Ian Gibson MP explains why the science and technology committee decided to initiate a "science question time".

Science and technology play a part in every area of governmental concern, and therefore the opportunity to raise scientific issues is present when almost any department takes questions in the House.

However, although the importance of science is gaining recognition in parliament, it has yet to receive the exclusive focus that, say, an allocation of time to Science Questions would give it.

Instead of the odd science-based question on health, trade and industry or environment, this would hold up for scrutiny a broad spectrum of scientific developments and how we are engaging with them in a single, concentrated session.

In health, for example, there are many important developments which deserve far more focussed parliamentary attention, but health questions tend to be dominated by service issues and questions of research and technology remain marginal and can thus appear less urgent.

In an attempt to remedy this situation, the House of Commons science and technology select committee held its first science question time last week.

This is a more frequent meeting with the science minister than we usually have to discuss recent developments relating to science in innovation. Among the questions we decided to put forward, two were primarily related to health: primate research centres and the funding of medical research.

Cambridge University’s recent decision not to build a primate research laboratory has raised important concerns about the future of biomedical research in this country and the security of scientists carrying out this work.

The legislative framework clearly needs to be looked at again, particularly in terms of protecting scientists from attacks by animal rights activists and the government perhaps needs to underwrite the security of research facilities.

Both these questions were put to the minister. The legislation is being looked at again, particularly with regard to visits to scientists’ homes by activists, but the underwriting of security is not, it appears, something the government can commit itself to.

What was also emphasised by one member of the committee was that a stand alone, military style centre is not a favourable model to follow. It is the scientists who are finding themselves increasingly at risk on a personal level and not just the establishments they work in.

The threat to medical research was also raised in the light of cuts in the NHS research budget and the need for coordination between the Medical Research Council, the NHS and other research funders, in order to focus research on areas which will have the most benefits for patients.

A working group, the Research for Patients’ Benefit Working Party, has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir John Pattison and is due to produce a report by Easter. We were also told that the Office for Science and Technology (OST) viewed clinical research with direct benefits to health care as an extremely important area for science spending.

Without such sessions with the science minister, the role of the OST in a broad range of issues could pass many of us by. Moreover, such scrutiny, if it were to become a regular feature in the business of the House, would increase the push for us to both do more for our science base and thus make it do more for us.

This article first appeared in the ePolitixPlus health sector bulletin.