House Of Commons Science And Technology Committee Work Of The European And Uk Space Agencies Hc 253
Download House Of Commons Science And Technology Committee Work Of The European And Uk Space Agencies Hc 253 full books in PDF, epub, and Kindle. Read online free House Of Commons Science And Technology Committee Work Of The European And Uk Space Agencies Hc 253 ebook anywhere anytime directly on your device. Fast Download speed and no annoying ads. We cannot guarantee that every ebooks is available!
| Author | : Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 122 |
| Release | : 2013-10-28 |
| Genre | : Science |
| ISBN | : 9780215063243 |
The Committee heard much positive feedback about the work of the UK Space Agency since its creation in 2011. The UK's space sector is one of our economy's fastest growing sectors, with an average growth rate of almost 7.5%, and it has ambitions to increase its annual turnover to £40 billion by 2030. The report welcomes recent increases in the UK's commitments to the European Space Agency, but urged the UK Space Agency to strengthen UK influence within the European Space Agency by providing support for UK candidates applying for future director-level positions within the Agency. There are a number of exciting developments happening in the UK space sector, including the expansion of the European Space Agency's operations at Harwell, the establishment of the Satellite Applications Catapult and Major Tim Peake's upcoming mission to the International Space Station. With continued cross-party support, we hope to see this sector expand in line with its ambitions and continue to attract jobs and businesses to the UK
| Author | : Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 242 |
| Release | : 2014-04-02 |
| Genre | : Science |
| ISBN | : 0215070623 |
The Government is failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. There is little evidence of co-ordination amongst Government, government agencies and public bodies on communicating climate science, despite various policies at national and regional level to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the Government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence. Ministers therefore need to do more to demonstrate that is the case and consistently reflect the Government approach in all their communications, especially with the media. The report also criticises the BBC for its reporting on the issue. It points out that BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. The BBC is called to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. It is important that climate science is presented separately from any subsequent policy response. Government should work with the learned societies and national academies to develop a source of information on climate science that is discrete from policy delivery, comprehensible to the general public and responsive to both current developments and uncertainties in the science
| Author | : Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 73 |
| Release | : 2015 |
| Genre | : Political Science |
| ISBN | : 0215084225 |
| Author | : Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 52 |
| Release | : 2014-05-04 |
| Genre | : Political Science |
| ISBN | : 0215071840 |
The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government
| Author | : Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 53 |
| Release | : 2015 |
| Genre | : Law |
| ISBN | : 0215083849 |
In its broadest sense, biometrics is the measurement and analysis of a biological characteristic (fingerprints, iris patterns, retinas, face or hand geometry) or a behavioural characteristic (voice, gait or signature). Biometric technologies use these characteristics to identify individuals automatically. Unlike identity documents or passwords, biometrics cannot be lost or forgotten since they are a part of the user and are always present at the time of identification. They are also difficult, though not impossible, to forge or share. Three future trends in the application of biometrics were identified during the inquiry: (i) the growth of unsupervised biometric systems, accessed via mobile devices, which verify identity; (ii) the proliferation of "second-generation" biometric technologies that can authenticate individuals covertly; (iii) and the linking of biometric data with other types of 'big data' as part of efforts to profile individuals. Each of these trends introduces risks and benefits to individuals, to the state and to society as a whole. They also raise important ethical and legal questions relating to privacy and autonomy. The Committee are not convinced that the Government has addressed these questions, nor are they satisfied that it has looked ahead and considered how the risks and benefits of biometrics will be managed and communicated to the public.
| Author | : Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 64 |
| Release | : 2014 |
| Genre | : Medical |
| ISBN | : 0215078535 |
The risks and benefits of participating in screening programmes, for conditions and diseases like cancer, are not consistently communicated by either the NHS or private health care providers, the Science and Technology Committee has warned in a new report. It is calling on the Government to ensure that a standardised process to produce screening information is introduced and that better communications training is provided to health care professionals. A recently revised breast cancer screening leaflet for the 50-70 age group - with its more explicit focus on helping women make an 'informed choice' about whether screening is right for them - marks a step in the right direction. However, the inquiry found that the principles followed to revise this leaflet have not been applied to the communications developed by other NHS screening programmes. The Committee recommends that steps are immediately taken by the Government's advisor on screening, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), to devise and implement a standard process for producing information that facilitates informed choice. It also recommends a clarification of what 'informed choice' means for potential screening participants so that different screening programmes can be more effectively evaluated on their delivery of it. MPs are also calling on the Office for National Statistics to validate the statistics presented in NHS screening information to resolve disagreement and confusion over their accuracy.
| Author | : Stationery Office (Great Britain) |
| Publisher | : |
| Total Pages | : 574 |
| Release | : 2013 |
| Genre | : Government publications |
| ISBN | : |
| Author | : Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 260 |
| Release | : 2011-03-02 |
| Genre | : Political Science |
| ISBN | : 9780215556561 |
In this report, the Science and Technology Committee examines how scientific advice and evidence is used in national emergencies, when the Government and scientific advisory system are put under great pressure to deal with atypical situations. The inquiry focused on four case studies: (i) the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu); (ii) the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption; (iii) space weather; and (iv) cyber attacks. While science is used effectively to aid responses to emergencies, the detachment of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) from the National Risk Assessment (NRA) - the key process of risk evaluation carried out by the Cabinet Office - is a serious concern. The Committee recommends that the NRA should not be signed off until the GCSA is satisfied that all risks requiring scientific input and judgements have been properly considered. A new independent scientific advisory committee should be set up to advise the Cabinet on risk assessment and review the NRA. The Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 is a stark example of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment: the risk of disruption to aviation caused by a natural disaster was dropped from the assessment process in 2009, despite warnings from earth scientists. There are concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic are raised in the report, with sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. The Scientific Advisory Groups in Emergencies, set up to advise government during emergencies, were found to work in an unnecessarily secretive way.
| Author | : Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Health Committee |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 556 |
| Release | : 2005-04-26 |
| Genre | : Political Science |
| ISBN | : 9780215024572 |
Incorporating HC 1030-i to iii.
| Author | : Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Science and Technology Committee |
| Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
| Total Pages | : 116 |
| Release | : 2011-07-19 |
| Genre | : Business & Economics |
| ISBN | : 9780108473647 |
The currently influential book 'Nudge' by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein advocates a range of non-regulatory interventions that seek to influence behaviour by altering the context or environment in which people choose, and seek to influence behaviour in ways which people often do not notice. This approach differs from more traditional government attempts to change behaviour, which have either used regulatory interventions or relied on overt persuasion. The current Government have taken a considerable interest in the use of 'nudge interventions'. One aim of this inquiry, therefore, is to assess the evidence-base for the effectiveness of this approach. However it also examines evidence for the effectiveness of other types of policy intervention and asks whether the Government make good use of the full range of available evidence. The Committee's central finding is that non-regulatory measures used in isolation, including 'nudges', are less likely to be effective. Effective policies often use a range of interventions. A lot more could, and should, be done to improve the evaluation of interventions. Specific recommendations include: the Government must invest in gathering more evidence about what measures work to influence population behaviour change; they should appoint an independent Chief Social Scientist to provide them with robust and independent scientific advice; the Government should take steps to implement a traffic light system of nutritional labelling on all food packaging.
