Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred candidate for Chair of the Medical Research Council PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred candidate for Chair of the Medical Research Council PDF full book. Access full book title Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred candidate for Chair of the Medical Research Council by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215046871
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 28
Get Book Here
Book Description
The preferred candidate is Dr Paul Golby and the Committee recommends the appointment proceeds
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215046871
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 28
Get Book Here
Book Description
The preferred candidate is Dr Paul Golby and the Committee recommends the appointment proceeds
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215042958
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 24
Get Book Here
Book Description
The preferred candidate is Dr Paul Golby and the Committee recommends the appointment proceeds
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215084225
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 73
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215071840
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 52
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215049636
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 132
Get Book Here
Book Description
The UK has benefitted from having strong scientific advice available to Ministers and developing nations would see a huge benefit from being able to draw on strong home-grown institutions to inform policy decisions. A previous report by the Science and Technology Committee had criticised the Government for not paying enough attention to building the science base of developing nations. While concerns remain, MPs considered that the Department for International Development had made improvements in using a more robust evidence base and developing its own in-house expertise. An important feature raised in this report is that there had to be more attention paid to ensuring that scientists, especially those trained through UK support, were facilitated in staying in their home country and utilising the skills they had acquired. More support was needed to permit scientists from developing nations to build and develop their early career within in their native country. Only then could programmes to build scientific capacity eventually become self-sustaining. UK science benefits from collaborations in developing nations and through building connections with growing economies of the world but the MPs found that current funding streams actively discourage the participation of UK scientists. The MPs recommended that exercises such as the Research Excellence Framework recognise the contribution made by these scientists beyond their publication record.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215070623
Category : Science
Languages : en
Pages : 242
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Government is failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. There is little evidence of co-ordination amongst Government, government agencies and public bodies on communicating climate science, despite various policies at national and regional level to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the Government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence. Ministers therefore need to do more to demonstrate that is the case and consistently reflect the Government approach in all their communications, especially with the media. The report also criticises the BBC for its reporting on the issue. It points out that BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. The BBC is called to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. It is important that climate science is presented separately from any subsequent policy response. Government should work with the learned societies and national academies to develop a source of information on climate science that is discrete from policy delivery, comprehensible to the general public and responsive to both current developments and uncertainties in the science
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215083849
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 53
Get Book Here
Book Description
In its broadest sense, biometrics is the measurement and analysis of a biological characteristic (fingerprints, iris patterns, retinas, face or hand geometry) or a behavioural characteristic (voice, gait or signature). Biometric technologies use these characteristics to identify individuals automatically. Unlike identity documents or passwords, biometrics cannot be lost or forgotten since they are a part of the user and are always present at the time of identification. They are also difficult, though not impossible, to forge or share. Three future trends in the application of biometrics were identified during the inquiry: (i) the growth of unsupervised biometric systems, accessed via mobile devices, which verify identity; (ii) the proliferation of "second-generation" biometric technologies that can authenticate individuals covertly; (iii) and the linking of biometric data with other types of 'big data' as part of efforts to profile individuals. Each of these trends introduces risks and benefits to individuals, to the state and to society as a whole. They also raise important ethical and legal questions relating to privacy and autonomy. The Committee are not convinced that the Government has addressed these questions, nor are they satisfied that it has looked ahead and considered how the risks and benefits of biometrics will be managed and communicated to the public.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215062321
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 210
Get Book Here
Book Description
Many of the trials taking place today are unregistered and unpublished, meaning that the information that they generate remains invisible to both the scientific community and the public. This undermines public trust, slowing the pace of medical advancement and potentially putting patients at risk. All trials conducted on NHS treatments-and all other trials receiving public funding-should be prospectively registered and their results published in a scientific journal. While the focus should be on implementing this change for future trials, the Government must also do what it can to ensure that historic trials are registered and published, particularly where they have been publically funded. The Government should also take steps to facilitate greater sharing of the raw data generated during a trial in a responsible and controlled way, with the knowledge and consent of patients. The report also draws attention to the recent fall in the number of trials taking place in the UK. It finds that the need for multiple governance approvals from participating NHS organisations remained the biggest barrier to setting up a UK trial, but that lack of public awareness was also a key issue. Recruiting participants can also be a challenge. The report calls on the Government to take its recommendations into account in ongoing discussions regarding the revision of European clinical trials legislation and in its response to the European Medicines Agency's consultation on the release of clinical trial data, which closes at the end of this month
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215078535
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 64
Get Book Here
Book Description
The risks and benefits of participating in screening programmes, for conditions and diseases like cancer, are not consistently communicated by either the NHS or private health care providers, the Science and Technology Committee has warned in a new report. It is calling on the Government to ensure that a standardised process to produce screening information is introduced and that better communications training is provided to health care professionals. A recently revised breast cancer screening leaflet for the 50-70 age group - with its more explicit focus on helping women make an 'informed choice' about whether screening is right for them - marks a step in the right direction. However, the inquiry found that the principles followed to revise this leaflet have not been applied to the communications developed by other NHS screening programmes. The Committee recommends that steps are immediately taken by the Government's advisor on screening, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), to devise and implement a standard process for producing information that facilitates informed choice. It also recommends a clarification of what 'informed choice' means for potential screening participants so that different screening programmes can be more effectively evaluated on their delivery of it. MPs are also calling on the Office for National Statistics to validate the statistics presented in NHS screening information to resolve disagreement and confusion over their accuracy.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215049742
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 110
Get Book Here
Book Description
EU regulations on the safety of medical implants-such as metal-on-metal hip replacements-must be urgently tightened in response to evidence that manufacturers are seeking approval for devices in Member States with the least stringent regulatory regimes. Much greater transparency is needed about the approval process so patients and doctors can have full confidence in the implants they are using. Manufacturers and regulators must also publish more rigorous clinical data on the safety of new implants and be subject to greater scrutiny. The clinical data requirements for high-risk medical devices to be sold on the European Market are much less stringent than for new medicines. There appears to be reliance on equivalence-similarity to an existing implant-rather than clinical investigations of the implant being approved. The Committee calls for all clinical data used in the approval of a medical implant to be published without identifying patients or clinical trial participants. For products currently on the market, such data should be published immediately. There should also be a public record of every approach from a manufacturer to any notified body in the EU so that 'forum shopping' can be identified. UK regulatory body the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is criticised for its slow reaction to reports of problems with metal-on-metal hip replacements in Australia. The withdrawal of PIP breast implants also highlights the need for frequent and unannounced spot-checks of medical implant manufacturers to identify and prevent similar problems. The Committee is supportive of the proposed legislative changes from the European Commission to improve transparency
