Sets out the Government's response to the 104 recommendations made in the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report of their year long inquiry into options for the future regulation of human reproductive technologies in the UK.

Response to the Committee's second report, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215060976)

Many of the trials taking place today are unregistered and unpublished, meaning that the information that they generate remains invisible to both the scientific community and the public. This undermines public trust, slowing the pace of medical advancement and potentially putting patients at risk. All trials conducted on NHS treatments-and all other trials receiving public funding-should be prospectively registered and their results published in a scientific journal. While the focus should be on implementing this change for future trials, the Government must also do what it can to ensure that historic trials are registered and published, particularly where they have been publically funded. The Government should also take steps to facilitate greater sharing of the raw data generated during a trial in a responsible and controlled way, with the knowledge and consent of patients. The report also draws attention to the recent fall in the number of trials taking place in the UK. It finds that the need for multiple governance approvals from participating NHS organisations remained the biggest barrier to setting up a UK trial, but that lack of public awareness was also a key issue. Recruiting participants can also be a challenge. The report calls on the Government to take its recommendations into account in ongoing discussions regarding the revision of European clinical trials legislation and in its response to the European Medicines Agency's consultation on the release of clinical trial data, which closes at the end of this month

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

This document sets out the Government's reply to the Joint Committee's 31 recommendations set out in its report (HL 169-I/HC 630-I, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780104011348) on the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill published in May 2007 (Cm. 7087; ISBN 9780101708722). The responses are given under a number of headings including: the legislative and regulatory framework, regulatory bodies, inter-species embryos and the 'need for a father'.

The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the 'golden triangle' in the south of England. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for housing, including social housing.

Government responses to HCP 399-I, session 2003-04 (ISBN 0215018559)

The scrutiny of the Office of Science and Technology (OSI) is one of the core tasks of the Committee. During the period covered by this report the OSI and DTI Innovation Group have successfully merged and there has been a new performance management system. There has been a welcomed increase in the science budget but the breach of the principle of ring fencing the budget is deprecated. An important part of OSI's work is reviewing the use of science in Government departments. Although these are valuable the pace of review and information available on them needs to be improved.

One of the tasks of the Committee has been to scrutinise the relevant, major appointments by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Based on a single evidence session, the aim has been: to satisfy Parliament that the post has been filled by someone of sufficient calibre; identify their views and principles; and alert them to the interests and concerns of the Committee. This report concerns Sir John Chisholm who was appointed as Chairman of the MRC in October 2006. The Committee have serious reservation as to whether he is the right person to guide the MRC Executive through the coming period of change.

The Cooksey Review ("A review of UK health research funding", ISBN 9780118404884), published in December 2006, was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the best design and institutional arrangements for a new single funding system for UK health research. The Committee's report supports the decision by Sir David Cooksey to broaden his review beyond its original terms of reference to make wider recommendations for the UK health research framework, for example relating to healthcare treatment priorities, as well as outlining a number of tasks for the Office of Science and Innovation to address. The Review found that although good progress has been made in some areas, further work is needed to ensure that publicly-funded health research is carried out in the most effective and efficient way and to facilitate translation of research findings into health and economic benefits. Amongst its recommendations, the Review proposed that a new body should be established, the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR), as the central co-ordinating body for all health research carried out by the NHS and the Medical Research Council. The Committee raises some concerns that although the pharmaceutical sector is of great importance, allied health research such as medical engineering and technology, preventive and public health research should not be overlooked. It also calls on the OSCHR to operate as a light touch organisation that does not complicate the existing successful administrative mechanisms of the Medical Research Council. More information on the Cooksey Review can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/cooksey_review/cookseyreview_index.cfm