Systematic Biology Research: Select Committee Report

HL Deb 09 July 1992 vol 538 cc1295-342

5.14 p.m.

Lord Dainton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was a moment, when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was moving his Amendment No. 3 to the proposals of the committee of Lord Jellicoe, when I thought that I might be the last chairman of a Select Committee to introduce a debate before the Government had made their response to the report itself. To that extent I should, as it were, have been the last surviving member of a species about to become extinct. That leads me naturally to the subject of the report, which I want to present to you now.

I suppose that it would not be surprising if there were many like myself in your Lordships' Horse for whom the words "systematic biology" had little significance. Yet many of us can recollect those few school and college contemporaries who liked nothing better than to collect and mount wild flowers or insects (especially it seemed to me beetles, butterflies and moths) and then proceed to name them according to a binomial system indicating their genus and species. A little later we may have learned how enterprising British mariners, colonial administrators, explorers and others who were curious about natural history gathered living plants and animals and the fossilised remains of extinct species from places near and far from this country, and then lodged the specimens in zoos, botanic gardens or museums, which were sometimes private but more often public. So were created some of the finest and largest collections in the world in places like Kew, Edinburgh and the Natural History Museum at South Kensington.

The intellectual and practical impact of this work has been enormous. The lively imaginations of eminent Victorians such as Darwin, Wallace and Mendel, who attempted to establish relationships involving parentage, form, function and habitat of members of the plant and animal kingdoms, led to the notions of evolution, natural selection and genetic inheritance. Those ideas transformed the way in which humans see themselves in the world and have constituted a major and lasting intellectual and cultural revolution.

Moreover, by providing a basis for the sciences of plant and animal breeding, genetics has transformed agriculture throughout the world and with it raised the standards of living of billions of human beings. It has also enabled the identification of species which carry plant and animal (including human) disease and thereby made possible the control of epidemics as well as the development of disease-resistant strains, or of other remedies to pests.

In the past 40 years there have been two further giant steps forward, in both of which British scientists have played major roles far in excess of what would be expected from such a numerically small population. The first step relates to the identification that advances in molecular biology have provided of the nature and ordering of the chemical components in genetic material, which are later expressed in the form and function of the adult animal or plant. That too is a field pregnant with beneficial possibilities, including the creation of new industries, such as biotechnology, based on genetically engineered organisms in medicine and agriculture. It has even affected, through DNA profiling, our socio-legal system.

There are literally tens of millions of living distinct species, each of which can be uniquely placed in an unambiguous system of biological classification. Given enough time and effort, each individual species and its properties could ultimately be related to a particular kind of genetic material. That mass of information invites the creation of a universal computerised catalogue of living and extinct organisms which could be interrogated by anyone who understands the system. Again—this is my second point—Britain's record in computer software development is significant and could be built upon were that procedure to be followed.

Systematic biology is a crucial part of biology which is poised now for major development through interaction with molecular biology and computer science. The present is a time of great scientific opportunity and systematic biology research, which already has some practical applications, will undoubtedly lead to many more. I must also explain that it is just the time in the world's history when that information is desperately needed.

The facts are that only a small proportion of the world's organisms have been identified. The larger, unidentified residue undoubtedly contains a vast amount of valuable genetic material which humankind will need to draw upon in the future. As the present Governor of Hong Kong eloquently told us in his Natural Environment Research Council annual lecture in 1990, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, the world's existing biodiversity must be recorded and preserved. That is required just when the economic activities of the burgeoning human population constitute the greatest threat to its existence. The Prime Minister's participation with many other heads of state in the Rio de Janeiro Conference last month gives even greater emphasis to that point. I therefore hope that I have convinced your Lordships that research in systematic biology is not only intellectually exciting but is urgently needed. The opportunity for more rapid advance by bringing the classificatory, the molecular biological and the information technological techniques simultaneously to bear has never been greater. Furthermore, Britain's vast specimen collections themselves constitute a very important asset in that enterprise.

The sub-committee whose report we are debating today was set up because the main Select Committee on Science and Technology became aware of some signs that Britain had not played, and is not playing, the part that she ought to play in this great international enterprise which will assuredly bring great benefits to our country and to the rest of the world. Much anecdotal testimony to that effect was brought to our notice. However, we wanted harder evidence. We therefore conducted a detailed quantitative survey of the performers of research in this field. We had a magnificent response from which many conclusions could be drawn. I have time only to highlight a few.

First, we found that in the 10 years of the 1980s the amount of money spent on systematic biological research had diminished during that period, even though government spending on basic research generally had increased in real terms by 28 per cent. Secondly, Britain was not producing researchers in the number and quality she needed so that, to take but one example, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew has had to recruit staff from overseas. Thirdly, in that 10 year period the proportion of time which on average is devoted to teaching undergraduates systematic biology has halved. Fourthly, the age distribution of the present staff of the universities, compared with 10 years ago, shows that little, if any, new blood has entered the academic systematic biology community. That does not augur well for either intellectual vigour in research or stimulating teaching. Fifthly, and finally, the great collections which are so vital to progress, many of which are in this country, have not been maintained and exploited to the extent that the times require.

The causes of those and related phenomena are varied. I cannot list them all. Some are structural. Thus, because there are many funding bodies in the field, including several research councils and government departments, it seems to be no one's business to make a regular appraisal of a subject which can so easily fall between the cracks of so many organisations. Moreover, the Department of National Heritage (formerly the Office of Arts and Libraries) has by its own admission no capability for assessing the need or the capacity of its sole institutional pensioner in the field, the Natural History Museum, for work in that field because the main business of the Department of National Heritage lies elsewhere in funding national museums, mainly in the arts and humanities, libraries and galleries. Other quasi-structural causes simply reflect the way in which universities are allocated money from the public purse and then distribute internally their own core funds to activities, taking every care to reflect the way in which those activities can earn external funds from grant and contract-awarding bodies. Systematic biology research is at risk because it is intrinsically a relatively rather cheap subject and does not need much external funding. Therefore, it tends to be accorded a rather low priority with universities in securing support from a university's core funding.

Other causes are what I might call perceptual. Thus, systematic biological research which, as I have explained, ought to exist in a symbiotic relationship with the more glamourous branches of biology such as molecular biology, is in fact in competition for funds with subjects such as behavioural and molecular biology. It loses out because it is rather patronisingly perceived as "comparatively unoriginal". To that extent the biologists' own peer review systems are culpable in not taking a longer and wiser view.

When all is said and done, one thing is certain. Matters cannot be allowed to continue as they are. That way lies disaster and Britain will earn the contempt of those in other nations who know of the contribution that the United Kingdom could make to the resolution of a major world problem of how sustainable world development is to be achieved without irreversible damage to the environment. That is particularly the case when those countries also know that we are not making the contribution which we could make.

In the view of the committee, great progress could be made to remedy the situation at very low cost. We make recommendations in three main areas. First, for research, we recommend the injection of an extra £1 million a year for systematic biology research over a period of five years. It is heartening to see that the Natural Environment Research Council has already proposed important fields of study in which that money could be spent were it to become available. That information is now published in the Krebs Report.

Secondly, for the maintenance of the collections at our great systematics institutions like Kew and the Natural History Museum, we recommend that their core funding should be maintained at current levels in real terms. To assist those collections with research potential outside the grant-in-aided institutions, of which there are quite a number, the Department of National Heritage (the old Office of Arts and Libraries) should set up a rolling programme of £0.5 million a year to which applications for grants might be made. Those of us who visited the United States saw a comparable scheme operating very successfully in that country.

Thirdly, to preserve the subject at the universities and to guarantee an adequate supply of trained British systematists, we recommend that the advisory board for the research councils assesses the demand for qualified systematists and funds MSc courses and quota studentships on those courses accordingly and any other measures which it considers appropriate.

In association with those principal recommendations, we make a number of other suggestions which we hope will be pursued. We thought that to make the best use of our collections and of the expertise currently available, a new forum should be established by the major systematics institutions, whether or not grant-in-aided, to generate some national curatorial policy through discussions on rationalisation of holdings, staff appointments and areas of specialisation. We thought that the National Heritage Department should have access to scientific advice so as better to appraise the funding needs of the Natural History Museum as one of the world's leading institutions in the field of systematics research.

We thought that the Overseas Development Administration, which is a major customer for systematics, could do more to fund United Kingdom research projects. We were very concerned—I repeat, very concerned—that the World Bank's Global Environment Facility, which we visited, to which our Government have contributed hugely and which could be a source of some research funding, may not take appropriate scientific advice before making disbursements for biodiversity projects. Your Lordships will have noticed that in addition to the £40 million already contributed by the United Kingdom to the World Bank for that purpose the Prime Minister's speech at Rio implied a willingness to add a further £60 million to an enlarged facility. In your Lordships' House on 23rd June (col. 432 of Hansard) the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—said that the new money (I underline her explicit reference to new money) would be about £100 million. Whichever is the Government's intention, those are large sums. It is clear that the Government regard the global environment facility as the major instrument in this field. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that another look will be taken at the bank's arrangements for the facility, especially as regards its programme for its scientific content.

As a general theme, we thought that systematics had been so marginalised by the research councils as to warrant the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (now part of the new Office of Public Service and Science) becoming more pro-active in its defence. We hope that it will be a feature of the new office that this baton, and others like it, will in future be picked up.

I am sure that the other members of the committee will take up some of those themes in greater detail and I also look forward to hearing the views of other Members of the House. After all, if Select Committees fail to inform the House and to stimulate comment and feedback from the House as a whole, they are not doing their job properly.

In summary, therefore, I simply say that in the 1980s Britain's effort in systematic biological research slipped almost unnoticed into a position where it was not pursuing that subject to the extent that it could; and certainly not sufficiently to get the most benefit either for this country or towards meeting the international need for conserving global biodiversity. That is a need which many of us now regard as so stark. But this is a situation which can be rescued reasonably quickly and at low cost. I hope that your Lordships will give the sub-committee's recommendations your warm support.

I shall end on a more personal note. Our report was published on 28th January this year. It has attracted favourable comment and not just in this country. In mid-May I gave an invited lecture to the International Symposium and World Congress on the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections which was held in Madrid. I was struck by the fact that the delegates not only accepted the analysis and conclusions, which I have put before the House in shortened form and which I had just presented to them, but also by the way in which they looked to the United Kingdom to resume its leadership role in research and systematic biology.

Since then there has been the Rio de Janeiro meeting at which, on 12th June, the Prime Minister announced the Darwin Initiative. He amplified that in another place on 15th June. I must tell your Lordships that in my view our recommendations constitute necessary practical steps which are not expensive—indeed, quite the contrary—towards realising the aims of that initiative. Therefore, I hope that they will be implemented without delay.

I wish to thank publicly the members of the sub-committee, its able clerk Dr. Rhodri Walters, the specialist advisers Professor Chaloner and Professor Claridge, and all those who gave evidence. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.—(Lord Dainton.)

5.35 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I am a chartered biologist. During the course of my professional career I have practised taxonomy. I have described and named new species of animals and I have even received the accolade of colleagues in having taxa—your Lordships will have to become used to hearing such technical terms—named after me. One was a small blood-sucking mite and the other was a subgenus of fleas. I have also served as a trustee of the Natural History Museum and as a council member of the Natural Environment Research Council and I am a life member of the Linnaean Society.

The purpose of that apologia is to explain why I was extremely pleased to be co-opted as a member of the sub-committee which was so dexterously and incisively chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, whose introductory speech has so ably set the scene. Following his invitation I intend to pick up three points from the Select Committee's report. The first is the key issue of biodiversity research; the second the importance of curation; and the third a short comment on sources of funding.

I shall first deal with biodiversity. The strength of concern for the conservation of biological species was amply demonstrated by the evidence which was received by the sub-committee. So too was the urgency and immensity of the research task needed merely to discover, identify and catalogue the global biodiversity resource. That is laid out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5. Table 2.1 of the report illustrates the extent of achievements during the two-and-a-half centuries since Linnaeus. It also emphasises, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the hugeness of the task yet to be done. So far some 1.4 million organisms have been identified and named. However, there are reasonable grounds for believing that at least eight times as many more species remain undescribed by the systematist.

Throughout the period during and succeeding this inquiry national and international concern for biodiversity conservation and for the systematics research needed to progress the global inventory has been heightened by the cycle of preparations leading to the United Nations Conservation on Environment and Development at Rio. I have been told that 155 nations signed the convention on biological diversity. I understand that it will come into force 90 days after deposit of the ratification instrument of the 30th contracting party. I ask my noble friend to comment on the progress of ratification by the United Kingdom and on the progress towards the coming into force of the biodiversity convention.

