Sir Paul Nurse: The Wonder of Science The Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Thank you very much. Welcome to a unique event on BBC One. A

provocative argument put by a forceful speaker, with no

interviewer to interrupt, and an audience that, for once, listens

but doesn't speak. Tonight's lecture is given by a Nobel Prize

winner, a scientist at the top of his tree, the President of the

Royal Society, the world's oldest scientific academy, Sir Paul Nurse.

Now, Sir Paul's mission is to get all of us - politicians, teachers,

business people, the media - to accept the vital importance of

science in our lives and to do much, much more to promote it. Paul Nurse

is no science geek and his career ought to encourage all slow-

starters. He wasn't good at exams. He struggled to get a place at

university. Oh, and he's also a pilot, a mountain walker and he

rides a motorbike, a flashy one, bought with the money from his

Nobel Prize. LAUGHTER His next big project is the Francis Crick

Institute which will open in 2015. It is planned to be one of the

biggest biomedical laboratories in the world, with 1,500 scientists at

work here in London. As its director, he intends to make it, in

his own words, a hot house of scientific ideas. His Nobel Prize

for Medicine was awarded for work on the division of cells which has

many implications, including for the treatment of cancer, the

illness that killed my father when he was only 52. And his death led

to the creation of the charity Dimbleby Cancer Care. Richard

Dimbleby was the BBC's first news reporter, the first war

correspondent and a trailblazer in the development of television in

the '50s and the '60s. 40 years ago this annual lecture was set up by

the BBC to commemorate him. It's established a formidable reputation

and I have no doubt that tonight's lecture will further enhance it.

Ladies and gentlemen, would you Thank you, David. The Dimbleby

family, ladies and gentlemen, this evening I am going to talk about my

passion for science. I have very personal reasons for doing so.

Recently, science saved my life. Let me explain. Just before

Christmas, I was planning a trip to the Antarctic Research station at

Scott Base. I was to be there at the 100th anniversary of Captain

Scott's expedition to the South Pole. I have wanted to visit the

Antarctic for years and before going, I went for a routine medical

check-up. But the medical turned out to be far from routine. I was

diagnosed with a serious heart disease, and in January I had a

quadruple heart bypass. The South Pole had to wait, but thanks to the

skill of my NHS doctors, I am delighted to say some of them are

in the audience tonight, and to the science which underpinned my

treatment, I am still alive and I am able to be here tonight. I'm

also passionate about science because I have been a researcher

for over 40 years and want to share with you the wonder of science,

what it is like to be a scientist, how it enhances our culture, our

civilisation. Science can improve our health and quality of life,

help solve the world's biggest problems, and support

sustainability. It influences nearly everything we do, from

heating our homes, turning on the radio, using our phone, browsing

the internet, the food we eat, the pill we take for our headache. And

science is absolutely essential to drive our economy. Science matters

to us all. Science not only enriches our minds, it can also

provide a trusted guide to tackle global problems that face us right

now, such as feeding the world, ensuring we have sufficient energy,

keeping an yoo ageing population healthy. -- an ageing population

healthy. I also believe that science can play an even greater

role in improving our economy, in protecting our jobs and incomes. I

want to remind you of a time when science helped make Britain an

economic powerhouse during the Enlightenment and Industrial

Revolution, and to explore how we can make science work to better

drive our economy today. But first, my own passion for science. It

began when I was a nine-year-old boy. It was 1958, the beginning of

the space-age. I was looking up at the London night sky and saw

amongst the stars one that was rapidly moving and was very bright.

This was Sputnik 2, the second man- made satellite to orbit the Earth,

and inside was a dog called Laika. I must admit I felt sorry for Laika

because I had a dog of my own. Watching this artificial star

moving in the night sky made me think about the other stars, so I

went to my local public library and discovered that stars were suns,

that there were galaxies up there, too, and some of the stars were

planets. I pes pered my parents for a small telescope and I found I

could see the crescent of Venus, the moons of Jupiter, the rings of

Saturn, the craters of the moon. Go out early tomorrow evening and you

will see Venus and Jupiter to the west, and Saturn to the south. Use

a telescope if you can. Seeing such marvels for yourself is much more

immediate and personal than looking at images on the television. The

natural world is fascinating, and is even more so if you are prepared

to observe, to experiment, to think, and to try and understand. That is

what scientists do, and there is a little bit of the scientist in all

of us, especially when we are children. I am passionate about

doing science and completely agree with Sir Humphry Davy, the 19th

Century chemist and inventor of the miners' safety lamp when he said,

"To me, there has never been a higher source of honour or

distinction than that connected with the advances in science." That

is why I still run a lab - it's what keeps me sane. I'm not sure my

lab colleagues, some of whom are here tonight, would agree on the

last point. So what is special about science that means we should

trust it? What makes it so good at generating reliable knowledge about

the natural world? Scientists work in a variety of ways that are not

unique to science. For example, they need a historian's eye for

detail, the mathematician's feel for logic, the philosopher's desire

to keep asking questions - and some would say the patience of a saint.

