Potential impact is an important driver in the career choices and journeys of many. There have even been organizations set up to help people make career decisions that can boost their global impact, such as ‘80000hours.org’. Impact has always been an important motivator for me in my decisions; however, I often find myself feeling helpless to make a significant impact through my research. Informing policymaking is an activity where scientists can use their expertise to have a beneficial impact, but how to engage with policymakers can be unclear. This is why I was so excited to have been invited to attend the Royal Society of Biology’s 2023 Parliamentary Links Day on Science and Economic Development. ‘The best way to make an impact is to join scientific advisory councils and panels” was the most important recommendation I took home with me following the event; advice which helped me walk away with more clarity on how I can be impactful.

A key measure in long-term economic growth is productivity, and research and innovation plays a major role in this. However, despite the major increase in output from research and development (R&D), productivity growth has been declining in the past few decades. There needs to be an additional step to link R&D to promote innovation agendas and opportunities from the research conducted, which is where policy comes into play.

Basic research and applied research are both vitally important drivers of innovation and productivity, but research conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows that basic research affects more sectors, in more countries and for a longer time than applied research (see Further Reading). IMF estimate that a 10% permanent increase in the stock of a country’s own basic research can increase productivity by 0.3%. The stock is a measure of accumulated knowledge through research expenditure. The impact of the same increase in the stock of foreign basic research is larger – productivity increases by 0.6%. The IMF estimates are an average of all economies, indicating the impact of basic research on emerging markets and developing economies is likely to be even larger.

However, basic research is often seen as ‘higher risk’, being more difficult to ‘sell’, alongside a long return on investment from a business perspective. Therefore, it attracts less interest from the private sector, meaning funding comes primarily from government-funded research councils and charitable organizations. Private firms can only secure a small part of the uncertain financial reward of engaging in basic research, and as a result they tend to underinvest in it, providing a strong case for public policy intervention to bridge the gap. Policy is equally important to ensure that technology transfer and scientific collaboration can continue to happen. But designing the right policies, including determining how you fund research, can be difficult. For example, funding basic research only at universities and public labs could be inefficient, missing important synergies between the private and public sectors that could be lost. It may also be difficult to disentangle basic and applied private research for the sake of subsidizing only the former.

Further research by the IMF shows that an implementable hybrid policy that doubles subsidies to private research (basic and applied alike), and boosts public research expenditure by a third, could increase productivity growth in advanced economies by 0.2 percentage points per year. Better targeting of subsidies to basic research and closer public–private cooperation could boost this even further, at a lower cost to public finances. The return on investments would start to pay for itself within about a decade and would have a sizeable impact on national economies. IMF estimates that per-capita incomes would be about 12% higher than they are now had these investments been made between 1960 and 2018.

Parliamentary Links Day is an event held in the UK that aims to foster communication and collaboration between scientists, researchers, policymakers and parliamentarians. It provides a platform for discussions and knowledge-sharing on various topics relating to the advancement of science, technology and economic development. The event is organized by the Royal Society of Biology on behalf of the science and engineering community, bringing together scientists, researchers, industry leaders, policymakers and parliamentarians to exchange ideas and insights, serving as a platform for constructive dialogue and collaboration between the scientific community and policymakers. It typically includes keynote speeches, panel discussions, workshops and networking opportunities. The topics usually covered in the event are diverse and encompass areas such as scientific research, innovation, technology, healthcare, environmental sustainability and economic growth.

I'm currently a second-year Midlands Integrative Bioscience Training Partnership (MIBTP) PhD student at Aston University, so I appreciate the importance of the fundamental research. Alongside my PhD, I have completed a 3-month Professional Internship for PhD Students (PIPS) as part of the Technology Transfer Office at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham Enterprise, which has followed with part-time work in the same organization. With Birmingham Enterprise, I've been able to able to experience and appreciate how the building blocks of basic research can be stacked, creating the answers to modern-day problems. My PhD project also involves collaboration with the Warwick-based biotechnology startup company Nanosyrinx, therefore I’ve had the opportunity to see how investor-led funding and collaboration between laboratory groups is vitally important to the success of the application of a project and its contribution to wider research.

Having spent time in both basic and applied research, I have been able to experience both sides of the research coin. However, without the link between research and scientific policies, these important outcomes can have limited impact globally, which is why engaging with policymakers is so important. One of the ways government uses policy is to enhance economic development, and science plays an important part in that.

Improving communication and collaboration between policymakers, scientific advisors and the researchers themselves is vital to ensuring policy is proposed, investigated and suitably scrutinized. This was the key theme of the Science and Economic Development Parliamentary Links Day, with ample time for networking throughout the morning and early afternoon.

The event took place in the Attlee Suite in the House of Commons, or more aptly named, the Attlee sauna (a joke later told by Viscount Stansgate Stephen Benn during the Vote of Thanks). After a short introduction to the event by the Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Biology, Dr Mark Downs, a series of talks were delivered on the importance of science for economic development by members of parliament, namely Stephen Metcalfe, MP, Chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee; George Freeman, MP, Minister for Science, Research and Innovation; and Chi Onwurah, MP, Shadow Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. Whilst the political beliefs of the above politicians may differ, their opinion on the importance of science did not. Within their talks, a large emphasis was placed on climate change and artificial intelligence, two of the more popular science topics in the media currently. However, from these talks, I was also pleasantly surprised to hear, from Stephen Metcalfe, that the government has recently invested £2 million into projects involved in microbiome research, having considered the research area a priority. It was also intriguing to hear how the government is pushing to increase the number of scientists in the civil service, boosting the pool of science-based skills, so they can be employed in the right way and at the right time, for effective use in policymaking. The government science advisory office has set a goal to have 50% of graduates coming into the civil service through the fast stream programme to have a STEM background, increasing from the current 10%.