That convention contains some striking points. Article 6 requires that: Each contracting party shall… develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity". Other articles develop that theme, especially Article 7. It requires that: Each contracting party shall… identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use". Those are listed. Article 20 requires that: Each contracting party shall undertake to provide… financial support and incentives in respect of those national activities which are intended to achieve the objectives of the Convention". In the mood of Article 20, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the Prime Minister on 12th June simultaneously announced that £100 million will be available in British aid for environmental measures through the Global Environment Facility and his Darwin Initiative for the survival of species. I too have seen some elaboration on the Darwin Initiative not only by the Prime Minister but also by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a speech which he made at the Natural History Museum on 24th June, when he said: The purpose of the Darwin Initiative is to support the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention by deploying the strengths of the United Kingdom". He continued in that vein.

He mentioned the highly developed legislative and regulatory framework driven by powerful institutions such as nature conservancy bodies. He mentioned a long tradition in exploration and identification of natural species and habitats in many parts of the world. He said: The Darwin Initiative will build on these strengths … It will seek to clarify the goals of further scientific, economic and legal research … It will assist in the further development of inventories of the most important species, habitats and ecosystems". He added: In the near future we will be putting together a small action team". I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us something about that action team.

The evidence received by the Select Committee shows that this country is well equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, emphasised, to carry forward that initiative in terms of historic collections of worldwide origin and international importance, trained and dedicated performers and appropriate institutions for systematic biological research. It seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord, that the commitments made at Rio sharpen the thrust of our Select Committee's conclusions. Implicit in the Prime Minister's initiative is an acknowledgment that this nation has an obligation to safeguard our inherited systematic collections and to make use of our human and material resources on behalf of the global community.

So far I have spoken about international conventions and overseas issues. However, we must recognise that there is an enormous need for research into the systematics of our own national fauna and flora within the Kingdom. We may know all the species of birds, butterflies or dragonflies—conspicuous animals—that are likely to be found within our shores, but for smaller organisms—for beetles, let alone free-living nematodes or bacteria—there are undoubtedly many to be discovered, named and classified. That work is important if we are to fulfil our obligations towards the conservation of species and habitats under existing national and EC law, let alone the agreements signed at Rio. We still need vigorously to research and understand the scope of the national biodiversity resource, even as we take on the new and wider responsibilities that arise from the Biodiversity Convention. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench for assurance that funds will be forthcoming to support those tasks.

I said that I would speak briefly about curation. The evidence presented to the Select Committee is at chapter 6 of the report. The sub-committee's views on the importance of curation are clear and are laid out in paragraphs 6.49 to 6.42, and the corresponding recommendations are at paragraphs 9.18 to 9.24.

I am sympathetic to the new strategy at the Natural History Museum which is summarised in the opening paragraph of the museum's Annual Report for Science 1991 which states: The management and maintenance of collections should be undertaken by dedicated teams of staff". The curatorial sections set up in each science department at that museum emphasise the significance of the task as a professional discipline in its own right.

Curation-based skills are needed in all museums and are a vital part of professional training for a museum-oriented career. Trained curators can move across disciplines and thus bring a breadth of insight to their jobs and enlarge the scope of their own career opportunities. A curator's broad-based expertise can guide and lead a department in a large museum.

Our recommendation at paragraph 9.23 is important. A good curator must understand the systematics of the organism he curates in order to preserve in his specimens the characters important in each taxonomic group. For that a curator needs time in his job to conduct taxonomic research.

The role of the curator will be vital if the United Kingdom is to meet the expectations raised by the announcement of the Darwin Initiative. On the Select Committee's visit to the Natural History Museum our attention was drawn to the backlog of curatorial tasks in that one museum as touched on in paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9. We saw many trays of entomological specimens in urgent need of repinning. We were made aware of a large accumulated stock of unincorporated collections; for example, about 0.25 million flowering plant specimens.

The committee was concerned also about the state of curation in other non-grant-in-aid museums in the country. That is reflected in our recommendation at paragraph 9.21 which calls for a rolling biological collections fund of £0.5 million per year.

In order to back up the Darwin Initiative museums must be encouraged to publish registers and to prepare checklists and keys to identification. A major national thrust is called for, and curators will play a vital role.

I turn now to funding. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned the principal recommendations of the Select Committee. I believe that we shall need to look further for more funds. The committee was adamant that there is no viable alternative to government core funding of systematic biology research, as we say at paragraph 5.47. Other options examined by the committee included the EC, research councils and the ODA, all of which have a subsidiary role to play. I wish to touch on one further source which was not seriously examined by the Select Committee; that is, private or commercial funding. I am indebted to Mr. Nigel Winser for some of the more imaginative slants in what follows.

The systematic nomenclature of organisms is governed by sets of rules which differ between animals, plants and micro-organisms. Those rules include standards of a grammatical nature covering such matters as the latinisation of vernacular and personal names and gender terminations, but it has never been sought to regulate the sources of names.

Linnaean binomials may be descriptive or geographical. Some have been deliberate nonsense. As I have already mentioned, many are named after people. Systematists have named many new taxa after persons, including their superiors or collaborators, the heroes and heroines of fact and mythology, mothers, wives or girlfriends, and I remember an embarrassing case of a student of mine who used the name of an ex-girlfriend. To do that has been intended as an honour. In the 19th century when private patronage was not unusual, neither party—the patron or the systematist—was abashed to commemorate a patron's identity in a new taxonomic name.

It seems natural to extend that tradition in modern times to commercial or personal sponsorship. Mr. Winser's proposals involve a formalised clearing-house whereby systematists and sponsors may be put in touch with one another and a scale of values may be drawn up in which a beautiful bird or an orchid may rate highest, while a less appealing organism can be named for a pittance. I understand that the Systematics Association has not responded with enthusiasm. However, I see no moral problem and I hope that the Treasury will encourage such a scheme by confirming that sponsorship of that nature will be tax-deductible.

I conclude. During the course of the subcommittee's inquiry, a symposium mounted by the Linnaean Society carried out a parallel appraisal of taxonomic research in the 1990s which was published in 1991. In his foreword Professor Claridge drew attention to the paradox that at a time when it is widely agreed that much more taxonomic research is urgently needed, research and training are at a low level and funding is inadequate.

In May of this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned, the Natural Environment Research Council published the report of the Krebs Committee entitled The New Taxonomy which produced 13 recommendations for new research areas. Also in May the ODA published details of aid related to the environment—aid for biodiversity conservation and forestry.

With those reports I hope that the Select Committee's conclusion will bring about a revitalisation in this field of fundamental biological study. The research must be targeted and co-ordinated. In paragraphs 6.45 and 6.55 the sub-committee called for a new body—a "forum" the noble Lord called it—with its own terms of reference and an independent chairman to draw on the systematic expertise which is dispersed among our national institutes.

I hope that my noble friend will endorse that recommendation which will enable us to plan research to support a national biodiversity strategy and will also tie in with the additional thrust that I expect to arise from the Prime Minister's Darwin Initiative.

5.50 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, the noble Earl is always a hard act to follow. On this occasion I do not know what to say about his suggested options for names. Perhaps we should approach Lloyd's; those names may find it a better proposition than the one they recently enjoyed.

Before I turn to the subject of the debate I should like to add my thanks to the chairman of the committee for his hard work and the fact that he managed to remain courteous throughout. I should like also to thank Dr. Walters. We were absolutely inundated with evidence. His ability to classify what came in immediately marked him as a potential taxonomist. We are grateful to him for the work that he did.

There seems to be general agreement on the importance of systematic biology or taxonomy. Even at the end of this long investigation there still appears to be some doubt in regard to which name one should use. There are fine distinctions but for the purposes of the debate we can perhaps agree that the terms are interchangeable.

Questions arise in regard to the financial priority that the subject should enjoy and how new generations of students can be persuaded to enter the profession. Some witnesses were invited to try to explain why taxonomy had become unfashionable. Professor Prance, the director of Kew, giving evidence on 14th May, suggested that students had been lured away by more glamorous molecular work, which has also attracted more funding.

It is possible that systematists have been so absorbed in their own scene that they have ignored what may be called the politics of their science. But the alarm bells are sounding and the world of biological sciences is at last focusing on the health of this, its most basic tool. As others have said, systematic biology underpins the whole of our efforts to protect the biodiversity of the planet.

The Natural Environment Research Council recently published a report called The New Taxonomy. It clearly illustrates the essential role of taxonomy and proves the dependence of the biological sciences on a continuing and improving database. The report begins with a quotation from S.J. Gould's Wonderful Life, a part of which reads as follows, taxonomy is a fundamental and dynamic science, dedicated to exploring the causes of relationships and similarities among organisms. Classifications are theories about the basis of natural order, not dull catalogues compiled only to avoid chaos". It is difficult to understand why students are not attracted in greater numbers to that fascinating study. Indeed, Professor Prance appeared confident that, given a more positive approach by the universities, backed by adequate funding, enough students would be forthcoming.

As others have said, the United Kingdom is a world leader in taxonomy. It is one of the residual benefits of the Old Empire that we have collections of millions of species from all over the world—as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned. Many are unique; all are valuable. But with that inheritance we inherit also a responsibility to maintain the collections and, when required, to make them available to other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth. The ABRC recognised that in a recent report when it stated, it is a fact that many countries cannot pursue the taxonomy of their indigenous flora and fauna to completion because much material collected from there is housed in British institutes". That proves that we must continue to make our collections available.

Our report describes the enormous tasks undertaken by the curators—the noble Earl described in greater detail the work that they do—and the difficulties they presently face due to lack of funding and for want of a computerised database. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the sums involved are minute in comparison with the budgets of some of the large science projects. Yet the work that they could do would be invaluable

The cost of not funding this vital work could be disastrous. The collections are essential to the work of identifying and classifying the many species as yet undiscovered. The loss of certain species is part of evolution and normally it happens at a rate which allows other species to adapt. The interference of mankind brings change at a rate to which ecological systems cannot adjust. It is vital that we study and identify as many species as possible before it is too late. If that work is not done the loss of social and economic benefits could be enormous.

At Volume II, page 43 of our report it will be seen that the Overseas Development Agency gave evidence in which it stated that the ODA aimed to support sustainable economic and social development and reduce poverty and suffering in underdeveloped countries. Maintenance of biodiversity is described as a "key ingredient" in its programme. Since taxonomy in turn is a key ingredient in the maintenance of biodiversity, I find it surprising that the ODA is not involved in some support of the core funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether or not there has been any change in the policy of the ODA towards core funding. It undertakes funding of specific projects but that will not help if our whole system of taxonomy collapses.

I should like to give a few examples of why it is important to pursue the subject scientifically. Professor Prance of Kew tells of the Brazil nut tree which is fertilised by the orchid bee. The bee relies for its mating ritual on a specific orchid. To extinguish the orchid would be to extinguish the bee and therefore the Brazil nut. But the story does not end there. The nut itself relies on the attentions of the agouti, a small mammal the sole possessor of teeth strong enough to gnaw the Brazil nut shell. The creature buries supplies of the Brazil nut and so the continuation of the tree is assured. Any break in that chain could have disastrous economic results.

In committee Professor Prance told us of a species of tree in Mauritius now few in number because it relied for propagation on its seeds passing through the gizzard of the dodo. We do not doubt that the dodo is dead; we use its demise to emphasise our view that something has passed beyond recall. When the last of the unfortunate trees has disappeared I wonder whether there will be yet another echo from that last fatal gunshot. Who knows how many consequences of our present carelessness may yet emerge? Without a precautionary scientific approach we could, at worst, blunder into ecological disasters with far-reaching consequences for all; on a different scale we could lose plants with potential for curing many of our modern ills. For example, in a briefing which I am sure other Members of the House have read the Linnaean Society draws attention to an interesting example of the discovery in an Australian tree of an alkaloid—castanospermine—with strong anti-HIV activity.

The systematic botanists were asked to name a close relative of this tree. It turned out to be a tree from South America which also contains castanospermine—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly —and in greater amounts. That could not have been accomplished without a specialist knowledge of systematic biology.

