Summary
The research is based on a case study of the first English regional challenge to national science policy in the UK. In March 2000 the UK Government took the decision to locate the new DIAMOND synchrotron facility in Oxfordshire, rather than at the existing base at the Daresbury Laboratory in the North West. However, developments in the North West science base since then were hailed as making ‘science history' (NWDA, 2001) and cited as evidence of an emerging regionalised science policy. In this research, we aimed to build an understanding of the dynamic interaction between existing scientific practice and regional needs, in particular to assess how far the recent articulation of regional needs in the UK has reshaped the content, governance and outcomes of national science policy.
Understanding the ‘DIAMOND’ Decision: Controversies and Potentials
The research established that the eventual siting of the DIAMOND SRS cannot be understood as a scientific decision made according to the traditional principles of peer-review and international excellence. While the decision to locate DIAMOND at RAL might be legitimately defended on the basis of economic decision-making criteria, it cannot be seen as a question of science per se. The differences in the attitudes and motivations of the actors involved revealed a more complex picture than the oversimplified ‘excellence vs. regional development’ issue. However, as the subtleties of the arguments around the location of the SRS were not openly articulated, the debate led to the perception that ‘excellence’ and ‘regional needs’ were mutually incompatible and polar opposites. The DIAMOND decision set a precedent that other rationales outside scientific excellence, as judged by peer-review, could constitute valid decision-making criteria. ‘Science’ could apparently not be divorced from the wider concerns or objectives of Government as a whole. Indeed, in the two phase post-DIAMOND restructuring package, research found evidence of a rebalancing of both national and regional thinking on the relationship between scientific excellence and regional need. The ‘Smith Review’ was the first time that a proportion of the national science budget had been allocated to any one region and established the validity of ‘regional need’ as a decision-making criteria. In the ‘Byers Group’, scientists and politicians worked together to marry the aims of scientific excellence with regional benefit and application. In the immediate aftermath of the DIAMOND decision, research found evidence of improved mutual understandings between national and regional actors and potential new ways of thinking on science and the regions.
National Science Policy Post-DIAMOND: Re-establishing the Boundaries
Yet outside the transformative potential represented in a language of compromise and initial excitement post-DIAMOND, the research found that the fundamental tenets of national science policy have since been restated. ‘Excellence’ - as defined through the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) - has been reasserted as the prime rationale for allocating scientific funds for basic research through the dual support system. Increasing selectivity and concentration of research monies through the RAE has been accompanied by a restriction of the roles of the RDAs to innovation actors in national science policy. The explicit model emerging is one in which the dual support system, funding science according to the principles of international quality science and peer-review, is fundamentally unaltered by the growth of the regional role in science exploitation. Yet the research also found parallel evidence that a number of non-scientific criteria continue to be taken into account in making decisions about the location of large facilities which raises the possibility for RDAs to position themselves as co-funders in order to attract major scientific investments. The research demonstrated that the challenge mounted in the North West to national science policy has not led to a reorientation of capacities or devolution of responsibility for science to the English regions. In respect of funding basic science, regional roles in science exploitation and major scientific facilities, national science policy post-DIAMOND had little changed. Rather than representing a departure from the trends in national science policy during the 1990s, the DIAMOND decision represented the culmination of shifts that had long been underway, yet previously unarticulated.
Regional ‘Science’ Policy in the North West
While the stated aims of regional science policies relate to harnessing the science base for regional economic and social gain, the RAE remains a more powerful driver, particularly given continued concern with the unequal spatial distribution of ‘excellence’ between English regions. As a result, regional science policy in the North West is paradoxically neither wholly about science per se, nor innovation. Regional science policy is better understood as a means of representing regional scientific needs to national policy makers, seeking transformation of the science base through influencing national funds rather than new ways of thinking. There are new voices in science policy processes, each articulating different rationales for science both in terms of how it should be funded, what is expected from it and where it should take place. However, not all voices have emerged equally and some are largely absent. In particular, the dominance of the RAE as a driver has positioned research-intensive universities as strong players in the new regional science polices, which successfully co-opt regional agencies and industry in support of traditional aims. Within this process, Daresbury Laboratory is a partner, mentioned in the Science Strategy, yet does not take centre stage, reflecting a deliberate decision to ensure that the success of the strategy is not linked to the future of the site.
Making Science History?
Evidence of continuity in science policy governance, processes and practice far outweighs that of significant transformation. The research concluded that the previously centralised science policy model has been subsumed within - rather than replaced by - a multi-level system of governance, within which the primary characteristic is the reassertion of national level agencies and limitation of the role of regional players therein. The DIAMOND decision led to the co-construction of regional science policies, bringing new voices into the science policy arena, yet a traditional linear model of the relationship between science and innovation remains, with universities remaining central actors. Changing governance systems, greater participation in science policy processes and new discourses on science have had only limited impact on outcomes. The research concluded that the multi-level governance system enshrines and protects previous policy paradigms. The boundaries between science and society, international excellence and regional need, have been re-established and demarcated; and it is not necessarily to regional advantage. ‘Excellence’ is increasingly mobilised as a defence against those who wish to harness science and decision-making bodies, scientific establishments and universities have successfully silenced others who would claim to speak on behalf of science. In this respect, science – and to a lesser extent science policy – has escaped relatively unscathed from the DIAMOND controversy.