters in Public Policy

For employers seeking the best recruits to develop their teams, a Cambridge MPP qualification

Cambridge Public Policy

The Cambridge Master’s in Public Policy Developing new, evidence-based approaches to public policy

‘The need to reduce the gap between transformational scientific research and innovative policies that benefit society

The Cambridge MPP is a one-year practice-centred course, aimed at students with experience of the policy world who are committed to public leadership. Its multidisciplinary and work-oriented approach is designed to create a world class Master’s degree that employers will respect and trust.

has never been greater. I am delighted that Cambridge Public Policy has taken up the baton on this and I give it my wholehearted support.’ Professor Sir David King FRS, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government

We are currently open for student applications and for partner organisations to offer work placements as part of the teaching programme.

‘The opportunity presented by the Cambridge MPP to guide technologically gifted persons and innovators

“All too often, scientists and policy makers occupy separate worlds – which is why the Centre for Science and Policy is such an important initiative, bridging the gap between the government and leading researchers, and helping to translate scientific insights into the heart of the policy making process.” Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP, Minister of State, Cabinet Office

36

Annual Report

into government is phenomenal.’ Sherry Coutu CBE, serial entrepreneur and angel investor

For more information on the Cambridge Public Policy initiative see www.cpp.csap.cam.ac.uk f To APPly To ThE MPP PlEASE viSiT: www.cpp.csap.cam.ac.uk/mpp/ f To SUPPoRT ThE MPP PlEASE viSiT: www.cpp.csap.cam.ac.uk/support-us/

MPP Annual Report

37


Sponsors & Partners

Upcoming Events 2013-2014

As a non-profit organisation, CUSPE depends on the generosity of our partners and sponsors to maintain our financial security and achieve our ambitious goals. The money that we raise is used to book venues, pay for speakers’ travel expenses and fund the various over-head costs associated with hosting high quality events. If you are interested in supporting our efforts over the upcoming year as we work to build upon our successes and strengthen our links within and outside the University, then please get in touch with our Finance team.

Looking to the future the CONNECTIONS lecture series will continue to focus on topical issues around the use of science in current and future policy, attracting as always great speakers from academia, policy and industry. As well as the lecture series we are thrilled to be working in conjunction with other great organisations and distinguished individuals to put together talks, discussion panels, as well as workshops which we hope will replicate the success of the Cambridge Retrofit Workshop organised in collaboration with 4CMR. With all our events we aim to focus on improving dialog between research evidence and policy around three main themes of sustainability, emerging technologies and encouraging

president@cuspe.org

innovation - while also putting heavy emphasis on promoting early career researcher and policy maker inclusion in debates. By doing this we help to ensure we engage researchers and policy makers with these issues throughout their careers and in doing so improve the quality of decisions that are made at all levels. Thanks to CUSPE’s growing reputation, the society is now bring approached to organise events. This is a very interesting time and will lead to many more interesting outcomes in the future. To stay updated on all our events see our website: www.cuspe.org

CUSPE Membership 2013-2014 Getting involved in CUSPE as a PhD or a postdoc can be a fantastic way to boost your career in academia, add impact to your work or open up alternative paths into policy making. Our events are focused around encouraging networking at all levels, by linking students with senior members of academia, government and industry, both through the events themselves and through the formal dinners which follow our lectures.

Executive Committee

If you are passionate about the exchange of science and policy and are currently a PhD student or postdoc at a university in the UK, please consider joining our committee. There are plenty of opportunities in our events, fundraising and marketing teams. Get in touch – we would be delighted to speak about our 38

Annual Report

current structure, open positions and future opportunities.

Organising an Event

CUSPE organises a wide range of events throughout the year which brings together prominent speakers from around the world to discuss topical policy issues in the areas of science, engineering and technology, to forge new ties between ideas and people inside and outside academia. If there is a particular event you would like to stage in partnership with CUSPE, contact us outlining the details of your proposal. Our events team will liaise with you, provide the logistics and communicate the event to our ever-growing list of affiliates. This is a great option if you do not have the time to fully commit to an executive position or if you want to learn more about CUSPE.

Volunteering

Event volunteering is a great opportunity to learn more about CUSPE, get behind the scenes access to our events and to meet with our speakers.

Organising a Workshop

Workshops aim to provide participants with a further understanding of how the policy process works, how they fit into it, how to contribute and interact with both decision makers and the process itself on a subject specific and broader scale. The workshops will bring together multiple perspectives of science and policy facilitating both problem solving discussions and simulations which will benefit from the multi-disciplinary approach. For more information, get in touch with president@cuspe.org

Contributors Managing Editor: Joe Gladstone Events Section Editor: Edward Oughton Horizon Scanning Section Editors: Joe Gladstone, Patrick Wollner Design and Photography: Patrick Wollner Copy Editors: James Dolan, Edward Oughton, Fiona Docherty Annual Report

39


Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange www.cuspe.org

CUSPE Annual Report 2012-2013