There was a pop song in the charts a few years ago with the refrain, Don't it always seem to go You don't know what you've got till its gone". It would be tragic to allow that to apply to our present rich diversity of plants and animals. We may not know quite what we have got, but we know enough to see the danger of losing it. It would be folly to allow the potential to be lost for want of a change of emphasis now. I hope that the Government will take the recommendations in our report very seriously, especially those about the need for a change of emphasis in funding.

6 p.m.

Lord Whaddon

My Lords, I rise as a reverent layman in the subject who has listened enthralled to the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. However, I was most fortunate to serve in a very humble capacity in connection with the first penicillin plant. I was well aware that this medical miracle owed its existence to the recognition by Fleming of the tiny speck of mould which he observed killing off the bacteria on a culture plate.

I begin by adding my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for his expertise in chairmanship of the committee. The noble Lord combined a mastery of the subject with a very deft touch with witnesses and the Members of the committee. He was successful in extracting the maximum of evidence with the minimum of pain. If he ever feels like taking up another profession he would do well to consider dentistry.

As we have heard, systematic biology has given rise to some of the world's greatest discoveries. But these great discoveries never seem to be all gain; they usually have a spectrum of difficulty attached to them as well. Evolution was largely brought about by the study of systematic biology. We have heard of the effects of Darwin and his predecessor Lamarck. They sent shock waves not only through biology, but through theology, philosophy and politics. Indeed, from the work of Lamarck and Darwin one can trace their effects through to Hegel and his successor, Karl Marx. In fact, the foundation of the Soviet Union was to some extent due to systematic biology.

We have also heard of the genetics resulting from systematic biology. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, crop yields have been massively increased. Billions of people eat today because of the results of the systematists. But it is not all gain. The increase in the crops has given rise to billions of extra people in the world. We now face danger from the population bomb and the great danger to the global environment by pollution from a greatly overpopulated world. They are problems which we have to face and we cannot face without continuing our work in systematic biology.

Biodiversity is now accepted as an urgent property by all governments. The recording and preservation of the gene pool is a universal target. However, that will be impossible without a great stimulus to the present work on systematic biology. Otherwise it will be like trying to sail a ship around the world simply using a medieval map which shows large areas as terra incognita.

The decline of systematic biology in this country has been a source of the greatest regret. We were so prominent in this field. It is just dreadful to see it lacking. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has spelled out the causes of the decline and suggested some very practical remedies. I shall not detain the House by repeating what he said. I simply say that I agree completely with his analysis and suggested remedies.

There are a couple of points which have been brought to my attention in the past week which may help a little. The university appraisal system could give an extra kick to systematic biology. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the normal system in universities to have a biennial appraisal of the teaching staff. That appraisal is of the greatest importance to the staff and other individuals concerned because it has a great effect on their future prospects. If the biology faculties of the universities made it clear that in future years they would pay extra attention to the quality of teaching of systematics by their staffs, I am sure that that would have a considerable effect on changing the problem which we have as regards the perspective of the subject.

Another possible source of useful pressure is from the professional bodies which are the ultimate users of the results of this work. I am thinking of bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians and their colleagues in the veterinary profession. These bodies keep a close eye on the work of the universities in all aspects of biology. There is of course the University Audit, which is based on Birmingham. It safeguards the standards of the work of the universities and not the content, and that is perfectly right. On the other hand, the professional bodies are very concerned with the professional capability of the people who will be coming into membership in future years. They certainly have the right and duty to keep an eye on the content as well as the level of the work of the biology faculties in the universities. If the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons and similar bodies take note of the concern which is being expressed by your Lordships today, I believe that it is highly likely that their opinions will rub off on the universities and will have a considerable effect.

I now turn to the Natural History Museum about which so much concern has been expressed. The attitude of the Office of Arts and Libraries came as something of a shock. I was put in mind of the story of Professor Lindemann visiting Oxford. In a conversation the wife of the warden of one of the colleges said to Professor Lindemann, "My husband tells me that anyone with a First in Mods and Greats (Classics) can pick up science in a fortnight". To that Professor Lindemann replied, "What a pity that your husband never had a fortnight to spare".

There is still something of that condescending attitude to be found in too many parts of the Government's administration. Therefore, I was encouraged to note a statement in another place when the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science said on behalf of the Government: the system by which we operate in Britain … is that decisions about scientific priorities are made by scientists".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/92; col. 542.] That is a wonderful principle which I strongly support. However, I wonder whether it has always been applied in the Office of Arts and Libraries and whether in future it will be applied in the Department of National Heritage. Let us hope that it will. The Government will have our strongest support if they make sure that it is.

I trust that the report that we are debating, together with your Lordships' deliberations, will persuade Her Majesty's Government to accept the recommendations that have been made and to implement our proposals. Rarely are the Government given the opportunity to make such a major contribution to science at so little cost. I hope and trust that I shall be present for the rest of the debate but because we started rather later than we had anticipated it may be necessary for me to leave before its conclusion. I hope not, but if that is the case, I hope that I shall be forgiven.

6.10 p.m.

Lord Zuckerman

My Lords, as the first participant in this debate who is not a member of the committee, at the outset I should like to express my deep appreciation—and I am sure your Lordships' appreciation in general—for the meticulous work that has been carried out by the committee and for the obvious way in which it set about trying to determine all the necessary facts before reaching the conclusions that are set out so admirably—indeed, so admirably that I hope that the Government will have no difficulty whatever in accepting them.

The precision and firmness of the report are unusual. They are unusual because the subject is unusual. Systematic biology, which is taxonomy—whatever anybody else may call it—or biodiversity, has, I am afraid, become a Cinderella among the biological sciences. I was interested to read in the report that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to thermo-dynamics as being something of the same kind. In the medical world, topographical anatomy comes into the same category as systematic biology, with the view taken, "It is a bore, leave it alone, and get on with the interesting stuff".

I was interested in paragraph 7.13, which is headed "What went wrong?". Reference is made to the fact that biologists themselves have deserted the subject. There is a reference to fashion, and fashion certainly plays an enormous part in what goes on in science. After Crick and Watson did their work on DNA, molecular biology swallowed almost everything else. It did not take very long.

Perhaps I may suggest another reason why subjects suddenly become Cinderellas. It is because they become too difficult. Hypotheses are not fully tested and as soon as a new fashion comes in people move on, leaving unsolved many questions that have been properly formulated. The history of biology is absolutely littered with unanswered questions. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Adrian, who was a member of the committee, is not in his place because we recently discussed the matter with reference to his father's work in neurology. Any number of the questions which the noble Lord's famous father had investigated were there to be picked up and pursued but there were not the people to follow them up.

The arguments about the loss of status of systematic biology seem to me to deserve a similar explanation. There is a major philosophical basis to taxonomy, starting with Aristotle. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to Linnaeus. Linnaeus had his arguments with Buffon. I am afraid that modern teachers of biology and zoology do not read the old literature. I have been told that PhD students are sometimes advised not to waste their time reading any scientific paper that is more than five years old. But that would mean that some of the works which I had to read—and which I read with pleasure—on systematic biology are not now read at all. I remember a few names of some of this country's recent systematic philosophers—Robson and Crow. One of the committee's witnesses was Professor Cain. I wonder how many departments outside his own read his work. There was also Lancelot Hogben, one of the most stimulating zoologists of all time, even though it was a little perilous to deal with him as a colleague. I am sure that most of these works are not read today. The reason that they are not read is that the teachers have not read them. They are not read by the students; they are simply part of the archives of zoology.

Taxonomy was described in paragraph 2.12 as a "mundane activity" which did not constitute an "intellectual challenge". It was not researched because it was not experimental. Any branch of biology can become mundane, even molecular biology. When a subject becomes dominated by technique, it ceases to have the intellectual force that makes the young student really interested and stimulated. There is more intellectual challenge in true taxonomy than in a great deal of the fieldwork zoology which I now read. There is more intellectual challenge in the philosophy of taxonomy than in, let us say, the application of radio-immuno assay techniques of which technicians now have to be masters, even though the two people who introduced the subject were awarded Nobel Prizes—I am referring to Martin and Synge. Five years after they had been awarded Nobel Prizes for their paper chromatographic work technicians had to be proficient in all that they had done.

There is a reference to the use of modern methods, and of course molecular biology has been singled out. Early this century serum relationships were shown to be a valuable study in taxonomy by Professor Nuttall, who was the first Professor of Biology at Cambridge and the founder of the Moltino Institute. After his famous book, published in 1904, I do not recall many papers until I did a piece of work on this subject in about 1930. Later I published a book in which I used all manner of physiological and behavioural data to add to the morphological knowledge there was about the taxonomy and relationships of monkeys, apes and man.

The Zoological Society of London was asked to provide evidence. Its evidence is included in Volume III. It relates entirely to the work that is done in the two laboratories which I was partly instrumental in setting up and refers only to molecular biology. From its foundation in the early part of the 19th century the Zoological Society realised that taxonomy was all important to the language of biology. In 1864 the society played a major part in launching a publication called the Zoological Record which was a listing of all new scientific papers dealing with every one of the branches of zoology. In paragraph 3.23 there is reference to the fact that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had to abandon one or two of its ambitious projects in listing. I am proud to say that the Zoological Society—it had a little help from the Royal Society for one period in the latter part of the 19th century—then took on the job by itself and is still responsible for the International Zoological Record. We do not pay the costs of its publication—we had to enter into a partnership with an American organisation called Biosis—but we edit it. The recorders and the people using new techniques of information technology work in York where I believe they are helped by the Natural History Museum, which has a section in York, and the British Museum. The Zoological Society also publishes the international list of new genera. That was also started in the 19th century but it was given a new lease of life in 1913 when all new genera were listed. The first volume of the new series came out in 1939. Volume 8 will appear this year.

Finally, I once again congratulate the committee on having done such an excellent job and I speak—even though most of my work has been in experimental biology—as a systematist. Systematic biology research is a strict science. It was a science before it became invested with a political flavour through the Rio conference. It did not need that conference to turn it into a science. Very little money is called for to help to maintain our position in the field of systematic biology. The sum of around £1 million is spoken about. Systematic biology will come into its own when people who are in biological departments realise that from the point of view of the philosophy of science it can be a much more challenging and stimulating subject than the routine application of new experimental techniques.

6.25 p.m.

Lord Flowers

My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend Lord Dainton for chairing the sub-committee which produced the report we are debating today. It was extremely stimulating to work with him. Like other noble Lords, I thank him again for introducing the debate in the precise fashion that is so peculiarly his own. I first met my noble friend in a wartime laboratory in Montreal. He was walking down a corridor carrying a test tube, the contents of which he invited me to sniff. I have never smelled a brew so foul, and ever since I have had the greatest respect for my noble friend.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, read out the quotation from Stephen Gould of Harvard with which the report entitled The New Taxonomy, just published by the National Environment Research Council, begins. It admirably encapsulates the conflicting attitudes that have arisen since the introduction of molecular concepts into biology some decades ago. Those attitudes were fully discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a characteristic and fascinating speech, which, in spite of my name, I am certainly not competent to follow.

The NERC report largely substantiates our own report to your Lordships, to part of which it is a welcome response. In particular, it agrees that a small additional sum of about £1 million a year for five years should be devoted to systematic biology research, and it gives a useful breakdown showing in some detail how that money might be spent, something we were hardly equipped to do.

The NERC is understandably silent about the source of the proposed addition. Much as I would personally congratulate the Government if they felt moved to provide it, I am bound to say that the problem arises from a growing imbalance within the allocation for existing biology, spread almost without control among four of the research councils. It should therefore be possible to find the increase by tilting the balance in favour of systematic biology, not least in order to facilitate the vigorous introduction of molecular methods into taxonomy itself. I shall be very disappointed if the ABRC is not asked by government to bring that about.

The combination of molecular biology with information technology now required by systematists is a powerful tool for understanding how species interact, both spatially and over time. It is an essential adjunct to ecology and to many other branches of science, and to the biological technologies.

Both reports speak of the applications of systematic biology, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to several of them. I shall draw attention only to the use of living organisms to test for water quality. Instead of chemical sampling, the water industry nowadays provides a continuous biological record of quality by identifying fresh water invertebrates. A crude indication of how sensitive biological indicators can be is provided by the fact that variations of sea water temperature of less than one degree can change the dominant fish population of the English Channel from herring to pilchard to mackerel and back again, a matter of some interest to those concerned with global warming as well as those in the fishing industry.

The new taxonomy is likely to attract a new breed of biologist, and there is no doubt that any extra money can be well spent. But it is only as good as the classical taxonomy on which it is based. There is not much point in being able to say, "This is a hair of a dog" unless you know what a dog is. Similarly, there is not much point in genetically sequencing a micro-organism unless its identity is already known.

