Response from Keith Snook, Royal Institute of British Architects Consultation on how effectively the department has: 1. Developed a clear overall science strategy The Office of Science and Technology strategy is clear but it is not clear without detailed enquiry to stakeholders at the level of professional institutions such as the RIBA what the detailed ODPM response has been to it. Any strategy is hampered in our sphere of interest by the fragmented departmental reporting for architecture, construction and built environment issues generally. 2. ‘Horizon Scans’ to identify future science-related Issues Inter departmental or „pan‟ horizon scans are essential to our interests given the fragmentation mentioned above. Given that major departmental reorganisation is not an option and even if reorganisation does take place it has not (historically/recent) addressed this issue we would suggest a system of formal (bi, tri or more) memorandum of understanding for such scans. 3. Reviews and harnesses existing research and identifies gaps and opportunities for future research Whilst certain subjects remain the interest of one department addressing the fragmentation is again a feature of this issue. A method of engaging with the research communities that themselves maybe do not recognise the pan departmental significance of their output and or proposals is required. Similar collaboration on recognising the scope of needs/gaps is also necessary. 4. Commissions and manages new research The same issue again but in reciprocation the various „industry‟ bodies and institutions could do more to help here in illuminating potential management difficulties/complexities in its new research proposals. 5. Ensures the quality and relevance of the work it carries out and sponsors Quality within topics and projects is almost certainly variable but the most important factor is to have the metrics by which to identify and classify this variability in order that the stronger is seen as such and the weaker (which will happen) is identifiable and identified. This becomes more problematical at interfaces and quality should be covered by the proposed memorandum of understanding. We understand the value for money is not within the ToR of this review but would point out that the pan departmental value of some work could be missed without proper co-ordination. 6. Uses the research and scientific advice, e.g. in formulating policy The place of the government research labs at cutting across the departmental structures and providing reliable high quality and well resourced research support to policy and legislation has not been adequately filled by the market driven system. We recognise that this cannot be reinstated and that this is not the subject of this review. However (and a running theme) whilst procurement and management could be improved to emulate the previous rigour etc what has not been addressed is the co-ordination (through experience as much as anything) that occurred at source with research procured through the govt. labs. 7. Publishes research results and debates their implications openly There is still probably quite a lot of undiscovered work – particularly at the „cracks‟ where departmental interests join (but for other good reasons do not overlap). Also the loss of a trusted 'brand' seen as “worth reading” that went with the govt research labs has not been replaced or emulated. (Relatively) „Lay‟ implementers of the results of research will not be interested in anything short of recognisably reliable „branding‟. 8. Shares, transfers and manages knowledge The majority of responses major on this issue – it is key. 9. Has implemented the guidance contained in Guidelines 2000 and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees RIBA is not adequately familiar with the guidelines to comment. 10. Uses, maintains and develops scientific expertise (including both capacity and capacity building). As noted – particularly in support of policy, legislation and standards making (not de-facto) the role of the govt research establishments has not been satisfactorily resolved by market driven methods of research procurement.