When the various ways scientists work are combined together, they

produce a process that is a very powerful way of creating knowledge.

The bedrock from which all science flows is reproducible observation

and experiment. This means that ultimately what is observed - the

data - trumps all, even the most beautiful idea. Scientists need to

take account of all observations and experiments and not just

cherry-pick data that happen to support their own ideas and

theories. Scientific issues are settled by the overall strength of

evidence. Often a particular idea drives what observations a

scientist makes, but sometimes scientists make observations

without a precise idea or hypothesis in mind. More

whimsically, I call this "following where nature leads you". An example

of this from my own research, back in the 1970s, was when I was

investigating what controls the division of cells, a problem of

great importance for the growth and reproduction of all life, and for

understanding cancer. I was searching for genes needed for cell

division, by looking for yeast mutants which could not divide.

Such mutant cells get bigger and bigger and can be spotted under the

microscope. I have been searching for these large-sized cells for

months when I spotted something quite different, a clump of cells

doing the opposite, dividing at a small size. I was not looking for

such cells, it was just that nature presented them to me. But as soon

as I saw them, I realised they meant something important. I

dragged everyone in the lab, and a few passers-by as well to take a

look. I was very excited and I am sure some people thought I had gone

a little mad. This clump of cells had a mutated gene which made the

cells divide faster than normal, so they did not have enough time to

grow to their proper size. discovered these smalls in

Edinburgh, so I called the new gene the "wee" gene. It works like the

accelerator in a car. An accelerator determines how fast a

car goes and a "wee" gene determine how fast a cell divides. Eventually,

this led to the discovery that "wee" genes also control cell

division in all of us, establishing that there is a universal mechanism

controlling cell division in nearly all life. It formed the basis for

my Nobel Prize and emphasises the role serendipity can play in

scientific discovery. But observations alone are not enough.

It is the ability to prove that something is not true which is at

the centre of science. This distinguishes it from beliefs based

on religion and ideology which place much more emphasis on faith,

tradition, and opinion. As a scientist, I have come up with

ideas that can be tested. Then I think of experiments to test the

idea further. If the result of the experiment does not support the

idea, then I reject it, or modify it, and test it again. A great

recent example of the importance of testing is the experiment at CERN

which suggested that sub-atomic particles - neutrinos - were

travelling faster than the speed of light. If this turned out to be

true, then Einstein's theory of special relatively would need to be

revised. As you can imagine, the scientific community was amazed and

sceptical but they did not shout the CERN scientists down. Instead,

they encouraged them to do more experiments to further test their

hypothesis. I have been relying on my physicist daughter, Emily, who

works at CERN and University College London, to keep me updated.

The latest is, there might be either a loose connector or a

faulty clock, so Einstein can probably relax, at least for the

moment. Implicit in this approach is that scientific knowledge

evolves. Early on in a scientific study, knowledge is often tentative

and it is only after repeated testing that it becomes

increasingly secure. It is this process that makes science reliable,

but it takes time. This can lead to problems when scientists are called

upon to give advice on issues when the science is not yet complete. We

see this every day in the newspapers - whether breast

implants are safe or what foods are good or bad. The public want clear

and simple answers but sometimes that is not possible. People need

to understand this and we should start in our schools. Science is

taught based on the great ideas that have successfully undergone

much testing, such as those of Newton, Darwin and Einstein, and so

we tend to think all science is equally secure, as if written in

stone. But that may not be the case, particularly at an early stage in

research when knowledge is more tentative. This view of science

should receive greater emphasis at school, because the public would be

better able to appreciate how It's impossible to achieve complete

certainty on many complex scientific problems, yet sometimes

we still feed to take action. The sensible course is to turn to the

expert science tists for their consensus view. When doctors found

I had blockages in the arteries round my heart, I asked for their

expert view as to what I should do. They recommended a bypass. I took

their consensus advice and here I am. That is how science works. It

provides a strong corrective force in the development of scientific

knowledge. Look at the debate about climate change. The majority of

expert climate scientists have reached the consensus view that

human activity has resulted in global warming. Though there is

debate about how much the temperature will rise in the future.