What matters, therefore, is that the research councils should give their additional grants—as I hope they will—only to individuals and institutions where there will be guaranteed collaboration between molecular and classical taxonomists. That will help to produce a better-balanced cohort of taxonomists for the future. I do not think that either report makes that point sufficiently clearly.

As my noble friend Lord Dainton explained, the output of the new taxonomy is a database of organisms, on which can be hung all their other properties: their chemistry, their pharmaceutical properties, their importance for agriculture, forestry, conservation, and so on. Let me emphasise: the purpose of taxonomy is not to amuse taxonomists in their wakeful hours, or even to be a tool primarily for biologists; it is for everyone who wants to use, or avoid using, or even to eliminate, organisms for the benefit of mankind and the environment.

Therefore, the database has to be designed for the common man, or, at any rate, for the common technologist. It has to be used all over the world. The mycologist and former Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir John Burnett, who was kind enough to write to me, finds the development of such databases a "nightmare"—to use his word. They must be international and user-oriented, but must rely on a basic contribution from taxonomists, most of whom have little interest in applications. Industry may be expected to pay for the use of such a database, but who is to pay for its development? According to Sir John, neither research councils nor government departments acknowledge any responsibility. It seems to me to be a matter that requires further thought.

There are some differences between the two reports —that is, the NERC report and ours. The chief one is about how taxonomy should be taught in future. The NERC report would have it done by intensive vacation courses at the major curatorial institutions, with students visiting for short periods. We would prefer it done in universities as an integral part of the undergraduate course, helped by joint appointments with the institutions if necessary. To propose otherwise seems to give quite the wrong message to the student about priorities in biology. Apart from that, the degree of unanimity between the two reports is very considerable. It gives me encouragement that there is at last a will to take action on the part of those most directly responsible.

The great collections of the Natural History Museum, Kew and elsewhere are also in need of some additional resources, or at the very least stable core funding in real terms—although a greater problem seemed to us to be the lack of access to adequate scientific advice of those responsible in government for grant-aiding those collections, and the lack of access of the institutions themselves, except for the Natural History Museum, to the research councils for research grants. We recommended accordingly. We should not forget that those great collections are part of our national heritage, garnered from all over the world, from which much has been and can still be learnt about the world. We have a responsibility to the world for maintaining, researching and developing them properly.

Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Earl, both collections represent a tiny fraction of the species available in nature. Plants and fungi of potentially immense commercial value, about which we know practically nothing because they have neither been collected nor identified and studied, are being lost every day. Many of them are to be found in the developing countries, and ODA tries to do something to train its personnel. The time must soon come, surely, when those countries should be responsible for their own collections. If so, a much bigger training effort will be necessary, and a much increased international commitment to their funding. The matter is becoming urgent, as Rio made clear.

I should like to conclude with what I perceive to be a serious policy issue. The matter has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Zuckerman. In our report, we explore and attempt to explain how the lack of balance in the funding of biology, of which I also have spoken, has come about and has resulted in a serious neglect of systematic biology—the research itself, the curation of the collections and its position at the universities—to the extent that taxonomists have themselves, as the joke goes, become an endangered species. The same has happened in other countries; it is not a peculiarly British failing. It has come about because other aspects of biology, fast moving and interdisciplinary, have become more glamorous and have driven out taxonomy, not by deliberate policy decision so much as by myriad research grant adjudications—death by a thousand cuts—all based perfectly fairly on our cherished system of peer review.

I know of no better system than peer review for taking decisions about individual research grant applications. But it is notoriously inadequate for judging the relative merits of work in different disciplines—say, physics and chemistry. In the recent history of systematic biology we now have evidence that the peer review system cannot judge adequately even between the various subdivisions of a single subject. Systematic biology is not the first such subdivision to have suffered in that way. With hindsight, I now see more clearly, than once I did, how the rapid development immediately after the war of my own subject of nuclear physics—glamorous then because of its importance to atomic energy—led to less than adequate treatment of other branches of the subject, such as solid state physics, developments of which, ironically enough, were absolutely necessary to the furtherance of the nuclear power programme. Let no one think that science, any more than Wimbledon, is unaffected by fashion. I suspect that other branches of science, intrinsically important, are also suffering today for seeming unglamorous. The present tight funding of basic research makes that all the more likely, because it brings out atavistic tendencies in those who conduct peer reviews.

If you allow the seamless robe of science to wear thin in places, the fabric is more likely to get torn. Somehow we have to learn how to take better care of the fabric as a whole. If, as I hope, the Select Committee on Science and Technology decides later this year to undertake a study of the criteria for the funding of basic research, not least in the context of the new Office of Public Service and Science under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the integrity of the seamless robe is likely to come under close scrutiny, and some of the matters raised in the report that we are debating today will arise again in a wider context.

6.38 p.m.

The Earl of Selborne

My Lords, I consider myself very fortunate to have been a lay member of the committee. I am certainly not someone who is able to bring a great deal of expertise to the subject. In fact, I was especially lucky to be part of a subset which visited America. Those noble Lords who have read the Chairman's Appendix 5 will recognise that, if I was 50 per cent. of the Committee, then the other 50 per cent. did all the work. That will seen in the very full report of the visit to Washington.

I must admit that I joined the committee with some caution as to the Government's attitude towards systematics and national collections. I have been involved for over a year in protracted discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to what should happen to the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale. That was on the site of an experimental horticultural farm which, for good reasons, has been declared no longer required. The proposal, which seemed to me to be manifestly absurd for a perennial crop, was that it should be moved eight miles down the road to Wye College. There seemed to be a better way of arranging matters. Of course, if one is going to move a collection of apples down the road one will have to run the collection in parallel for at least eight years before it can be established that one has lost or saved part of the gene bank.

Our proposal was to form a trust, buy the land and run the National Fruit Collection, which was still to be funded by the Ministry, for it. That was thought to be an excellent idea. We saved the taxpayer £350,000. When I said, "Well, let's split the difference. You can endow our charity with your part", the answer, I am afraid, was the answer one always receives from the Treasury. Hence my jaundiced feeling about the Government's attitude to collections and, by extension, to systematics.

Like all who joined the committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to this—we were inundated with evidence from taxonomists and interested parties drawing attention to a narrow range of preoccupations. The first, which struck me most forcefully as a layman, was the feeling of mild persecution by the scientific fraternity itself—a feeling that there was a lack of recognition by scientists of the underpinning role that taxonomy affords, always has afforded and, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, always will afford. There was of course anxiety about the lack of funding, and one might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" But again, when one reads the report, one sees that the sums of money which have been asked for are not dramatic. They are certainly not dramatic in the face of the Biodiversity Convention in Rio. I thought that on balance the case was a fair one.

A third aspect which came out time and again was the lack of co-ordination of systematics; in other words, there was work going on around the world referring to national and international collections but there is not yet the technology available to enable that work of identification and classification to be undertaken in a way which would be desirable.

Against the anxiety that taxonomy was something of a Cinderella science, there was the paradox, which again has been referred to, that biological diversity has become a global issue; so we have more and more people worrying about the loss of biological diversity, and fewer and fewer people able to identify what is being lost. If one wanted to sum up the lack of recognition and how it is perceived I would quote Professor Bridgewater, director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service whose evidence is in the second volume. He said: Good systematics is a blend of science, art and technique which does not sit well with the leading edge science of the late 20th century". In other words, as with so much in this world, a slight element of snobbery creeps in. Yet we all recognise, and the report demonstrates time and time again, that every aspect of biological science has, in one form or another, to depend upon systematics. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, pointed out the successes in crop production which derive from genetics and taxonomy. One could reverse the argument and point out that there are unacceptable losses of crops in store. Some FAO figures that I have seen recently put that loss at 20 per cent. once the crops are harvested and in store. I suspect that much of that is because of an inability to identify adequately the pest or to know how to control it once identified.

If one takes, by extension, the loss in the field, which, clearly, is much higher, then one realises to what extent that branch of industrial effort depends upon taxonomy to enable it to deliver what will be required. Then, co-ordination is lacking: there is a mismatch of resources available in taxonomy and resources required. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, pointed out, so much of the biological diversity is in the tropical world—Latin America, South America and the Sub-Sahara—and yet, of course, much of the effort tends to he in North America and Europe. There was an article in the March 1992 edition of Nature by Mr. Gaston of the Natural History Museum and Professor May of Oxford which points out that 80 per cent. of practising ecological researchers—I take a wider remit here than just taxonomy—are based in North America and Europe, and probably 4 per cent. only in Latin America and the Sub-Sahara. While it is true that much work is being done in Europe—for example, on tropical groups—the effort is woefully inadequate. I read of a calculation made by Dr. Prance, the Director of Kew, which shows that at the current rate it will take 350 years to complete the flora neotropica and 950 years to complete the inventory of fungi for the same region.

The unfashionable areas of taxonomy—invertebrates, fungi and soil micro-organisms—are where the greatest gaps in our knowledge exist. If any impact is to be made on the appalling problem of trying to come to grips with so much diversity there is a need to develop global information systems to underpin taxonomic research.

All credit must be given to British scientists for providing just such leadership. For example, I could point out the Species Plantarum project currently being developed in a globally collaborative way at Kew, or the evidence we received from CAB International which told us of an initiative to form an international biosystematics network. I felt that that evidence took us quite a long way towards determining how modern technology might be developed to allow relatively unskilled taxonomists in the developing world, without scholarly credentials, to make what could be important contributions in the very area of the world where there is that mismatch between resources and effort required. I do not know whether one could coin the word "parataxonomist", but I think that demonstrates that what is required is people with a rudimentary knowledge but an ability to be able to enter data into what would probably be sophisticated databases with basic equipment. So much of the work is identification, which is a time-consuming and sometimes difficult art, as those of us who went to America saw, for example, in the Department of Agriculture's laboratories.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who pointed out that there is a danger that funding for those databases could fall between stools. The universities and the research councils recognise that such databases and access to them could have an enormous impact on resolving the great number-crunching game; and yet no one appears to be prepared to look at the funding. Funding is an issue which should be put at the top of the list of priorities.

I welcome the committee's emphasis on putting more effort into undergraduate time devoted to systematics. As there appear to be a number of people who will be taking part in the debate who are better qualified to speak for universities than I am, I make a plea that the impact could be made also in the secondary school system through the national curriculum. The subject used to be called natural history. I suspect that it is often now called ecology. I do not mind what it is called, but I believe that those of your Lordships who confess to having an interest in observing wildlife will admit that that was engendered at an early age, probably by an excellent natural history tutor, or ecology tutor depending upon one's age, and surely that is something that we should be delighted to see encouraged in the curriculum. If it requires a little adjustment to the national curriculum content, I for one would support it.

I should like to be totally parochial for a moment —"parochial" in the most literal sense. I think we all accept that Linnaeus must be described as the father of taxonomy. Perhaps I may put in a thoroughly prejudiced claim that Gilbert White, who wrote Natural History of Selborne, was the father of ecology. I quote him as an example of someone who has inspired generation after generation of children or adults to take an interest in what is going on around and observe for themselves and not just take the word of some laboratory analysis. In other words, he would not have understood what the word "ecology" meant, but he certainly was an ecologist. He demonstrated the interdependence of one species and another in precisely the way illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.

As Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, I, together with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who is Chairman of English Nature, have a small responsibility for the collation of much information which is collected by amateurs in this country. Without the enormous amount of work done by amateurs in a wide range of disciplines, there would be little chance that we could plan conservation policies sensibly.

We recognise that, even in this country, where there is a tradition of more than 200 years of amateur observation, there are enormous gaps in knowledge of micro-organisms, fungi and nematodes. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to this. If we are to plug these gaps, as surely we must, if only to fulfil our obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, we must increase at all levels an interest in systematics, starting at school and continuing in higher education and throughout the rest of our lives. Only then will we resolve the paradox that the funding and practice of taxonomy has been declining in the face of global concern about the loss of biological diversity.

6.53 p.m.

Lord Porter of Luddenham

My Lords, two years ago, as President of the Royal Society. I received more than 800 letters from all over the world; somewhat orchestrated perhaps, but all expressing concern that the great collections of the Natural History Museum and the research associated with them were in danger of neglect or even extinction through lack of support.

I was therefore relieved when I learnt that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology had undertaken the task of examining not only the problems of the Natural History Museum but the whole question of systematic biology research in the United Kingdom. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the work that he has done so effectively as chairman of that committee and for his lucid presentation to us today of its report.

