Ministers will signal a shake-up of academic funding tomorrow to free scientists to give expert policy advice on issues such as global warming, pandemic flu and genetics.

A government drive to base decisions on stronger scientific evidence is being held up by a funding system that discourages researchers from sharing expertise with Whitehall, according to the minister responsible for science and higher education.

John Denham, the Innovation Secretary, told The Times that while scientific input is critical to policy decisions on issues such as energy and stem cells, it is often hard to persuade key specialists to provide it because they fear losing research grants.

In a keynote speech to the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, he will outline plans to review funding arrangements so that academics who take time away from the laboratory to advise ministers are not penalised financially.

“If we don’t increase the levels of scientific literacy and bring science evidence and advice to bear on public policy then we will not be able to respond to the challenges of the next century,” Mr Denham is expected to say. “These include climate change, energy and security and the implications of further developments in genetics and biosciences.

“The Government spends almost £6 billion on some of the best research in the world, but it can still be quite difficult to obtain advice that is based on the best research. There may be disincentives in the system that emphasise published and peer-reviewed work over public policy advice.

The work that some scientists and academic departments do to support policymakers can be undervalued.”

He will advance proposals to reform the research assessment exercise (RAE), which funds university departments according to the quality of their published work, because he fears its narrow basis means that ministers are missing out on expert advice.

“The RAE is being reviewed and as part of this I feel we need to have a discussion on whether there is more we can do to ensure that this essential work is not undervalued,” Mr Denham will say.

“To my mind a scientist who produces fewer papers but produces excellent evidence and advice in the national interest on behalf of Government should not feel that they may dis-advantage themselves, their research colleagues or their institution when research funds are distributed.”

The RAE grades university departments on a five-point scale approximately every five years. Departments that perform poorly can have their grants cut heavily, and some have been forced to close or to stop research and concentrate on teaching. Its format will be reviewed once this year’s exercise is completed.

Mr Denham told The Times: “The question is, is there a proper weighting, proper recognition for people doing public policy work, when you come to look at how you distribute research funds? That’s the sort of protection that needs to be there in the system.”

He said that he was open to suggestions as to how the new system should work, but that he did not at this stage think it would be necessary to provide government advisers with funding incentives.

“I’m not sure there’s a shortage of people who are interested in helping to shape public policy,” he said.

“I want to create an environment in which [advising Government] is seen as a good thing, and as a good product of the money we invest. I’m kicking off a debate here; I don’t want to go too far into the technicalities yet.”

Mr Denham, who is a chemist by training, said that Whitehall should also be more proactive in seeking out the best specialist advice in policy. This applied as much to areas such as pensions and education, where social science could be helpful, as it did to energy or health.

His comments echo remarks made by Professor Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist, who recently criticised the Civil Service for a reluctance to use science properly when framing policy.

Mr Denham said that officials and politicians often worry that scientific advice will leave them no room for manoeuvre, when in fact it usually raises as many questions as answers.

“Sometimes there’s a fear in decision-makers that if you ask the scientists they’ll come up with one answer, that there’s no room for democratic choices, but it’s very rare for circumstances in which there are no choices to arise,” he said.

“Look at the issues around genetics, around animal experimentation, the issues there were with GM foods, or energy security, food security. These are all issues where science will rarely tell you what the right answer is.”

Times Recommends

• Everyone will get vaccine against swine flu
• Artificial sperm and the race to build a baby
• BBC jets out stars to tout for prizes