Others argue that warming is not taking place at all or that it will

happen in a catastrophic way. But they have failed to persuade the

majority of climate experts, who have judged the scientific

arguments made to support the more extreme views as being too weak to

be convincing. There are personal qualities which are important for

science, including a sceptical attitude, honesty and transparency,

courtesy in scientific dispute, humility and self-doubt help as

well, as the 17th century philosopher of science Francis

Bacon said "If a man will begin with certainties he will end in

doubt. If he will be content to begin with doubts, he will end in

certainties." Put all this together and you have a process which can

offer extraordinary insights into the natural world. These range from

the profound to the quirky. I really liked an amusing example

which reconstructed the song of a cricket that lived 165 million

years ago. But the work of science can also require courage, as it

sometimes strikes at the heart of accepted thinking, challenging

established opinion is part of science and can bring about

revolutionary changes, which can be very unsettling. Displacing the

earth from the centre of the universe first to an orbit round

the sun and then to the arm of a galaxy, within an infittity of

galaxies has had a profound effect on the position of human kind.

Evolution had the same dramatic impact, moving us from being

specially created and separate from the rest of life to being related

to every living organism on the planet. Charles Darwin recognised

this in his descent of man, man with all his qualities, with

sympathy, benevolence, with his godlike intellect, with all these

exalted powers, man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible

stamp of his lowly origin. These ideas about the earth and human

kind were once unthinkable and her etical, but are now fully accepted

by all those who accept knowledge an the power of reason. Science

continues to be revolutionary and we always have to be ready for what

it might reveal. Improved knowledge of human embryology and increased

abltd to keep the unborn child alive have major implications for

when life begins and ends also for intervention such as abortion.

Studies of the brain will reveal correlations between neural

activity and what we are thinking, memories and our emotional states.

Increasingly we are likely to be able to use chemicals to alter

brain function and modify behaviours. Advances will have

consequences for our views on free will, on justice and diversity. How

much choice do we really have when we make decisions? Is punishment

for certain criminal behaviours right, if they are strongly

influenced by an individual's genes? Will working neuroscience

influence how we educate our children? These are issues of

crucial significance which can only be properly addressed if we enjoy a

healthy relationship between science and society. Scientists

need to identify issues early and to encourage open debate about the

implications and consequences of scientific and technological

advances. Such debates will sometimes be difficult, but they

must take place. This is essential if we are to have a society that is

comfortable with science and that can reap the benefits it can bring.

And science can bring us great practical, everyday benefits. It

has always been a useful art, generating knowledge that when

properly used, leads to application through technologies and

engineering for the public good. Again, at the birth of modern

science, Francis Bacon argued that scientific knowledge gives us a

power to relieve man's estate. Robert Hooke of the royal society

emphasised how scientific discoverries on motion, light,

gravity, magnetism an the heavens would improve shipping, watches,

optics and engines for trade and carriage. Today, the world faces

major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate

change, global health and making economy sustainable, all of which

need science. It is critical for our democracy to have mature

discussions about these issues, but these debates are sometimes

threatened by a misinform fd sense of balance and inappropriate

headlines in the media which gives credence to views not supported by

the science. And also by those who distort the science with ideology,

politics and religion. From the very beginning of science, there

have always been such threats. When Galileo argued that the earth

orbited the sun, the inquisition did not argue back with science,

they simply showed him the instruments of torture. It is very

important that we keep such influences separate from scientific

debate. The time for politics is after the science not before. Let's

lock at food security. Ensuring that the world is properly fed,

this is already greatly helped by science. The Green Revolution

increased agricultural production in the 1960s through high yielding

cereals, better irrigation an the use of fertilisers and pesticides,

developments led by the scientist Norman Borlaug. The Green

Revolution is often credited with saving the lives of over a billion

people worldwide from starvation. However, some environmentalists did

not support these initiatives, leaving Borlaug to respond. Some of

the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the

earth. But many of them are elitist. They'd never experienced the

physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable

office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one

month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50

years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertiliser and

irrigation canals and the outrage that fashionable elitists back home

were trying to deny them these things. Science is once again

required to improve yields, to make agriculture more sustainable and to

extend the range of crops that can thrive in more marginal lands. This

can be helped through improving the growth of crops, assisting plant

breeding and by the genetic modification of plants, which will

generate crops of high productivity and reduce pesticide use, bet

prortecting the environment and biodiversity. It is time to re-open

the debate about GM crops in the UK, but this time, based on scientific

facts and analysis. We need to consider what the science has to

say about risks and benefits, uncoloured by commercial interests

and ideological opinion. It is not acceptable if we deny the world's

poorest access to way that's could help their food security, if that

denial is based on fashion and ill- informed opinion rather than good

science. Another great challenge for the world is climate change.

