Grant Hill-Cawthorne, Head of POST

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.116.14

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is the UK Parliament’s in-house research and science advice unit that bridges research and policy. POST serves both the House of Commons and the House of Lords as a joint establishment, through output that is apolitical and of widely acclaimed value to Parliamentarians of all parties. As part of POST’s 30 year anniversary celebrations, The Physiological Society met with its Head, Grant Hill-Cawthorne, to learn more about POST, its role, its plans for the next 30 years and how members of The Physiological Society can contribute to a more evidence-informed policy.

Can you explain POST’s origins and why it was felt to be necessary by its founders?

POST was established in April 1989 following a delegation of MPs to the US Congress’ equivalent Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) which had been established in 1972 to provide technical assessments to Members of Congress. By the middle of the 1980s, Parliament was facing a number of new, emerging issues related to science from topics as varied as the first computer viruses, the ethics of human embryology science and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). With so many new areas of science that required political attention, POST was established to provide politicians with insight into short- and long-term impacts of changing technology from political, economic, social, technological, legal and ethical perspectives. We were founded by the Parliamentary & Scientific Committee and started with a £100,000 charitable donation from organisations like the Leverhulme Trust and Wellcome Trust and were adopted by both Houses of Parliament in 1992 and made a permanent parliamentary institution by 2001. In 2013, with funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, we added social sciences to our remit.

Can you give a sense of the kind of advice and expertise you offer members and what formats this can take?

I think the main role of POST is to horizon scan for members, giving them a sense of the kind of issues in science and technology that there is little or no academic research into but that will present challenges for policymakers in 5-10 years’ time. A good example of this would be something like microplastics. POST wrote a briefing on this three years ago as 
an emerging issue and then as political pressure grew, the Common’s Environmental Audit Committee picked this as an inquiry topic leading to a Government ban on microplastics based on the inquiry’s findings. So we tend to be at the very start of scientific policymaking but this does mean that not all the issues we identify will be picked up as political hot topics.

Can you explain the difference between your work and that of the select committees? Is there ever any overlap?

I think the difference between POST and the Commons Science and Technology Committee, for example, is that we are more proactive in identifying medium- to long-term challenges as opposed to the Committee which scrutinises Government responses to current or existing challenges. This is obviously not always clear cut but the role of Parliament is to scrutinise Government policy and legislation, so it is right that members fulfil this role. We are there to ensure that through our horizon-scanning work; “POSTnotes” (briefings on the latest scientific research); liaising with our academic and society stakeholders, members have the best tools to conduct their oversight.

What are the issues that members most often ask for advice or clarity on?

Again, this is not clear cut but in order to understand where we add the most value to the work of members, you have to look at their competing priorities and responsibilities. MPs have to balance the needs of constituents, their party and their committee roles. Often, the Commons or Lords libraries will deal with matters related to constituency queries (such as unemployment figures, existing legislation, policy history for debates, etc.). Similarly, the parties have established mechanisms that help members develop policy positions which reflect manifesto pledges in areas they may not be that familiar with. Where we tend to provide the most value is helping members think about their committee responsibilities or prepare for a Private Members’ Bill (a piece of legislation brought to the Commons or Lords without Government support) or a member’s role on a specific bill committee. Members want help to ensure that they understand future challenges so they can plan their bill’s wording accordingly or ask a witness specific questions during a committee. The debate around 5G rollout is a good example of where we have provided this information.

POST also develops”POSTnotes” which are there to help members think about future challenges presented by scientific and technological innovation. We also host public and private events to enable members to ask questions of experts. To give members a better understanding of some of the ethical and legal questions posed by the emergence of biometric authentication for example, we organised a panel session so that members could quiz officials from the Home Office and the Government Office for Science about its use and implementation.

Are there any examples of where POST’s work has helped to make a positive contribution to science policy?

It is hard to show direct correlation but the role of POST is to spark an idea. I have already mentioned the work of the EAC committee on microplastics but I would also point to the current Women & Equalities Committee’s inquiry into “Health and Social Care and LGBT communities”. POST did some initial research tracking the poorer health outcomes of LGBT communities compared to the general population as a result of a disproportionate burden of certain conditions among the LGBT community but also how they are treated within the healthcare system. We also provided close support for the Forensic Linguistics (Standards) Bill 2015-16, which was inspired by a POSTnote on forensic language analysis.

How can members of The Physiological Society best support you in making sure members (of Parliament) have access to the most up-to-date scientific evidence? How can early career researchers with an interest in science policy get involved with POST?

Members of The Physiological Society can most definitely make a positive contribution to the work of POST. We are always looking to expand our network of academics that we reach out to for advice and counsel on new and emerging areas of science policy. As a first step, I would encourage your members to follow POST (@POST_UK and @UKParl_Research) and our Knowledge Exchange Unit on Twitter and join our mailing list. We also share upcoming topics for POSTnotes, for which we are always looking for new contributors.

In terms of the best ways of communicating your science to parliamentarians, I would encourage people to engage with just some of the 550+ All-Party Parliamentary Groups – they are excellent fora for getting your messages to interested parliamentarians in a non-partisan manner. Finally, part of my role at POST is acting on the Lords Liaison Committee’s recommendation that more is done to promote the diversity of committee witnesses and, within that, boost the number of academics that give evidence to committees. For some committees, academics make up only 2% of witnesses called to give evidence and this leads to a perception that peer-reviewed evidence holds no more weight than evidence which is published with less scrutiny and analysis.

On the topic of witness diversity, I should be clear that while the Liaison Committee focused particularly on gender equality, we are using a broader definition. In short, if you are an expert in a specific field and could add value to the evidence provided for a committee’s inquiry, you don’t have to be a world-renowned professor – we still want to hear from you!

How can someone with a science background transition into a role like those at POST? Do you look for people with a general science background, a balance of specialisms of a combination of the two? And how did you come to be involved with POST?

We tend to look for people with a background in methodological techniques, the sort of thing you would see covered as part of an MRes, MPhil or PhD so that you can prove an ability to use and appraise research effectively. Beyond that, we have four different categories we use to organise our work and teams: Biological Sciences and Health; Physical Sciences and ICT; Environment and Energy; Social Sciences. I imagine the work of The Physiological Society’s members will have application across a few of these fields so physiologists will be well placed to adapt their knowledge into areas of science they may not necessarily be experts in. A background in science communication, writing for non-scientific audiences is also important because your work will be shared with members who may have no scientific background whatsoever.  I originally trained as a medic before working as a Clinical Adviser to NICE. I then went back into academia and worked in Saudi Arabia and Australia before coming back to the UK to take up my role with POST.

What does the next 30 years look like for POST? Have you noticed the topics that you cover have changed or is changing?

As part of our “POST at 30” strategy, we have set the objective of being at the forefront of using evidence to inform policy and legislative changes. The Government Office for Science and the network of Chief Scientific Advisers should be applauded for the work that they do at a governmental level but often Parliamentary work is not at the same level because of a lack of time, resources and differing pulls on members’ time. We are working hard to ensure that all of our work in Parliament is underpinned by the best available research evidence. At the same time, we want to increase POST’s international focus, making it a role model for those countries that are looking to establish similar organisations for their democratic institutions, just as the now defunct OTA was for POST in the early 80s. With POST taking over the presidency of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network (EPTA) next year, we have a great platform to do this. Beyond Europe, we have recently been working with colleagues in Colombia and Argentina, which gives an indication of the global legacy that POST’s work can have.