The subject of systematic biology has caused little excitement in most academic circles since the great days of the last century and the Darwinian revolutions. Indeed, earlier this century the physicist, Lord Rutherford, pronounced his well-known opinion of the subject as stamp collecting. It was associated more with nature study than with a rigorous academic discipline; nor did it seem to have any important applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, it was a Cinderella.

Then came the great scientific revolution for which the second half of the 20th century will be best remembered, in which biology, allied to chemistry and physics, created the new science of molecular biology. Strangely enough, this made matters worse for the old systematic biologists. The subject became even less fashionable and had great difficulty in attracting young scientists or money from the more fashionable new science. The new biologists did not, in general, need systematics. One of them told me that for his work a diversity of species was not necessary—one was enough so long as it was E. coli.

Even more recently the world has come to realise that man's accelerating intrusion on nature every day causes species to become extinct, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, emphasised. The course of evolution is no longer the fair, if bloody, game described by Darwin. It is now a game for which homo sapiens makes the rules.

We are no longer pawns in that game, we are the players. The future of evolution is now in our hands. With the possible exception, for the time being, of some microbial parasites it is within our power to eliminate almost any living species from the face of the earth. It is also in our power to cause other species, including ourselves, to proliferate.

Man has appointed himself manager of the earth. We must take the job seriously because our property is fast disappearing, and without better management we may lose most of it altogether. The first need of a good manager is to know what he has to manage. He needs an inventory of the property of which he becomes the husbandman. That, of course, is the purpose of those who collect and classify the species.

There is a more immediate, practical purpose. These are early days in the history of genetic engineering and we know little about the multifarious genes available to us today which may not be available much longer. We would be wise to preserve the gene pool until we know what treasures it contains. It is, of course, an international responsibility but, as always, that means that it is principally a task for the more responsible nations—the developed nations; those who can do something about it. Furthermore, as has already been said, Britain is in a special position because of the collections which came to us as a result of our colonial history.

The matter is urgent and therefore the Select Committee's principal recommendations, given in paragraphs 9.7 and 9.15 of the report, are that the ABRC, or perhaps now the Office of Science and Technology—and in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that gives us a little hope that changes might be more facile—whoever is responsible, should establish a special fund for systematic biology research of, as we have heard, £1 million a year for five years. The recommendations are also that the systematics collections outside grant-aided institutions should be allotted a further £0.5 million per year by the new Department of National Heritage.

Recommendations for increased funding are not novel, nor are they always popular with Ministers. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, suggested, the ABRC does not need to have new money to advise that £1 million of the £928 million that is available this year to the research councils should be allocated to this important branch of research.

All areas of research have their lobbies, and the battles fought between them when they are starved of funds—as today they all believe they are—are fierce indeed. The problem of choosing between them has no rational solution. The scientists make a poor job of it and politicians usually do even worse. On this battleground of the giants (many of them with strong political or industrial support) a few curators, cataloguers and researchers of biological specimens have little chance of getting near the pot of gold. And why should they? What argument can they put forward, compared to the other sciences, which justifies making them a special case at the present time? There are in my view quite compelling arguments for systematic biology over its big spending predators such as astronomy and particle physics. I shall present just one argument.

The stars and the fundamental particles will still be with us, little changed, thousands of years hence, but most of the biological species will not. According to a recent report of the Natural Environment Research Council as many as a half of the world's animal and plant species are likely to be extinct in another 60 years. I know of no preferential case for other areas of science which carries as much force as that, whatever might be the relative long-term importance of those sciences. On the matter of intellectual merit, it is not obvious to me that the documentation and study of the stars—stamp collecting if you like—has any more intellectual content than the documentation and study of biodiversity and evolution.

Members of Select Committees have sometimes been accused of lobbying which presumably means supporting their own interest, friends or profession. I am not a systematic biologist (I am not systematic at anything) and nor were most other Members of the Select Committee with the notable exception, as we heard, of the noble Earl who has generously lent his name to a humble flea. Indeed, many Members of the committee have strong interests in other branches of science and are fully aware of their competing needs. Therefore, their recommendations for systematic biology cannot be regarded as special pleading.

I hope that Ministers and all who are responsible for the funding of scientific research in the United Kingdom will agree with the committee that the need for adequate funding for systematic biology is a special and urgent matter. We must seek out and learn about our neighbours on this planet before half of them live with us no longer.

7.3 p.m.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, for me, as a physician, it was a fascinating experience to serve on the sub-committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and so splendidly served by our specialist advisers, by Dr. Walters and by our other staff. I have no hesitation in supporting the points so lucidly and cogently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his opening speech. I wish warmly to support his conclusions and recommendations. I hope I may simply complement some of his comments, drawing upon our report.

As we made clear, systematic biology is not only of central importance to evolutionary theory; it also provides an essential framework for most other branches of applied biological science and produces major consequential benefits to mankind, both in human and in economic terms. The quality of our collections in the United Kingdom and the expertise of the many scientists who work in this field in this country—despite the fact that their average age, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, is becoming unacceptably high—stand comparison with any in the world.

The very nature of systematic biology is such that it is unlikely to attract substantial funding from private sources; hence the public purse must bear the brunt of expenditure. As core funding of major institutions has declined, the quality of research has inevitably suffered. Sadly, too, as several noble Lords have mentioned, the criteria of originality, reasonably applied by the research councils in awarding grants, has meant that applications seeking support for traditional systematic research have usually gone unfunded. The loss of expertise and the decline in research funding for this topic have placed systematic biology at increasing risk. In the view of our sub-committee the position reflects poorly upon the traditional peer review mechanism which works so well in many fields and which is generally used for the funding of science today.

I can only therefore support warmly the proposals set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to the effect that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils or the Office of Science and Technology should be invited to establish a special fund, as he recommended, for the support of systematic biology research and that the Department of National Heritage should establish a rolling programme of expenditure to assist systematic collections outside the grant aided institutions. We certainly need a new forum representing systematic institutions in order to rationalise holdings and expertise. As the noble Lord indicated, we also need specially designated and funded MSc courses in our universities for the training of young scientists in this discipline.

It follows in my view that no important collections should be left without regular attention from a research scientific officer who is contracted to attend to them. While highly trained technical staff of good quality can and do play a major role in their conservation, such collections also provide a rich resource for continuing research. Hence it is crucial in my opinion that those appointed as curators should have the scientific expertise and the ability to develop research programmes through the use of the material which they conserve.

Another point of fundamental importance referred to by several noble Lords is that both teaching and research in systematic biology have contracted in many British universities to such an extent that the subject could be in serious danger of extinction as a sustainable discipline. It is true that in the past some courses in taxonomy proved to be dull and uninspiring, being described by some student recipients as little more than prosaic stamp collecting, the Rutherford obiter dicta mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. These courses often required the massive acquisition, and subsequent regurgitation for examination purposes, of large chunks of at times indigestible facts. However, this is no longer so as developments in molecular biology and information technology have added genuine excitement to the discipline and can now supplement rather than supplant traditional taxonomic teaching. However, to use an important medical analogy, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, investigation of structure and function at the molecular level can lead the investigator seriously astray if the first step of classification based upon gross anatomy is inaccurate.

These points have been stressed again and again in our report but have also been highlighted—this has been pointed out—in the report of the committee of the Natural Environment Research Council entitled Evolution and Biodiversity—the New Taxonomy. I refer to the Krebs Committee. That report calls for a special initiative in taxonomy, first because molecular biology has opened new horizons and, secondly, because there is a greater urgency than ever for the documentation of world biodiversity in the face of the high rate of extinction of species, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and others. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said at the outset of this debate, this country has a global responsibility which it cannot demit in view of the quality and extent of its national, university and local collections in museums, herbaria and botanical gardens which are among the greatest in the world.

It came as a great surprise to me to learn that, as set out in Table 2.1 of our report, current evidence suggests that all 4,000 mammalian species in the world have been known and described along with 90 per cent. of fish, 99 per cent. of birds and probably some 81 per cent. of flowering plants and ferns. However, there is evidence to suggest—it was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—that only about 10 per cent. of bacteria and other pathogenic organisms have yet been recognised and classified. The specification of microbes causing disease, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa and fungi, is a fundamental requirement of medical practice and of veterinary pathology. The accurate identification of disease organisms is essential in drug resistance work as the price of getting it wrong in this field can be fatality or serious disability.

I had the privilege about 18 months ago of visiting the Public Health Laboratory Service reference laboratory at Colindale. I saw there the splendid work that is being done on the classification and identification of many pathogenic organisms. Similar work in this country is going on in the virological field. But these are reference laboratories and although they carry out some research they are dependent for the basic research involved in the identification of new species of viruses, bacteria and parasites upon university departments of microbiology, virology and parasitology in which much of the basic work is being done. Similarly, if toxic biological material, of whatever source, is accidentally ingested by human subjects, rapid identification of the causal agent and of any antidote, if known, is essential for appropriate treatment. Yet again, the correct identification of plants, animals and insects, and increasingly of fungi, often used as the source of drugs, can be a life or death matter. In the medical journal, the Lancet, last week there was a report of a carefully designed controlled trial of treatment using ancient Chinese herbal remedies for the treatment of eczema—a trial which clearly demonstrated very substantial benefit.

The Chinese herbal remedies were presented to the individuals in an appallingly foul concoction and the placebo in the control group had to be similarly foul to avoid any scientific bias. Nevertheless, there was a very substantial benefit. Of course the question now being asked is: what is the active ingredient, or what are the active ingredients? As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, Kew told us how the predictive use of systematics enabled them to track down a suitable source of the hydroxyalkalide castanospermine, currently showing potential value as a treatment for AIDS. The source in question was a South American tree of the genus Alexa.

I could refer to many other matters of fundamental importance in the field of systematic biology to the practice of medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, referred to the interest of the Royal Colleges in this field. Not unnaturally, as so many drugs now used in the practice of medicine are of herbal origin and many others come from a variety of biological sources, the pharmaceutical industry is interested in this particular field. But, as happens so often in British research, the pharmaceutical industry is absolutely brilliant at the exploitation of the discovery of a species which is likely to have an important biological or medical effect, but the actual classification, the taxonomic research upon which the discovery of such organisms depends, is in my view fundamentally related to the core funding to which many have referred during the debate. And of course we have seen in the biological field the enormous developments resulting from biotechnology, the production of huge quantities of single-cell proteins by bacteria and the genetic engineering of human insulin, using E. coli. Even more recently and still in the experimental stage, we have seen the prospective use of harmless viruses to which gene transcripts can be spliced in order to carry the missing protein products responsible for certain inherited diseases into human cells. All these depend upon taxonomic research and identification of the appropriate organisms which can be used in this way.

Posterity would not, I am sure, forgive us if we neglect this important subject which, as I hope I have been able to show, is not just concerned with scientific curiosity and extension of the span of human knowledge, although that alone would justify a rescue programme. The topic is one which is vital to the future of mankind. I therefore support warmly the conclusions and recommendations of the report so lucidly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.

In concluding, I offer my apologies to the noble Lord and to the Minister for the fact that because this debate started so much later than had been expected, regrettably I may have to leave before the end because of a long standing prior engagement.

7.15 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and to his committee for their report on systematic biology and for the opportunity to debate the issues that it raises. The importance, breadth and timeliness of this subject have been underlined by other noble Lords with considerable authority. I am not a scientist but I have experience of the practical application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology, of the benefits that can result from studying the nature, function, behaviour and attributes of organisms and in particular of its potential for providing simple, cost-effective solutions to complex and expensive problems.

To illustrate what can be achieved I shall briefly describe two very successful applications—one in the United Kingdom and one in West Africa—and also one potential application recently identified in the United States of America. The British example involves the controlled reintroduction of constructed wetlands for the treatment of industrial, infrastructural and domestic waste waters. In most developed countries irrigating wastes on to nearby land ceased early this century in favour of engineered solutions such as the activated sludge process. These techniques, however, are no longer completely effective: nor are they popular. Their ability to cope with current waste requirements, some of which are laid down legal standards, is variable. Where they fail, as they often do, significant pollution results to the rivers and coasts which receive their inadequately treated effluents.