Discussions in this area impinge on politics, commercial interests and

strongly-held opinions. And these influences have distorted the

scientific debate. Solutions needed to counter global warming are

likely to require more concerted world action, regulating the

activities of the individual of industry and of the nation state

and such restrictions are an a anathema to some are particular

political and economic view points. Equally those of an opposite

viewpoint may exaggerate the extent of future global warming because of

their afints towards greater regulation and world Government

this leads some polemicists to confuse the debate by mixing the

science with the politics. The answer here is to focus on

transparency and good science. There is no room for pre-conceived

ideas. First we need the science, then the politics. Science will be

required to develop new ways of producing energy that are

environmentally less damaging, renewables like wind, wave, tidal

and solar energy should be evaluated, putting vested interests

aside to determine what is effective. The same applies to

nuclear power. Science is needed to properly assess the risks and

benefits. It is not sensible to respond in a need-jerk way without

evaluation of data concerning real environmental damage and health

risks, as against perceived damage and risks. Improved scientific

knowledge has brought remarkable improvements also in life

expectancy. 100 years ago, average life expectancy in the UK was about

50 years. Now it is around 80 years. Science will continue to be needed

to improve the world's health in the future. Human genetics will

identify genes which pre-dispose us to different diseases allowing us

to understand how genes influence disease and how they interact with

lifestyle and diet, promoting new ways to treat and prevent illness.

There is great promise for stem cells, which can generate a range

of tissues in the body, potentially repairing muscle and nerve tissue,

damage countering the effects of degenerative disease and old age.

Here too, there are threats. When I worked in the United States, I

received regular hate mail from those who objected to stem cell

research based on their religious beliefs. There are those who

challenge good science with minority opinions based on weak

science. As was the case with campaigners who objected to the

triple MMR vaccine. As a consequence reduction in

vaccination led to children's lives being put in danger. I have no

doubt that science will continue to have a major impact on all such

global issues over the coming decades. But now I want to turn to

the issue preoccupying many of us today, the economy. Science is key

to creating jobs and putting money in our pockets. The Industrial

Revolution brought scientists, engineers, tech noljists and

entrepreneurs together to apply science to industry and the economy.

The result was the steam engine, providing power, chemistry and

geology improving ceramics and the use of natural resources, mechanics

and engineering constructing machines for transport and

manufacture. This era is symbolised by the Lunar Society, a group

including James Watt, Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood who discussed

science and how science leads to new technologies and inventions

supporting the economy. They met in the Midlands once a month under the

full moon, to illuminate them during their ride home after dinner.

And perhaps after some wine too! Where would our economy be without

electricity and electromagnetism, electronics, synthetic chemistry,

ato theic physics, molecular biology. Some say Michael Faraday

answered the Prime Minister of his day when asked what good his

inventions of the electric transformer, generator and metor

might be by saying, "Why Prime Minister, someday, you can tax it."

Although almost certainly never said by Faraday, this anecdote

captures the view of some politicians and business leaders

who failed to grasp how science can enhance industrial tapabilities and

create wealth. -- capabilities and create wealth. Faraday did end up

on the back of the 20-pound note and entrepreneur Borlaug and Watt,

act tects of the steam engine appear on the 50-pound note. How

can we make sure that science thrives in the UK and continues to

bring benefits to our economy? I strongly argue that the first

requirement is to have a high quality science base. We are very

good at science here and have been for centuries. Britain played a

major role in founding modern science and its applications for

the public good, through the efforts of the royal society,

beginning in the 17th century and the Industrial Revolution in the

18th and 19th centuries. Today, the UK is second only to the USA in

contributions to the world's science and it's probably first in

termed of cost efficiency. This is an amazing achievement for our

country. There is also an increasing respect for technology

and engineering in the UK, as seen with the recent founding of the �1

million Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering, sponsored by the

Government and the Royal Academy of engineering.