Stephen Metcalfe, MP, Chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, welcomes all attendees to the event.

Stephen Metcalfe, MP, Chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, welcomes all attendees to the event.

Close modal

The most interactive element of the event was the panel discussion, chaired by Dr Jo Reynolds, Director of Science and Communities, Royal Society for Chemistry, with the panel comprised of the following: Professor David Leslie, Professor of Statistical Learning, University of Lancaster; Professor Diane Coyle, Bennet Professor of Public Policy, University of Cambridge; Professor Johnathan Napier, Science Director, Rothamsted Research; and Professor Sarah Main, Executive Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE). The panel discussion allowed individuals to ask questions and share their thoughts and ideas on the direction of UK Science policy. The honesty from all members of the panel was greatly appreciated, with each member not being afraid to veer away from the more traditional ‘politician response’ that occurs in Parliament (and I’m not referring to the ‘point scoring’ between parties in the Commons chamber). Some of my favourite examples of this honesty include: “The incentives for scientists aren’t correct. The incentives are to get more papers published and win more grant money… We need to support engagement better to get people talking to politicians”; “it’s up to us to inform and educate politicians”; “[Science] is like one of those games you get in a Christmas cracker, where you’ve got to get the six little silver balls in the holes at the same time. You can’t just focus on one of them.” Professor Sarah Main made an interesting argument about how we need to connect and co-ordinate with the Department of Education, and other relevant departments, to create policy on how everybody in the UK can benefit from, and be part of, a science and innovation-positive UK.

The UK Science and Technology Framework (STF), created by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, was referenced heavily in the panel discussion, having recently been released on the 6 March 2023. The STF is a strategic anchor for government policy to deliver against, which the government will hold itself accountable to, and sets out the government’s approach to making the UK a science and technology superpower by 2030. During the Q&A, both attendees of the Parliamentary Links Day and members of the panel themselves criticized the STF on its lack of incentive towards interdisciplinary research. Professor David Leslie provided an interesting argument on how already established strong disciplinary panels drive a narrowness in research focus, and how a stronger cross-panel technique would be more valuable. These disparities indicate the importance of communication between scientists and policymakers, where these criticisms could have been addressed in advance.

McLean presenting during the Parliamentary Links Day, sharing her plan for GO-Science, and highlighting engineering biology as a key critical technology in the UK’s scientific future during the keynote address.

McLean presenting during the Parliamentary Links Day, sharing her plan for GO-Science, and highlighting engineering biology as a key critical technology in the UK’s scientific future during the keynote address.

Close modal

The area I gained the most benefit from was the keynote address by Professor Dame Angela McLean, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, where the outcomes I anticipated for attending the event started to be addressed. My ambition to make a greater impact must have been shared amongst a few in the room, with one participant asking McLean how we can get involved as individuals.

McLean responded with the following: “One of the ways for people who are interested in getting involved would be to go find out about different Science advisory councils that many departments have. Most government departments have a mechanism for reaching out for external Science advice… We definitely need many more people getting involved in that whole effort. It’s not a hideous amount of effort… four meetings per year and some work in between, and it is super interesting work. It’s mostly not going to be about your own personal expertise.”

To round off the day, there was a rather humorous Vote of Thanks by Viscount Stansgate Stephen Benn, House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, and founder of the first Parliamentary Links Day in 1988, followed by a buffet lunch and networking. It was a thoroughly enjoyable event and has certainly inspired me to become more involved in science policy.

Representative from the Biochemical Society at the Parliamentary Links Day. Left to right: Dr Emma Yhnell (Policy Advisory Panel member, Biochemical Society and Cardiff University); Calum Upton (Policy Network member, Biochemical Society and Aston University); Orla Lappin (Content and Communities Manager, Biochemical Society); Kate Baillie (CEO, Biochemical Society); and Dr Anna Bajur (Policy Network member, Biochemical Society and King’s College London).

Representative from the Biochemical Society at the Parliamentary Links Day. Left to right: Dr Emma Yhnell (Policy Advisory Panel member, Biochemical Society and Cardiff University); Calum Upton (Policy Network member, Biochemical Society and Aston University); Orla Lappin (Content and Communities Manager, Biochemical Society); Kate Baillie (CEO, Biochemical Society); and Dr Anna Bajur (Policy Network member, Biochemical Society and King’s College London).

Close modal

For those looking to get involved in the science policy, the easiest way would be to join the Biochemical Society Policy Network. Through this, you’ll hear about policy events and opportunities from the Society and partner organizations. Second, it is worth reaching out to policy teams at various academies and charities to inquire about policy opportunities. You can engage directly with parliament by providing written evidence to select committees or contributing to a briefing. You can also sign up to select committee mailing lists to hear about various opportunities. I would recommend keeping an eye on the Parliamentary calendar for anything that may be of interest. The UK Parliament also offers further information on getting involved, in the form of online training. For further reading on the importance of science for economic growth, I’d suggest reading the IMF article on Why Basic Science Matters for Economic Growth’. The recording for the Parliamentary Links Day can be found on the RSB YouTube channel as well. For anyone interested in further training, the Biochemical Society is running an upcoming training course on ‘Introduction to public engagement and science policy’, starting October 2023, which I’d recommend for you and your peers.