As an alternative means of effective and sensitive waste water treatment, the attention now being paid to wetland systems, and most especially reed-beds, represents a backwards leap in terms of technology. It has been made possible in this stringent age, however, because of a forwards leap in understanding the organisms involved. The exact nature, function and inter-relationship of the aerobic bacteria around the root zones, the anaerobic bacteria in the surrounding sediment and the reeds themselves represent a biological matrix which can break down and stabilise organic wastes, nutrients and a variety of chemical compounds. This process can also render many toxic metals and toxic chemicals less harmful. Furthermore, the reeds themselves can take up a proportion of the waste, including metals, and aquatic plants are being used to extract and recover precious metals from waste waters.

To those unfamiliar with traditional wetlands treatments, reed-beds may appear to he limited in their capacity and application. This is not necessarily the case. ICI's Chemical and Polymers Division at Billingham was using the nearby River Tees to an unacceptable level to dispose of poorly treated phenolic wastes. In order to tackle the substantial damage being done to the river, ICI established just five hectares of reed-beds—and this despite ICI's huge commitment to state-of-the-art technology. Other important established applications include the domestic waste of rural communities, the treatment of landfill leachates, the run-off from intensive livestock operations on farms and the run-off from road surfaces.

This application of systematic biology research offers not only a solution to a water pollution problem but also, through the provision of managed wetland habitats, a separate and very real contribution to the conservation and enhancement of local flora and fauna. Bio-diversity in many parts of the world is severely threatened by the loss of wetland habitats. This happy coincidence can be deliberately incorporated into the design and management of reed-beds because—and I stress this—maximum conservation, habitat creation and landscaping can be achieved without compromising treatment potential.

The reintroduction of reed-beds illustrates how in an environmentally sensitive world advances in the knowledge that is prompted by systematic biology can enable a cheap, reliable and robust solution to be applied with complete confidence to an awkward problem.

The second example also involves water but is otherwise in complete contrast. Many of Africa's most pressing human and environmental problems revolve around water. It is a vital resource for sustaining populations and their agriculture but it is also associated with some well-known and widespread diseases.

In Cameroon in West Africa the irrigation system that followed the construction of a large dam tempted a wave of new settlers from drier and more crowded areas. It also led to significant increases in mosquitoes and amphibious snails and in the incidence of malaria, bilharzia and other water-related vector-borne diseases. At the same time the dam and subsequent irrigation upset the traditional fish farming on which many communities rely.

A lot of international aid, advanced technology and money might have been thrown at this problem. However, an inspired application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology research has provided an extraordinarily successful solution. A combined fish culture and water management project was devised. Its objective was to prove that the inter-relationship and the behavioural attributes of fish, vegetation and insects could be exploited to reduce dramatically the malaria and bilharzia while simultaneously providing food and jobs for the local population. That was achieved: Fish farming was introduced to the water systems; the habitat and vegetation management required for fish culture reduced the breeding conditions for mosquitoes; those fish that feed off mosquito larvae and snails were deliberately selected; and, as anticipated, the project was popular at a community level as it combined an effective control of a health hazard with jobs and food for the local villagers.

As with the reed-bed programme, the application of specialised knowledge has enabled a simple solution; it has been cheap to implement and cheap to run. The benefits have been diverse and the local commitment impressive. One further important parallel is that its potential application elsewhere is considerable.

The third example, over which I shall be extremely brief, concerns nuclear waste. In the USA a government scientist studying the behaviour of the Jimson plant, which is one of their indigenous weeds, has recently discovered that among its unsavoury habits is the ability to digest plutonium. The plutonium is taken up in a protein compound and carried in the plant's cells without ill effect to itself. The potential of that knowledge, according to the US energy department, is that the plants can then be ground down into a paste, enabling nuclear waste to be stored more compactly and more easily and therefore at a fraction of the present cost.

I do not want to dwell on the detail. Further research is needed before the Jimson's case is proven. But the principle behind the discovery deserves emphasis. As with water pollution and water-related diseases, there is a problem of substantial proportions where the fundamental investigation, analysis and knowledge of organisms have thrown up the possibility of a simple solution.

Maintaining systematic biology research is an investment that can ultimately save money, quite apart from the life-saving and environmental benefits that will also accrue. The two proven applications that I have described relate to problems which might otherwise cost millions of pounds in the absence of sufficient scientific knowledge. Furthermore, where costs are huge, many countries cannot meet them unaided. So directly or indirectly it is the developed nations such as ourselves which have to carry much of the bill.

But the two solutions to which I referred can cost just thousands for their implementation and hundreds in their operation. If one multiplies the saving by the number of sites to which the same solutions would apply and takes into account that the much reduced costs can often be met without recourse to national or international funds, then suddenly systematic biology research is a very wise and prudent investment for any government to make.

7.22 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I was flattered to be asked by my noble friend Lord Dainton to take part in this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee which conducted this inquiry and I am not a scientist. Indeed, as a layman I am somewhat nervous in such very distinguished scientific company. But I have had a lifelong interest in natural history and more recently I have been much concerned with conservation and the environment, not least as chairman of Wildlife Link.

By chance, not long ago I visited the Natural History Museum at the invitation of the director, Dr. Chalmers, and saw something of the work of the museum in the field under discussion. I have read the report and a good deal of the evidence. I find the report clear, lucid and wholly persuasive. We must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues. The report reflects what seems to be a striking unanimity in the views of large numbers of witnesses from this country and elsewhere. I support its recommendations, which seem to me modest and sensible.

The picture is clear. Everyone agrees that systematic research is fundamental to biological science. Professor Bradshaw put it with admirable clarity when he said: The utility of systematic research arises simply from the fact that work on living organisms cannot proceed without knowledge of what they are and to what group they belong. So it is imperative that the relevant knowledge and expertise are always available and up to date and the collections on which this knowledge is based are available and well cared for. Biology without these is unthinkable". However, the report shows clearly that this indispensable subject has been allowed to decline at our universities, to the point at which far too few qualified people are coming forward. The Natural History Museum and Kew have therefore to recruit research staff from America and elsewhere. The universities and perhaps the Natural Environment Research Council are, I believe, much to blame for that state of affairs. It seems to me that they have allowed the vagaries of fashion to extinguish a vital discipline. That is wrong. For example, CAB International points out that with small exceptions: formal systematic training in botany and mycology has virtually disappeared from United Kingdom universities … United Kingdom teaching of insect biosystematics is generally inadequate". It further points out that teaching: is at the mercy of the shifting whims of successive heads of university departments". The Natural History Museum says that: There are few, if any, genuinely exciting courses in systematic biology in universities or polytechnics in the United Kingdom". Dr. Colin Patterson says that systematics has declined almost to the point of extinction in United Kingdom universities because of competing biological disciplines. It seems obvious that steps must be taken urgently to restore the subject to its rightful place in our education system. Nowadays, with DNA studies, molecular biological tools, computers and information technology, it is evidently by no means a dry as dust subject.

Apart from its essential underpinning of all biology, as the evidence makes clear, systematics has many and varied practical applications—for example, in the assessment of water quality, as Professor Anderson of Imperial College pointed out; in identifying remaining bird fragments after collision with aircraft to understand which bird species constitute the principal hazard to aircraft, as the British Ornithologist's Union told the sub-committee; or even (so I read) in forensic entomology by determining the time of death of a corpse by accurately identifying and ageing the maggots in it.

We are fortunate in possessing in this country as part of the legacy of the Empire unique reference collections—above all, those at the Natural History Museum and Kew. Those are perhaps the finest in the world and of enormous importance internationally. We have a clear duty to look after them properly. But, mainly because the Government have cut down funding in real terms—by 8 per cent. over the past 10 years in the case of the Natural History Museum—we do not look after them adequately. Professor Cain says: I have been asked abroad embarrassing questions about what the British think they are doing to their national collections". The British Ornithologists' Union says that the bird collection at the Natural History Museum is: already seriously deteriorating … many specimens arc brittle or impregnated with damaging grease and have detached heads, wings, legs and even labels … the incorporation of new bird material is minimal". That state of affairs clearly ought to be remedied.

The Natural History Museum was described by one witness as the largest and most representative collection of zoological specimens in the world. It also has a unique library. Cuts in government funding led to some research departments being placed on a care and maintenance basis, which in turn led to a worldwide outcry against what Professor Dr. Werner Greuter of the Berlin Botanic Garden described as almost catastrophic cuts in staff and funds. The scientific staff at the museum has declined by one-third since the mid 1960s. Professor Bryan Clarke points out that: The collections are being curated but capacity for expanding them and studying them is severely limited". The museum has clearly not given in to despair. It has made a valiant and praiseworthy effort to concentrate and develop its scientific work, which is of real practical importance. One example in which the museum is involved is the study of marine diversity. It is working with 17 other European organisations and studying fish, their parasites and the organisms found in the deposits on the sea beds. Much of that work is being carried out in deep sea areas which are very poorly known. It is relevant to the sustainable management of fisheries and in relation to policies on the dumping of waste materials into the seas.

When I visited the museum I was shown the very interesting "Worldmap" computer program for identifying priority areas for biodiversity conservation. That is work which has immediate relevance to the agreement reached at Rio on biodiversity. The museum has also initiated the European Museum Network and functions as its secretariat. It is studying the mineral status of African soils in wildlife management and establishing biosystematic collaboration to defeat insect-borne tropical diseases because, as it points out, targeted eradication programmes have minimal impact on local biodiversity but depend on taxonomic accuracy.

It seems to me that the Natural History Museum and Kew—two world class institutions—must from now on be adequately funded to enable them to do properly the nationally and internationally important scientific work which they are uniquely equipped to do. Kew has said that it has at present 75 per cent. of its needs. It should have the other 25 per cent. The Natural History Museum needs a firm platform of core funding which must keep pace with inflation—a steady base rather than, as hitherto, steady attrition. I understand that in its corporate plan the museum has made a supplementary bid for running costs of £2.2 million over the next two years. It seems to me essential that it should receive that and thereafter be able to rely on being kept properly supplied with the basic funds on a steady, reliable basis while encouraged to continue, as now, to raise money itself from other sources as it has been doing with marked success.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, I participate in this debate with some diffidence. I am not a biologist, nor even a scientist. My only claim is that I am a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, which has spent a good deal of time in recent months discussing systematic biology and taxonomic research. I shall have some practical comments on our conclusions in a moment.

As a layman I find it curious, not to say paradoxical, that although we all believe in biodiversity we allow our research capability to decline. We all sign up to the Rio convention. We believe—do we not?—in the, ethical imperative of stewardship", and in having, a moral duty to look after our planet and hand it on in good order". I use phrases from the White Paper, This Common Inheritance. On the other hand, the underpinning research for all that, that it is fundamental to rational planning for biological conservation—to use a phrase of Professor Robert May—has been allowed to collapse. Chapter 7 of the admirable and, more importantly, timely report that we are discussing is entitled just that: Collapse of Systematic Research at the Universities. Those are blunt words.

We see, for example, from the histograms in the report how few people in the higher education institutes sector teach systematic biology. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to that. The most striking factor was the decline in numbers in the under-35 age group. If the figures are to be believed, in 1990 there were less than 20 people in that age group in the whole of the UK. Without good teaching how can we expect good research because there will not be the people to do it?

I cannot begin to match the eloquence or real knowledge of the distinguished scientists who have already spoken. I had written down some rather naive remarks, but I shall move on since the hour is getting late.

The principal recommendation of the report is that the ABRC should set aside £5 million over five years for taxonomy research. Reference has been made to that by numerous speakers. That was in January. In May the NERC announced its intention to mount an initiative from within its own baseline funding to help reinvigorate taxonomic research and training in the UK. The scope of the initiative and the funding available were agreed at the council's meeting this morning. That initiative by NERC addresses one of the critical areas of deficiency identified in the Select Committee report—the recruitment of younger, talented people into taxonomic research. That area was also highlighted in the other report to which much reference has been made today; namely, the report of the committee set up by NERC under Professor John Krebs. It recommended inter alia roughly the same level of funding. Its objectives have been referred to today; that is, to identify new scientific opportunities in taxonomy. As has already been said, it complements the Select Committee's report. I do not need to go more into that because much has been said already about the relationship of that report to the Select Committee report.

However, I wish to say a few words about the NERC initiative. It comprises packages of measures aimed at stimulating undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and research, both through the appointment of research fellows and through research grants. An Announcement of Opportunity will be published in September 1992 inviting bids from higher education institutions for three of those packages, each for five years' duration.

The essence of the package will be two NERC fellowships in taxonomy which we intend to be viewed as prestigious appointments with the hack-up that goes with them: two research grants and a small contribution—an important point—to enable postgraduate students to attend short technical courses; for example, at the Natural History Museum or the European course in Amsterdam. That is a positive contribution.