We do not need to create world class science in our country, we

already have it. Our task is to maintain, Cherish

and encourage our scientific endeavour and to promote its use

This is an issue that can no longer be ignored. Science is one of

Britain's greaters resources N the future, we will not be able to

compete on the world stage with low labour costs or by exploiting vast

reserves of mineral resources. We will have to compete with our

brains and with our science. Many features important for good science

are well embedded in the UK. We have a tradition of respect for

empiricism, emphasising reliable observation and experiment. Most

importantly, science in the UK is carried out in a culture of

openness and freedom. This should never be underestimated. The

scientific endeavour is at its most successful when there is freedom of

thought. Scientists need to be able to freely express doubts, to be

sceptical about established orthodox Si, and must not be too

strongly directed from the top, which stifles creativity. These

features are characteristic of British science, but this is not

the case throughout the world, even amongst some countries heavily

investing in science. In more closed societies, it may be

possible to pursue a directed programme when the underpinning

science is already clear, like building a nuclear weapon for

example, but making scientific discoveries and using science in

innovative ways is very difficult if the society is not free. During

the Cold War, Russia was able to build a nuclear bomb and send the

first man into space, two achievements base ds on previously

known physics. But work on genetics and crop improvement were

completely destroyed because for ideological reasons, Stalin backed

the charlatan Lysenko who rejected Mendelian genetics, widely accepted

everywhere else in the world. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, Hitler

rejected the work of Einstein because it was "Jewish Physics". In

the UK, we have the freedom to do science and we need to keep it that

way. We have to keep our spirit of adventure, to take risks and be

prepared sometimes to fail, as research at the cutting-edge is not

always successful. This is a lesson that UK industry might learn from

scientists. When I ran Rockefeller University in New York, I saw how

American entrepreneurs, were prepared to be bold to take risks

to bring science to the marketplace. We need more of that here in the UK.

For science to flourish, a broad portfolio of research investment is

required. There is a continuum of research, ranging from discovery

science, through research aimed at translating knowledge for

application, on to subsequent innovation ultimately leading to

the development of new technologies. The temptation to invest too

heavily in a particular part of this spectrum should be resisted.

Sometimes it is argued that we should concentrate only on

translation and innovation and not discovery, but that is a mistake.

As Sir George Porter, Nobel Laureate and a previous President

of the Royal Society, said: "To feed applied science by starving

basic science is like economising on the foundations of a building so

it may be built higher. It is only a matter of time before the whole

edifice crumbles." Research needs a longer timescale than is usual with

the more short-term priorities of private business, or for that

matter of politicians elected on a five-year cycle. This causes

problem with longer term projects such as translating scientific

advances into useful applications. We have a real opportunity in the

UK of improving the translation of biomedical science into better

treatments through an innovative partnership between researchers,

the NHS and industry, promoted by the Academy of Medical Sciences.

The UK has a great advantage with a very strong life sciences research

base, a unified Health Service, and an active pharmaceutical industry.

If all three work together we can carry out research which will not

only bring better Health Services but also help our economy. Because

the NHS belongs to people, it is my view that NHS patient also be open

to participating in research which will bring better Health Services

to the nation and also help our economy. This certainly applies to

me. The NHS helped me and I feel responsibility to assist in

clinical trials, allowing what could be learned from me to improve

treatment of future generations. It is time to turn the NHS into a

healthcare producer as well as a healthcare provider. Bridging the

often short-term pressures from commerce and politicians with the

longer time required to develop dois-of-discovery research to

effective applications is crucial. Greater collaboration between

publicly-funded research and private companies can help move

from science to application. Great scientific research requires talent.

The most accomplished scientists in the world need to be trained here

and attracted here. The UK is known to be excellent in research and

scientists of the highest quality from around the world want to come

and work here, which can only be to the country's good. The necessity

to attract highly-trained scientists from abroad has to be

reflected in the UK's immigration policy. The Government needs to

show leadership by publicly emphasising that scientists are as

welcome asent ests, ministers of religion and sports stars to come

and work here. The Immigration Minister has argued that he wants

to encourage the brightest and best migrants to come and work here. But

this must not be merely rhetoric. He has to make sure that the best

scientists from around the world know that they are welcome in the

UK. Science education also needs attention. People need an education

that allows them to fully participate in a democracy that

will increasingly require engagement with scientific matters.

Teaching should be of a quality such that those pupils with the

talent and inclination to become scientists are inspired to do so.