NERC support for that initiative will total about £2.2 million in total over the five-year period. That is a little under half the figure that was recommended in the Select Committee report. However, there are some important strings attached to the offer. They are important because apart from anything else they are novel. Provision of the support will be dependent on the HEIs providing evidence of their commitment to teaching taxonomy at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and of their partnership with the great taxonomic collections which are relevant to their teaching and research. I believe that those provisos are novel. They go beyond the normal research grant-giving system. They call for a commitment to teaching. That I believe is a highly relevant consideration.

That is what we in NERC propose to do. I should emphasise that that is additional to the £2 million a year that we already spend in this field. It goes a long way towards the committee's target of £5 million over five years. One must hope that others will follow that lead. It is only a first step in addressing one of the most critical problems and it is necessarily money taken from other baseline funding which is already tight. We had a fairly agonising discussion this morning about where we would find the money. Needless to say, some recommended that it be taken from one pocket and others suggested that it should be from another. But we will find the money. However, it indicates that we in NERC take the issue seriously. One hopes too that the Government will react in a similar vein. Reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that this could be a useful objective of the Darwin Initiative announced recently by the Prime Minister at Rio.

The injection of funds by NERC is aimed specifically at stimulating the environmental applications of taxonomic research. We hope that it will lead to a number of high quality young taxonomists working in this area who will be able to win future support through the usual competitive routes and who, by example, will also bring more high quality postgraduates to view taxonomy as an exciting research topic.

It is clearly not a total answer to the Select Committee's report and should not be seen as such. However, it provides a possible model for those concerned with other aspects of taxonomic research to consider. It should also help to enhance the links between the collections and the HEIs. We recognise the importance of the support of the collections. There has been much reference to that support today.

7.39 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Natural History Museum, as I believe other speakers in the debate have been in the past. Perhaps I should also declare an interest as Master of Birkbeck College at which we undertake some work in systematics.

I very much welcome the Select Committee report. I believe that it focuses on an important area of scientific research. We have had a useful and interesting debate on the topic, with contributors who have very much more expertise in the area than I do. Above all, the debate has been marked by support for the Select Committee's recommendations and by the unanimity of support for improved funding for research in systematic biology.

As the Select Committee rightly states, research in this field must be supported largely by public funds. It is fundamental research which, although it has many spin-offs for other branches of science, is unlikely to attract a great deal of private-sector support. I say that in spite of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about sponsorship of named species. I like the idea but I suspect that it will not produce the kind of sums that are needed.

Research in this area has been hit by a failure to provide adequate resources in three main areas. First, the research councils have insufficient funds to support many alpha-rated proposals in what are currently more fashionable specialisms than systematic biology. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that those carrying out research in this area have difficulty in obtaining research council funds. However, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about the intentions of the NERC.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has explained so clearly, individual university departments of biology are no exception with regard to the diminishing funds available to universities to support research. It is increasingly necessary for the heads of institutions to tell their staff that they must go outside the institution to acquire funds to pay for their research facilities and for their research staff. Facilities for research in systematics are now considerably more expensive.

I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was fair in criticising the universities for failing to support the work. Clearly fashions change and this particular area of work has become less glamorous. However, it is difficult for universities to provide adequate facilities for even the most fashionable areas of research, let alone for areas such as systematic biology.

Thirdly, the major collections at our national institutions have suffered from declining funding in real terms. That has undoubtedly affected the curation work of the museums as well as damaging their research output. The Government's agreement to accept the Select Committee's recommendations would go a long way towards rescuing this important field of research from what otherwise appears bound to be a continuing decline leaving systematists on the brink of extinction. In present circumstances it is unlikely to attract many talented young scientists because research conditions are too limited to provide the necessary encouragement. My noble friend Lady Nicol regretted that students no longer find the work attractive, but it is clear why they do not.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the committee's recommendations are modest. The sums involved are tiny in public expenditure terms and therefore I hope that we shall have a positive reply from the Minister. If the scientists concerned receive another rebuff that would be most galling.

As my colleagues who are systematists have reminded me, there is for an interested taxonomist a sense of déjà vu about the report. Its principal recommendations are similar to those made in the late 1970s by a review group on taxonomy acting for the ABRC. They were published as long ago as 1979. Both reports recommend that financial support for major institutions should be maintained; that taxonomic research should be specifically supported by the science budget; and that postgraduate training should be expanded. I am afraid to say that the necessity for the present report stems largely from the failure to implement the recommendations of the earlier report. How many more reports must be written before we see some action to preserve this work?

I turn briefly to the reason why systematics is important. I have heard it said that the work is now largely unnecessary because so much of it has been done and most species have been described and defined. The Select Committee has rightly refuted that view. We are nowhere near encompassing the diversity of tropical plant and insect life. For example, every year some 20,000 newly-recognised species of insect are described in some 8,000 scientific publications. Secondly, the expanding science of molecular biology is generating many new insights into the diversity and relationships of plants and animals. Thirdly, every generation needs trained systematists for the simple task of putting the available information to good use.

Systematics provides a necessary framework for various areas of applied biology. That includes important fields outside the academic world; for example, in medicine and veterinary science. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, talked eloquently about the importance of the work in areas such as the identification of pathogens, parasites, carriers and so forth. It is also of great value in the area of pharmaceuticals. Drugs were once entirely derived from plants and, although many are now synthetic, the plants of the world are still a vast reservoir for complex compounds with useful biomedical properties.

As regards agriculture, the identification of fungal, weed and insect pests is most important. The work is also important in fisheries because the exact effects of fishing and over-fishing can be assessed only if local fish populations can be identified and monitored. The effects of industrial pollution of land, rivers and sea can be understood only by comparing the diversity and types of animals of polluted and unpolluted areas. As regards fossil fuels, important work is done by systematists in geology and biology. Concentrations of fossil fuels are located not by lucky-dip drilling but by a proper and systematic analysis of sedimentary basins. A major component of that analysis is the precise identification of fossils within drill cores in order to match geographically separate drill cores with each other and with surface exposures. In all those activities those involved must use the work of biologists trained in the identification of organisms.

Systematists are also important in the preservation of the environment. There is now a growing concern about the conservation of biodiversity. A number of speakers have referred to that. I was glad that the Prime Minister signed the Convention on Biodiversity at the recent Rio conference. However, some of us would like to know a little more about how much the Government are prepared to do to demonstrate their commitment to the convention, in particular through projects which would be valuable to the developing countries.

It is essential that third world countries have an up-to-date inventory of their own biodiversity and biological natural resources. For example, the reversal of desertification in North Africa depends on understanding the vegetation. The destruction of tropical rainforests is happening on a piecemeal and somewhat anarchic basis. We should be a little naive to think that it could be stopped altogether. However, it is possible that it could be directed, with some areas given priority for conservation while others are either harvested on a renewable basis or destroyed. Systematists have already shown that tropical rainforests are not all equal in content. Some are very old and have rich fauna and others more recent in origin have less extensive flora and fauna. Clearly we need more work in that area.

Developing countries must be given both help and support. The Government should perhaps look at the possibility of sponsoring biodiversity courses in the UK with ODA funds. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is being considered. The Government may also consider promoting a European Community systematic biology programme. There is a case for providing consultancies for UK staff to travel abroad to give courses and run workshops in developing countries to help to build up local expertise and infrastructure.

No doubt in her reply the Minister will refer to the Government's commitment to the Darwin Initiative. I know that the Natural History Museum, Kew and Edinburgh are willing to support it. However, so far no financial commitment has been mentioned. Without that, it is difficult to see how the initiative differs much from the status quo. Assessment of biological diversity of, for example, rainforests could only be undertaken by teams of biologists trained in the study of the range of rainforest plants and animals. Such teams do not exist at present; they would have to be created and funded. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will be able to say something about the level of funding which the Government will make available to that initiative.

More generally on the question of resources, the NERC report on the new taxonomy has, like the Select Committee, calculated that about £1 million per annum is now needed for taxonomic research and training over the next five years. As the Select Committee made clear—and a number of noble Lords have referred to this—we must get more new blood into the discipline. When staff have retired they have not been replaced and the age structure of people in that sphere is now badly skewed. Training courses and research opportunities proposed by the NERC will help, but again the funding must be available. There are many other competing claims, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said.

More is also needed to improve the core funding of the major collections. At the Natural History Museum there has been an 8 per cent. decline in government grant-in-aid over the past 10 years. In smaller museums around the country the position is even worse. We cannot allow the irreplaceable collections in our national museums to deteriorate further. They really must be properly maintained. To fail to do that and to allow those collections of global importance to deteriorate would, in my view, be highly irresponsible.

Academics in higher education institutions and the museums have been struggling to keep that important work going. I congratulate the Select Committee on drawing those problems to our attention. I hope that on this occasion we shall receive a positive response from the Minister and the report will not suffer the same fate as the earlier report in the 1970s on the same subject.

7.53 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, although daunted by the task of replying to the debate—it is not a subject with which I am familiar or in which I have any expertise —I wish to say what a privilege it has been to listen to a most interesting discussion.

I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for initiating the debate. I am grateful to him and to the other members of the Select Committee who contributed to the production of the report. The work of the Select Committee is widely valued and the committee is to be congratulated on producing a comprehensive report on an important subject.

My noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Selborne and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, introduced themselves as lay people. I hope that those with greater expertise in these matters, who have listened to the debate, will agree with me that they made a good job of fooling us that they are lay people. They made impressive speeches.

The Government welcome the contribution that the committee makes to the consideration of scientific and technological issues, and look forward to a continuing and constructive dialogue with the committee. The report considers the subject of systematic biology in depth and makes a number of recommendations. The Government are considering those recommendations most carefully and plan to make a written response later in the year.

I listened to the debate with interest. I am sure that the departments which have an interest in systematic biology—and there are several—will read Hansard carefully. A number of important points have been made; I intend to cover some of those later. I should first like to touch upon some of the initiatives that have happened since the publication of the report earlier this year. Most will be known to your Lordships since they have already been discussed and debated in recent weeks in this House. However, I beg your Lordships' indulgence in bringing them together under the umbrella of today's Motion since I feel they have a bearing on our consideration of the report today.

Most importantly, from a global perspective we have had the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. Although, to some, the outcome of the conference may not have met early expectations, your Lordships will know of, and have welcomed, the various positive initiatives that impinge on the subject we are debating today. The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, provides a framework for international co-operation to protect the world's species and their habitats. It paves the way for the conservation and sustainable development of natural resources worldwide and facilitates the sharing of the benefits of valuable biological resources through partnerships forged between north and south.

We are following up the biodiversity convention through the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of the Species which the Prime Minister also announced in his speech at Rio. The Darwin Initiative reflects the United Kingdom's position as a world leader in conservation and in the sustainable use of the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. It will place at the disposal of other countries the skills and experience of our leading institutions.

A number of noble Lords asked about funding. The precise funding requirements for the initiative have yet to be finalised but I assure the House that that valuable initiative will not be allowed to founder for lack of resources.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also announced at Rio the substantial commitment of new funds which this Government will be contributing to the 2 billion to 3 billion-dollar replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. The Government have made that commitment of up to £100 million because of the value they place on the projects which the facility undertakes for the benefit of the global environment and they look to other countries to join in making financial commitments. At the same time we shall want to be sure that the money is spent wisely on projects of good scientific value. We shall therefore be pushing for proper assessment and evaluation of projects funded by the Global Environment Facility, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.

The environmental and ethical reasons for seeking to conserve biological diversity are compelling. But there are also some economic considerations, particularly in relation to the exploitation of useful genes for agricultural and industrial purposes. To ensure that genetic diversity is available for future development—so that, for example, we can respond to future challenges and changes in climate, pests and diseases—the Government fund a number of arboreta, botanic gardens and plant gene banks. In recognition of the role which ex-situ conservation of plant genetic resources can play within the wider field of biodiversity conservation, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, working with the Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department, recently concluded a review of the subject and is in the process of implementing its recommendations. Those can be expected to result in better co-ordination, better value for money and better utilisation of the United Kingdom's important collections.

Another significant event—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—has been the publication of a review by the Natural Environment Research Council, under a committee chaired by Professor John Krebs. That review—Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy—complements the report we are debating today. It concentrates on the new scientific opportunities in the field of taxonomy and its related disciplines, and demonstrates the positive commitment that NERC is making to taxonomy. The report coincided with the launching of a new initiative by the NERC aimed at taxonomic research and training in the United Kingdom. Under that initiative, higher education institutions will be offered the opportunity to bid for five-year packages of funding which the council intends should act as a pump priming, encouraging the higher education institutions to commit a greater share of their own resources to taxonomy. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is a member of the NERC, for the further details of the initiative that he supplied today. I understand that there was a meeting today.