This will be difficult if we continue as now, with nearly all

primary school teachers, over a quarter of chemistry teachers and

nearly a third of physics teachers, having no specialist qualifications

in science. There should be greater attention on practical science in

schools including natural history, reinforcing the fact that science

is built on observation and experiment. Pupils must be inspired

by the wonder of science, and need to understand why science generates

reliable knowledge. At the very least, everyone leaving school

should know the difference between astronomy and astrology. LAUGHTER I

was inspired at school by my biology teacher, Keith Neal, his

focus on practical science and on communicating the wonder of science

was critical to me becoming a scientist. We need more Keith Neals

in our schools. Most important for the UK is a culture shift to fully

recognise what science can contribute. We should reawaken the

spirit of the Enlightenment, a respect for science and rationality,

a free-sharing of ideas and thinking with people from all walks

of life, revive the energy of the Industrial Revolution, and have the

courage to take risks and be true entrepreneurs. We can learn from

the Lunar Society where scientists, intellectuals and entrepreneurs met

together. But the world is more complex now. We have become more

focused on specialist areas cut off from each other. Scientists are

insufficiently ex-polzed to other scientific disciplines. There are

barriers between scientists and technologists and engineering

blocking the exchanges needed for innovation. There are further

blocks between these communities and those who lead the public

services and industry who need the applications of science. It is

essential to breakdown these barriers, through increasing the

permeability of both ideas and people between different sectors.

With permeability will come more innovative ideas and greater mutual

respect, leading to better progress in translating science into useful

applications. I want to put these ideas into practice at the new

Francis Crick Institute being built in London next to St Pancras

Station. When it opens in 2015, it will house 1,500 scientists in what

may well be the biggest biomedical laboratory building in the world.

It will not just be a place for scientific experts, but also a

place for experimenting in the way science is done. As Director of the

Institute, I want to create a cultural and economic hot house of

scientific ideas and applications, to make exciting discoveries

improving our health and driving our economy. I do not want

scientists to stay in their labs. I want them to mix with the best

minds from industry, the city, the public services, the media, to

spark off new ideas to help science benefit us all. It will be a place

without departments or restricting hierarchies with scientists free to

pursue their own creative ideas in a highly interactive and open

building. If it sounds a bit like anarchy, that is because it will be

a bit like anarchy. It is often in mixed up and chaotic circumstances

that the most creative work is done. Remember Harry Lime in The Third

Man who said: "In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had

warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced

Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland,

they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace,

and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." The Francis Crick

Institute is a thrilling opportunity to create the world's

leading biomedical research facility right here in the UK,

attracting the best minds from all over the world, and could also be a

model for getting our economy to work better. Good science needs

good long-term support and the UK must look at the scale and the

scope of the funding it provides for science, both from public and

private sources. The Government has protected science in the recent

cuts which is very welcome, but even so in real terms, support for

science has been reduced. The Government needs greater courage to

properly support its stated aspiration of harnessing science

and engineering to rebalance the economy towards innovation-based

sustainable growth. The UK spends 1.8% of GDP on research and

development. The Americans 2.9%. The South Koreans 3.7%. And we are

dropping down international league tables for the production of

patents. And even greater problems is spend by industry in the UK on

research and development, at present only 0.8% of GDP. This low

level of investment in science from industry means it lacks the

research capacity to reach out and exploit the scientific knowledge

being produced. There needs to be a shift in the boardroom to

understand and appreciate what science can bring, with more focus

on the longer term. Typical of the problem is what happened to the

utilities. In the years following privatisation, there was a collapse

in spend on research and development, good for short-term

profits maybe, but not for long- term sustainability or long-term

profits. I am passionate about science because it has shaped the

world and made it a better place, and I want to see science placed

more centre stage in our culture and economy. Our present economic

troubles have promoted a debate about the future of our economy,

and that future must include a major role for science. We need a

new Enlightenment, an Enlightenment for the 21st Century and Britain is

the place to do it with its h -- its history of freedom, rationality

and scientific achievement. We need more science in Government, the

boardroom and public services, we need more funding for science, we

need greater engagement with the public and a society comfortable

with science, we need to convey the wonder of science and what it

contributes to our civilisation. If we want science to deliver all of

this we must up our game, with the vision to think big, bigger than

our competitors and to imagine where we want to be in the future.

Science can help us get there, just as it did in the past. If we get it

right, our whole society will benefit. Science is, and always has

been, one of Britain's greatest assets. I am optimistic that the

time has come for a new deal between science and society to

achieve all of these things. If we are to hold our own on the world