Those are just some of the ways in which this Government and their institutions are giving positive support to systematic biology. Together they present a more prosperous and productive future for systematic biology in the United Kingdom than is presented in the report we are debating today. That does not mean that the problems which the report identifies do not exist: there are undoubtedly areas where matters could be improved. But in many areas of science, the picture changes continually, priorities change, and it is important to look forward to new opportunities and new goals.

A number of points were raised during the debate, some of which I shall respond to; otherwise I shall write to noble Lords. On the matter of the recommendations concerning funding raised in the first instance by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I am afraid that I am not in a position to respond with details today. I hope that he and others will understand that they must await a written response. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will be considering the recommendations concerning funding most carefully to see whether further money can be added to the substantial sums already spent each year on systematic biology. Your Lordships will know that resources are finite and that there are many demands on the public purse. The Government's job is to balance priorities and resources, and the report and the debate today will help to inform that process.

Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the age distribution of university systematists. While the lack of new blood is a matter for concern, the NERC report, Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy, showed that the problem is not unique to systematic biology and it is important that we look to new opportunities. That is exactly what the initiative announced by the NERC in May sets out to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, highlighted the recommendation that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils should assess the need for MSc courses and allocate funding. I must remind your Lordships that the ABRC has an advisory rather than executive role in the allocation of research expenditure. The Government cannot answer for the ABRC today. However I can give the House the view of the Government, which is that the scientific community should get together with the Funding and Research Councils to determine the need for trained systematists and tackle any areas where shortage of supply is constraining the development of science and its application. The NERC initiative is a creditable first step in improving training opportunities in higher education.

The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Whaddon, also mentioned the recommendation that the Department of National Heritage should have access to scientific advice. That is a new department; its organisation is still being developed. The recommendation is something which I am sure it will be considering carefully. However, I would not like your Lordships to think that that fine institution, the Natural History Museum, takes decisions in blissful ignorance of science. The board of trustees for the museum of which the noble Baroness is a member, has on it several eminent scientists who provide the necessary scientific advice.

The Government are sympathetic to the recommendation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that a forum should be established to develop a national curatorial policy. The Government are considering how best to set up such a forum, which could also build links with overseas institutions to develop an international framework for systematics.

My noble friend Lord Cranbrook posed the direct question in regard to the progress that had been made on the Darwin project. Perhaps I can add to what I said. We have already taken part in preliminary discussions with some of the organisations and institutions which we hope will be involved in the initiative. We invited all public and private organisations with an interest to contact us. The action team will be formed from representatives of institutions, NGOs, industry and government officials. The hope is that the whole debate will be furthered and that we shall have more to report in a short time.

In response to my noble friend's wonderful suggestion that we should name species after contemporary fellows, I was reminded by my noble friend on the Front Bench that there exists a giraffe known as the Thornicroft Giraffe, found in Zambia. I understand that the proper name is Giraffa Camelopardalis Thornicroftii. Whether that has any relationship to our noble colleague in this House, I am not sure.

My noble friend also asked for progress and ratification. Ratification will depend on satisfactory understandings and arrangements that take full account of the concerns of the United Kingdom in regard to financial commitments and potential liabilities.

My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to science in the national curriculum. I am delighted to say that for the first time ever there is now a requirement that all children shall be taught science from the age of five through to 16. As someone who frequently visits schools as part of my job, I can only say that there are exciting things happening in science in our schools today. That certainly bodes well for the future and for a growing number of scientifically aware young people.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke of the ICI reed beds. I am aware of the success of the reed beds planted by ICI in the Middlesbrough area. It is an impressive project, and we take note of my noble friend's comments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to core funding by the ODA of taxonomic institutes overseas. The ODA's overall task is to support development in poor developing countries. That is achieved by funding projects and programmes that directly support development. Some of the activities currently supported are indeed in institutions carrying out taxonomic research including, among others, the Goeldi Institute in Brazil and the International Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources. In those cases the specific projects involved have direct developmental benefits and project budgets which may include an element to meet that part of the institute's core costs related to the projects.

The noble Baroness will understand that it would not be appropriate to use those specific funds to provide core support to those or other bodies except through projects that can be shown directly to support development. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to curation of collections. The Government agree that valuable collections should be properly maintained and accessible. It is important also to maintain living collections such as seeds, growing plant material and microbial culture collections.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned that it has been said that systematic biology is no longer relevant because all the identification and recording have been done. I can give her an absolute assurance that that is not a view to which the Government subscribe. The Government fully understand the importance of systematic biology as a fundamental research tool with applications in environmental, agricultural, industrial and medical fields, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We shall continue to support systematic biology research and collections at a level necessary to maintain the United Kingdom's strong position in that field.

In summing up, I should like to reiterate my thanks to the Select Committee for the report. Its reports encourage constructive debate on science and technology issues and keep the Government on their toes.

The Government have recently given science and technology a higher profile with the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology under my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, supported by Professor William Stewart, the Government's chief scientific adviser. One of its functions is to promote areas of science which span several departments such as biodiversity and systematic biology and to ensure that important issues do not fall between the cracks.

Noble Lords will know that the Government have announced their intention to publish a White Paper on science and technology early in 1993. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is consulting widely. I am sure that he will welcome contributions from this House. Our debate will certainly be a valuable additional comment. The creation of the Office of Science and Technology has been widely welcomed by scientists, industrialists, the media and across parties. I am particularly pleased that several of your Lordships have welcomed its creation. I trust that the Science and Technology Committee had a fruitful exchange of views yesterday with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Government look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Committee and will of course give most careful consideration to all the points that have been raised in the report and by noble Lords today. Again, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for bringing this debate to the House.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. It has been so informative that in some ways I am tempted to substitute the word "seminar" for "debate". We have ranged over a very wide field from fundamental problems to practical issues of great importance. I am immensely indebted to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and from whose comments I have learned much. There seems to have been a general feeling today among those who spoke that the United Kingdom has let systematic biological research decline just when it is needed to play a full part in some of these great international attacks which we have to make on the problem of conserving global biodiversity and when the subject is also poised for a major advance.

That we have got into this situation is unfortunate, but I would repeat that the sub-committee is convinced that it can be rectified very cheaply. The noble Baroness has told us that some action has already been taken. I wish to emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Porter has stated, that, apart from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, those of us who formed the sub-committee lacked any biological knowledge of any significance. I believe that we were regarded as a very hard-nosed lot of physical scientists, if we were scientists at all, and difficult people to convince. We were in fact very firmly convinced by the evidence that came in front of us.

It is in that context that I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said in her reply. Obviously, I cannot deal with all the points tonight, not least because I am very conscious of the Order Paper, which I have just been glancing at. There is a queue of Motions for approval after this, among which the Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Order sounds rather threatening. Perhaps it should be the subject of some systematic biological research.

Nevertheless, there are one or two points on which I feel I must comment. The first among them is the opening statement in the noble Baroness's remarks that the Government look forward to a constructive debate with the committee. Perhaps I may say how very much we welcome that. We shall be very willing to respond in a positive way and put what knowledge and evidence we have before the Government. We are also grateful to learn of initiatives which the noble Baroness described and which the Government have taken since the publication of the report, though I do not believe that we would be so bold as to claim that issuing the report triggered those decisions. However, I hope that it helped in that respect.

I am concerned about the global environment facility. It is very well known—the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and I having seen it. I hope that very careful scrutiny will be made of the proposals which the World Bank wants to engage in under that heading. I hope that the Government can reserve their position until they are satisfied that there is to be a degree of accountability for that money which is at least as rigorous as the accountability of our own research councils and spending bodies to us. That is of absolutely vital importance. If it is not I can give warning now that I shall return to this particular issue and demand a mere 1 per cent. of the money which is promised for the global environment facility: it will solve all the problems here.

I was particularly interested in the ideas for better co-ordination which were mentioned. I should love to hear a great deal more about that. I believe the noble Baroness has promised that we shall. I hope that happens before there is a fait accompli, so that we can contribute some ideas on the subject. Those ideas have been, as it were, tossed around in committee. The NERC surprise, if I can call it that, from my noble friend Lord Chorley was wholly delightful, although the Minister herself was privy to it.

Before I came to the debate this evening I was jotting down a few notes as to what I was going to say if in fact nothing was happening at all. I was going to say that I hoped that by now, some five months after publication of the report, some research council, perhaps more than one, would have come up with an imaginative, practical scheme which it could incorporate in its bid to the ABRC. That would then be a good opportunity for the ABRC to respond positively, if necessary using the new executive powers which were conferred on it, I may say, with historical irony, largely in response to a committee set up under Dr. Morris to study the problems of biological funding by multiple research councils. I take this very welcome initiative of the Natural Environment Research Council as the forerunner of other initiatives in what the French used to call action concertée (concerted action) by many funding bodies to resolve this problem in the most sensible way. I regard the NERC proposal, as my noble friend Lord Chorley described it, as embodying many of the essential ingredients for success. I congratulate the council on going forward. I hope that the initiative will be rewarded in the only possible manner that research councils can recognise; namely, money.

There are many other issues which I could touch on. The noble Baroness said that the age structure was not unique and skewed in this way. That is perfectly true. There are other aspects in other subjects within universities which display a skewed age distribution and which are a reflection of the history of the past two decades. But there comes a point when, in a particular subject which is especially important, the problem becomes serious. That was why we chose this subject and examined it in such detail. The other issues which arise as a result of the age structure in other subjects lie outside the remit of my sub-committee.

I was a little disappointed when the noble Baroness said that the National Heritage Department does not need advice on funding the Natural History Museum. As a trustee of that museum for some 10 years, and having been a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, I believe that there is a need there. I hope that that particular problem will be thought about a little more. I hesitate to say that I hope it will be thought about a little more deeply, but it struck me as a rather quick reaction because what one wants to see is that the National Heritage Department, when it is weighing up the claims of the British Library, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Museum, the Tate Gallery and so on, in relation to the Natural History Museum, has some kind of guidance on that which it cannot easily get and does not possess among its own officers. One obvious source of information on that would be the Museums and Galleries Commission. I speak with inside knowledge having been a commissioner for some years, as I say.

The forum for curatorial policy is very welcome. I believe that that might have come about anyway, but the fact that the Government are prepared to give it a little push will help enormously. If that little push can be accompanied by a little of the fluid which oils the wheels—again we are talking about the slight cost which may be incurred—that too will help.

The science curriculum and the determination to keep the subject in, as it were, need some rather detailed attention. One of the things that really horrified us was to learn the advice that was given to parents in a well-known school that, because of the options which were available in the general certificate of education at advanced level, it was perfectly possible to get any grade from E to A without touching systematic biology. Parents were, therefore, advised that their children need not study it. Obviously, that points to a lacuna in the system which needs to be closed in some effective way. There are problems in that respect.

Generally, however, I am delighted. The Minister referred to the new Office of Public Service and Science, headed by Mr. Waldegrave. Yesterday we had the privilege of seeing him appear, with Mr. Robert Jackson, before the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He is enjoying the advantage of a dinner at the Royal Society from which the length of this debate has excluded me, I am sorry to say. However, when I next see him—as I will—I shall thank him for this. On behalf of the committee, I shall also encourage his office to look at some of these difficult problems which arise from time to time in all subjects because the social dynamics of a particular group of people lead the system into a downward spiral and it is then that special action has to be taken. This is a case that has been staring us in the face for many years and action should have been taken earlier.

While I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, very warmly for the spirit of the Government's reply and while I look forward eagerly to the constructive dialogue to which she referred at the beginning of her speech, all I would plead for in conclusion is that one should be prepared to have some body that can look across the whole field of science—I hope that the new Office of Science and Technology will fulfil this role —and which can identify where there are problems of this kind before things get too difficult. There may be problems because subjects fall between the cracks or because they appear not to be important in the light of existing fashions. We then need to take the earlier and cheapest of all possible remedies, which is the only remedy.

Perhaps I may conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken for their participation in this debate, which, from my point of view, has been very rewarding. Perhaps I may also commit the sub-committee—for as long as it exists—to engaging in the dialogue which noble Lords agree is necessary. We might have something to offer.

On Question, Motion agreed to.